NorthSideSox72

OK I'm tired of deleting posts, so... please stay on game topic and avoid snide or offensive references to Indians. Try to keep focused on THE Indians.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 04:28 PM) Huckabee doesn't really help McCain much IMO. The base will be fired up enough to vote against Obama. FOX news (and I suspect talk radio) has been non-stop Obama bashing for weeks now, and I don't see them stopping anytime soon. FOX and talk radio are pretty much what convinced neo-cons that they were the true conservatives and that they shouldn't support McCain. Now that Hannity and such are supporting McCain I would expect the true conservatives to be all for McCain. McCain should take a VP that is strong on the economy. Or someone that is totally rich and can buy tons of TV ads. I think McCain might go with Romney. I think going with Romney does two things. One, it gets him in better with the conservative base - but as you say, that's probably not a big issue anyway. And two, it means that many independents/moderates will think twice about voting for that ticket. Overall, I think Romney does more harm to McCain than help. I think that Huckabee, though just as conservative, comes off a lot better (more positive) and has a more folksy appeal, which is a nice change from McCain's style.

This is the one and only fair warning post. Feel free to discuss this topic, if you'd like. But if it gets snarky, its getting closed pretty quick.

Kansas City Royals, undefeated, first place.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 09:06 AM) I've been debating whether or not I should say something here. But I'm going to. Knightni, I understand the spirit behind your thread title. They are the Cleveland Indians, and we don't like these guys. I got it. But, considering what smallpox laden blankets did the native American population, this thread title does not meet the standards that I've come to expect here at Soxtalk. I really think the Soxtalk powers that be should give this some thought. Okay, I'm done. I've had my say. Changed. And if anyone has a problem with the change, take it to me, and do it via PM, not in here.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 09:32 PM) Wouldn't it be entertaining to find out? I'll give the standard, boiler plate, communist democrat answer on this one for now. If these financial institutions and investment banks are going to be bailed out by the taxpayer like banks, then they ought to be regulated like banks, have similar disclosure requirements to banks, be required to provide some measure of funding for insurance like banks, etc. QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 06:06 AM) Doesn't this just tell banks "Hey, don't worry about how much risk you take. If it turns out ok, you'll make billions. If not, we've got your back!" I think you guys have to seperate the executives who run the firms and the firms themselves as entities. The firms employ thousands not to mention provide liquidity and stability to the markets - they need to have a safety net. The executives who leapt off the buildings, on the other hand, need to be held accountable.

I think its an excellent idea. Not like it would be that hard to fly them up to Chicago for a game - they aren't in Alaska or anything. Lots of positives from it, that to me far outweigh the logistical issues. Someone should email Brooks about it!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 04:43 PM) Well, depends on how you define consequences. The execs holding stock lost a lot, but there are still people walking away with several tens of million dollars in shares and termination fees. Did they break any laws? With as lax as the regulatory environment in this country currently is, I'd say that's highly doubtful. The consequences are that they're no longer billionaires, just multi-millionaires. The laws should be changed. Here is an example - if you so thoroughly screw up your company, as a C-level executive, that the government has to step in and spend money, then guess what? All compensation you receive after that point is subject to seizure by the government to cover the costs of your mistakes. You also would be subject to lawsuits by employees and shareholders effected by your decisions (which is already partially true). Any stocks, options or phantom shares you hold are subject to same. Now, that doesn't cover everything, but its a start. You could also lace this in with bankruptcies. Backruptcy law should put executive compensation beyond existing pure-salary levels at the very bottom of the pay-of pile if a company enters bankruptcy.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 04:34 PM) According to CNBC, the Treasury Secretary told the NY Fed Chair that the Treasury Department would in essence take care of any losses that the Federal Reserve took on the Bear Sterns bailout package. So there you have it. When you take out a bad mortgage and lose your house, I'm sorry, there's nothing we can do. When you run a company in to the ground, don't worry, the taxpayers will take care of it, feel free to move on and run a couple other companies in to the ground. As long as you sell your stock when the price is high, you're set. As I've said before, while I am OK with them helping Bear Stearns out of a hole, I think their needs to be real consequences for the executives when this happens. This is what other civilized capitalist countries do, and the US should as well.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 03:57 PM) And what would the correct power output be, by the way? 1.21 GIGAWATTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The administration continues to push the wall on the US-Mexico border as a way to get tough on those who break the law by entering this country illegally. So naturally, since they are running into problems with existing laws and regulations on the environment, as well as those protecting people's economic livelihoods and their property, what to they do? They decide to ignore those laws by special waiver. Because of course, the best thing for the government to do in cracking down on lawbreakers is to choose to ignore the law. January cannot come soon enough.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 02:53 PM) WOW! Talk about getting BEYOND desperate and stretching comments to an extreme. They are saying Obama said the campaign is the "Bataan death march" and/or it might be a "good thing". The problem... he never said it. Well, not in that context at least. The REAL quote was that he said some people feel the campaign is a "Bataan death march" since in the end the democrats will be dead in the general election. HOWEVER, he was really telling people to just relax and it will all be ok in the end. I really have lost all respect for Hillary Clinton's campaign. They made it seem like he himself thought the race was the "Bataan death march". He does not. dude, be honest - when did you have respect for her campaign?

Field of Dreams, followed closely by The Natural. This should really have been a poll. Has anyone seen 61*? I never got to catch that one.

The Sox site has commercials, but they are 2007. Hopefully they will have 2008's up soon. Last year, there was also a seperate website, that TSSCBOT thing, but that domain isn't even owned any more.

Clinton's lead in PA shrinks further, to just 5 points. Was 10 points a week ago, and in the teens before that. I had said before, if Obama wins PA, with the additional pressure from the party, Clinton drops out. But I thought that Obama winning PA was a stretch. Maybe its not such a stretch.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 31, 2008 -> 09:31 PM) Im gonna need a link You're gonna need to stop being obnoxious. If this is about some petty B.S. you are bringing from another thread, then check it at the door. And this is a warning to everyone. If the crap from the Wright thread gets dragged into another one, then posts will be deleted, and people will be suspended.

Damn, I don't see either on YouTube yet. I suppose I'll catch them during the next game that I can watch more than parts of.

I think we've exhausted this topic. Anyone have anything of value to say before I close this thread?

Good game. Without the umps' B.S., the Sox probably win, despite MB giving up 7 in the 2nd. Kudos: --Nick Masset looked great. Impressive. --Offense in general did very well. --Defense looked mostly good - though I only saw parts of the game. --Masset, Logan, Thornton... bullpen looking pretty good, other than Dotel --How about the Sox hitting the lefty hard? --And how about our hitters actually going oppo field? The loss hurts, but, if you're going to lose, that wasn't a bad way to do it.

Is the inning over? Thome's up with 1 out, yes?

Gameday says no out, Crede at 3rd, Uribe at 2nd, Swisher up. What is everyone complaining about?

CC likely to pitch around Thome, so this may be a good AB for a walk.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 31, 2008 -> 02:55 PM) Jesus, just sat down, what happened to Mark today? weird day so far. Thome homered off CC. Buehrle was walking guys and getting shelled. Thome homered off CC AGAIN. Masset looks decent so far. Bizarro world.

Weird he suddenly starts getting hit so hard. Is he tipping his pitches again?

Defense killing us? I see no errors. Just 2 DP's that couldn't get turned or something?