Balta1701

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 07:46 AM) I agree 100%. i just wish this all would have come about around 6 years ago. If they want to build a domed stadium, then soldier field is such a waist! THey should have built "McDome" but we need to play in Bear weather!!! Technically I think you mean Soldier Field is a "Waste", not the thing around your hips. I dunno about building a domed football stadium in Chicago, seeing teams come in there and put up with the weather is always one of the more fun aspects of December/January. If you wanted a team in a domed stadium, maybe it should be a 2nd team, the Bears should just be outside. It just works.

Hmph, it appears you're right, and the LA Times I finished reading 30 minutes ago was out of date already. Damn print media!

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 05:00 AM) And what is one of the biggest b****es about this administration? That they don't compromise and try to do everything their way. Now they compromise and people complain. When a Republican flip-flops, it's a compromise. When a Democrat compromises, it's a flip-flop.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 07:33 AM) Same reason we didn't let CNOC buy one of our oil companies... It was just a front for the Chinese government involvement. You know, I'm not sure that's totally true...yes there were political reasons involved, but it's not that we wouldn't let them, it's that enough of our politicians raised a stink over the offer for Unocal that CNOOC decided to drop their bid. We don't know if it would have passed legal or political tests had it really gone forward.

Are you sure about that 2k5? The impression I get from reading things is that the troop levels were boosted solely do provide the extra security forces needed to clamp down during the election, and the numbers are merely falling back to right where they were a few months ago (and to right where they fell after the election before that).

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 04:21 PM) No, it's not that kind of an issue... but running around calling for "impeachment" makes it sound that way. The Democrat's problem on this issue is that the President is being TOO OPEN about it. And that's just plain weird. I need to get out of here... you do raise some good points with this post. There's more to this yet to come, because they are "beaming" about this program. It's going to have to come out that we stopped something 100% dead in its tracks for this to have that much justification. Well, they have claimed that it helped stop a "plot" to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge using blowtorches. (I'm going to wager 3 to 1 that the guy who was plotting that was referring to it as Project Vulcan and always uses air quotes when saying the word laser)

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 04:18 PM) So now it's Walmart's job to give everyone health insurance. And furthermore, it's the socioeconomic class that tends to work in a retail environment... so that's walmart's fault too. Yet, they took some sort of corrective action it sounds like... Well, since employer-provided health coverage has bee the mainstay of the U.S. health insurance system for decades, you'd certainly hope that it should be Walmart's job to give their employees health insurance. Otherwise, they would just be either getting healht coverage from the government and the taxpayers or sitting at home suffering and sometimes nearly dying because they can't afford to see a doctor (much like a member of my own family).

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 04:12 PM) For my part, I do think there is a serious issue here. But, I can't figure out why they are so open about it. My best guess remains that they're attempting to set a precedent about how widely the President's authority can be applied in this case. Think about this...there is nothing at all in the Afghan war resolution which specifically authorizes the President to do these wiretaps...nothing by name at least. Here are the words they've tried to use to justify that program: If the President can find a legal way to apply that statute to this matter, and have either Congress or a court of law agree with him, then there's basically no limit as to the President's power in any matter which could be remotely tied to the war on terror. If you're like Dick Cheney and actually believe that the President is unrestrained during wartime by the U.S. laws, then that's an incredibly useful and powerful precedent to set. The only other thing I can come up with as a possible explanation given that it really does seem to be a blatant violation of the law is that the Republicans are hoping they can use it against the Democrats in 2006 the same way they used the DHS in 2002 - to try to portray the Democrats as weak on the war, when that's hardly the issue at hand at all.

QUOTE(Mercy! @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 04:09 PM) For you and everyone who really believes this - how wide an intellectual net are you casting on this subject? Many conservative civil libertarians are appalled. Here's one place you might start, that bastion of Communism, the Wall Street Journal: Wiretap Furor Widens Republican Divide Hey, according to that study which found Drudge to be a centrist, the Wall Street Journal is the most left wing national paper in the U.S. Oh heck, just saw these, have to use one for the heck of it.

QUOTE(Mercy! @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 03:56 PM) But if they're in kid's toys, how expensive could they be? Or maybe I just didn't read the article closely enough. Well, let's put it this way, compared with the price of normal iron magnets, they're much more expensive. They're relatively cheap if you want to spend a couple bucks on a fridge magnet, but most people get theirs basically for free when someone hands them out or attached to the back of something. So if you wanted one, there's nothing stopping you from going to Google & buying one.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 03:38 PM) Why don't the Orioles make sense? The Orioles said they would probably move Javy Lopez to first base with the addition of Ramon Hernandez. C Ramon Hernandez 1B Javy Lopez DH Frank Thomas Ok, I can't say I ever saw those reports, the only ones I saw had them using Lopez/Hernandez to DH and Catch.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:19 PM) Anti-Christmas votes Last week, the House of Representatives passed a resolution to protect the symbols and traditions of Christmas. The vote was 401-22 in favor of the resolution (5 voted "present"); below are the representatives that voted "nay." We will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together at Osama's homo-abortion-pot-and-commie-jizzporium!!(Credit - The Daily Show)

QUOTE(Mercy! @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 03:28 PM) Thank you for the info. So why don't some manufacturers make fridge magnets out of this material? I hate those cheesy tiny iron ones that always fall off 'cause they're so weak? I don't even need a word to answer that one: $$$$. These things are very expensive compared to your normal "Refrigerator" magnet materials. You don't just find large bodies of Neodymium lying around in too many places like you do with iron ore, and there's a fair amount of processing involved to get things into the right oxidation state and magnetized.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 03:23 PM) A's Angels Orioles With the A's acquiring Bradley, I can't see them having need for Frank unless someone gets hurt. If you count Swisher, they have 4 outfielders and Johnson as a 1b man. Swisher can also play 1b, which basically means that they'll probably be moving Johnson, who's bat they're still very high on, to DH most of the time. I just don't see them having room for Frank, even for limited at bats, unless they move someone out of there, which I don't see Beane doing. The Angels do make a fair amount of sense, but personally if I were their GM I'd have given Piazza's agent a call a few times, just because I know that my catching situation right now was a disaster and he'd be a serviceable backup to go along with DHing. But of course, right now the Angels don't seem like they want to do anything major until they know for a fact that they won't be getting Ramirez. The Orioles make very little sense either, since they just signed a 2nd catcher in Ramon Hernandez. They also have Javy Lopez, and you really don't want to put either of those guys sitting on the bench unless they're not healthy enough to play (entirely possible, but you won't know until the season really gets going). They really don't have an obvious room for a DH who would like a couple hundred at bats.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 03:13 PM) You dont do a lot of research to back up what you say do you? There isin't an economist out there who isin't saying the Bush tax cuts had a big hand in the economic growth we're experiencing now. I'll take their word over yours. Actually, while our other commenter didn't really back the point up well at all, I'd say that there's a fairly solid argument which could be made to say that the current economic growth is due more to the fact that the government is running massive deficits due to those tax cuts (a-la Keynesian economics) than it is just the fact that the tax cuts are happening. When the government dumps horrendous amounts of new money into the market, if inflation does not take off, you're almost guaranteed to generate growth. The problem is its almost impossible to sustain it through time, as the deficits will accumulate, forcing increases in the amount that people will need to be taxed and pushing the economy back into recession. Furthermore, you could also note that there has been a huge lift for this economy from the housing sector over the last few years, a situation spurred on by the low interest rate environment which really became possible when the Clinton administration and the Republican Congress managed to balance the budget. There are a lot of variables at play here. Yes, the Bush tax cuts were "important", but it's also important to ask how exactly they fit into the puzzle. Were they important because they stimulated the housing market, or was that solely due to the interest rate situation? Would they have had the same impact had they been associated with across the board spending reductions to keep the budget from being driven badly out of balance? What will be the future impact of the dramatic increases in the debt/deficit that we've seen during the Bush years, and it's associated inflationary pressures and increases in interest payments? My answer to all of those: I don't have a clue. I think it's beyond the scope of anything I do to evaluate or unravel the various forcings in this situation (which is why I'm not getting a Ph.D. in economics...but if you want to talk about rocks, let's bring it). But I think you can't just go and say that every economist would say that the Bush Tax cuts were "important" without analyzing the full set of impacts, and even keeping an eye to the future.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 12:57 PM) The Score here in Chicago is saying that the Twins' pursuit of Frank Thomas is now over with the addition of Rondell White. The Twins will use White primarily as their DH and maybe start him every so often in the outfield. Ok, so that leaves me with this question...how many teams are there remaining who might actually be interested in Frank? Oakland and Minny were the 2 obvious teams who needed a DH to produce runs. They've filled that role...now who's left? Ditto Piazza, who's still out there. I'm just wondering what might happen if May rolls around, Frank is healthy enough to throw together a few pinch hits, and we decide we could use a right handed bat off the bench (a guy can always hope can't he?)

QUOTE(Adam G @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 02:45 PM) Take the average of the past ten years, perhaps? Again, I'd say that's still a terrible idea, because even the #'s over the last 10 years have been totally screwed up because of: 1. The dramatic drop in revenues coming down from the strike 2. The dramatic inflation of salaries and revenues to the point where no one knows where they will settle. 3. Expansion into new markets, some of which have worked well and some of which have not.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 02:42 PM) only extended 1 month Assuming the same version can get through the Senate.

QUOTE(Adam G @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 02:36 PM) 1) Figure out current total salaries of all the players for the current year ("X" billion) 2) Figure out total league revenue for the current year ("Y" billion) 3) Turn that into a percentage (X/Y) of league revenue that the players will be guaranteed on a year to year basis. (Z%) Of course, the problem with this scheme is that over recent years, the %age of MLB revenues going to pay salaries has fluctuated wildly. Someone posted the exact numbers here a few weeks ago...since the late 90's, it has gone from being just above 50%, to jumping over 70% when guys like ARod were getting massive deals, and now with increased revenue in the last few years it's all the way back down in the 50's. Where do you put the number so that both sides will stay happy? That's a hell of a range.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:33 PM) Boggled my mind why they signed him in the first place. So if they trade him and get some decent prospects in return (i.e. what Florida did with Delgado) then they've spent a few million dollars for 1 year's worth of production and a couple of prospects who could give them several good years at a bargain price. If they pull that off, it sounds like a fairly intelligent strategy to me. Guys like Delgado, Glaus, big money guys wind up with big money teams anyway, but the smaller teams strip the big money teams of prospects in the process.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:44 PM) Yea, because he was told that they would kill it. What would you do? Let's ask a different question...what was the variety of shoes commonly thrown at Mr. Bush's opponent during the 2004 election?

Is Deng going to be playing tonight?

QUOTE(WinninUgly @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:35 PM) Now if you were Jon, would you rather play on a Championship team for $8 million a year, or a losing team willing to pay you $10-11 million a year? You're assuming he can't have both. Most teams willing to pay him the $10m + per year are probably going to be able to build winning teams at some point. The Royals and Pirates aren't exactly shelling that out for pitching.

QUOTE(WinninUgly @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 01:33 PM) Yep, you beat me to the punch. Why has this not been discussed before? It has been discussed many many times, and if it ever happens, it is decades away. Why? Because MLB's union is vastly more powerful than the unions of the other 2 major sports. The union believes (correctly) that a salary cap will put more money in the hands of ownership by limiting overall salaries. That is something they do not want. They would make sure no world series ever happened again before they allowed a salary cap, as it stands now.