NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 26, 2008 -> 01:29 PM) You keep using that word, I do not think it means, what you think it means. Anybody want a peanut?

So I've been gone for a few weeks, and this is the first thread I am reading in the Buster since then. And I just want to say I am very impressed with most of the dialogue. Most of the points I would have wanted to see mentioned, were. And for the most part people played nice. Nice work. I personally feel that any increase in this sort of dramatic violence (note that overall, violence has been decreasing steadily since the early 90's) is much more related to non-religious and non-faith factors. The media, the internet, violence in movies, TV and video games, etc. Remember, these are teenagers. Religion and faith are lifeling pursuits for those of such a mind, and your average teenager hasn't developed any kind of complete view on the subject. But they know plenty about what looks cool, how violence appears on the screen, and what gets attention.

QUOTE(fathom @ Feb 26, 2008 -> 12:25 PM) I definitely agree that the players need to hustle more. Cabrera and Swisher should help with this. However, I'm not sure how hustling's going to improve our percentages against tough lefties. It won't. It could be a difference maker, here and there, in aspects of the game. The article seems to overstate the importance of those factors, but they are not irrelevant either.

QUOTE(fathom @ Feb 26, 2008 -> 12:06 PM) What a stupid article. It was more about talent than anything else last year. Did anyone really expect a starting lineup with Pods and Erstad in the 1/2 spot to win a very tough division? Is extra motivation and preparation really going to add velocity back to the pitches thrown by Contreras? I'm not even going to start on how effective Ozzie can motivate this core anymore, but these type of excuses for a miserable season are foolish. A lack of effort of focus was certainly not reason number 1 for a lousy 2007. Probably not in the top 5. But still, I think there is plenty of mental conditioning at play in the game, and I am glad to see things like what Williams said (and DA quoted). Hustle, focus and gamesmanship can be key parts.

Post. I just got back from 2 weeks out of the country - I'll weigh in later this week and update my sig.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 03:15 PM) Gallup, OTOH, shows the exact opposite. I wouldn't put anything into that OR the Rasmussen poll, since they are all only up through the day of SDOGPEIT. Give the rolling polls a few days to let that soak in.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 02:58 PM) Because the private sector makes decisions to deny treatment based on the bottom line and not medical opinion. That's just the nature of the beast. And, clearly, something has to be done. Costs are going through the roof. Th government already pays almost half of all medical costs. This will be a conundrum for a long time, long after the new President has left office. There are lots of complicating factors, but there are two main opposing forces at the heart of the issue: --The lack of goal alignment for for-profit companies in health care. Providing the best care will often not be in their best interest. and --The lack of motivation of public health care systems to do anything other than get by, losing all motivation to cut unneeded costs So, what is ideal here? To me, the IDEAL actors are not-for-profit corporations, centered around rewards for performance. And multiple of them, who are motivated to get more business, and grow themselves. But at this point, taking down the whole system as a business and rebuilding it would be a bad idea, so, maybe its best to just encourage those actors? In any case, those two axioms up that I listed are the main problems, in my view.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 02:09 PM) You, of all people, taking the high road about not ruthlessly trashing somebody. You've been spitting venom for years about the current administration. Not without due cause, mind you. But, this is a bit on the hypocritical side. Here is the difference that I think Rex is getting at, and that I certainly think I'd like to get at... These are OK: --Bush's environmental policy is awful --Clinton will make a terrible President Not OK: --Bush is a steaming pile of horse manure stuffed in a f***wad --Hillary Clinton is a self-righteous asshat Queen b**** Know what I mean? One is about politics. The other is just insulting someone.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 02:12 PM) If I may recommend to any ice cream lovers out there. Skinny Cow ice cream cones are the bomb. You would never think they were somehow low fat. If you're gonna cheat once in a while..do it with something like this. That company also makes ice cream sandwiches. Tasty.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 01:47 PM) It is an interesting move, because now it gives the right wing someone to get behind. Even if Huckabee isn't their choice, they like him a whole lot better than McCain. Except that Huckabee would be destroying in a general. I doubt the mainline GOP wants Huckabee to be the nominee.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 12:27 PM) Blow me up if this is a really stupid question but could Al Gore want to be a VP with Obama because he really thinks there is an opportunity to have a say in politics and worldwide without having to run for president? Hence holding off on an endorsement until he sees the gravatational draw of the Obama candidacy....... I am pretty ignorant to politics compared to those in this forum BTW. Could be. That's not an ignorant thought at all. My guess is he wants to be part of an administration, but continue his work - so he likely wouldn't be a VP. Some sort of non-cabinet post, SubSecEnvironment or something that they'd make up. That's just my guess, though.

SurveyUSA publishes a poll for Washington, the biggest prize of the Feb 9-10 primary weekend (97 delegates for the Dems at stake in WA, 40 for the GOP). But, strangely enough, Washington is apparently doing a caucus on the 9th, then a primary on the 19th. I have no idea what that does for delegates... I assume the primary is the binding one, so... the caucus is just a preview? Weird. Anyway, poll results... DEMOCRATS... Obama: 53% Clinton: 40% REPUBLICANS... McCain: 40% Romney: 26% Huckabee: 17% Paul: 9%

It certainly does seem bizarre. Why is it not being more heavily reported? Maybe some of these reports aren't entirely accurate? To me, this has that "signs we should have seen originally" feel to it, if something goes wrong.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 11:30 AM) I used that last year...it was very simple. I think they just randomly pick people to use it. This year I had paper ballot...I didn't have to draw any lines though. Was that for cook county or something? City of Chicago, which has a seperate election commission from Cook County.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 10:16 AM) ok, I was just suggesting a saturday night cap to the list of people I'll be tracking...but I suppose people can join as they want. They'll need to PM so I can put them on my spreadsheet. I thought about it this morning, and I think if everyone can take a picture of their scale to start us off and then weekly pictures to keep everyone honest. Is that too hard for folks? if so, maybe we can just do a honesty policy on a weekly basis, but do pics at one month, 3 months and/or 6 months. thoughts? Is someone really going to cheat? I mean, no prizes are involved, and we're all at different weights with different goals anyway. I wouldn't even bother with anything to "keep everyone honest". Plus my scale is at the gym. I guess I can use my camera-phone, if I can figure out how to email the pictures from it. I'll do whatever.

Quick update. With things pretty much settled in terms of delegates, RealPolitics has the current standings in PLEDGED delegates as of today as: Obama: 851 Clinton: 845 All the supers are able to do what they want later, so, their count doesn't mean a ton right now. But the supers are currently, by RP's count: Clinton: 211 Obama: 128 Which puts the total, including those flexible supers, at: Clinton: 1056 Obama: 979 Very close race indeed. No polls out yet in the upcoming Feb primaries the next couple week. There will be tomorrow I'd bet, for the 2/10 states. But early indications are that the rest of Feb favors Obama, and then there is the money situation. Plus Edwards, Gore and Richardson still out there having not yet endorsed anyone. This thing is far from over.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 09:21 PM) So, it looks like McCain's gonna get the nomination most likely... if so, who do you think his running mate might be? I would think Romney so he could try and win over some more of those conservative votes, but then again you never know. McCain and Romney really dislike each other, and Romney doesn't play well in the south either. Its Huckabee or someone similar.

As a follow-up to our earlier discussions predicting airline mergers... Delta and Northwest are engaged in serious merger discussions, and now United and Continental are talking as well. No word yet on any consolidation in the newer, smaller airlines (AirTran, Frontier, Midwest Express, JetBlue, etc.), but as Virgin America goes online, I'd imagine we'll see some of those airlines combine as well.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 01:14 AM) VERY well said. That, in essence, is why I could never vote for her. And to all the people (including Hillary), that say she is a different person than Bill.......... . I don't think people realize just how much of the terrorist problems that led to 9/11 and the Bush presidency disaster were caused by ignorance/ignoring problems by the Clinton. In fact, I think the Republican party would be smarter to focus on THAT than focus on the "we've been safe since 9/11" crap. And your thoughts on them failing to lead are also dead on. Bush doesn't deserve to have blame shifted off him for the disasterous last 8 years, but the previous administration set the stage for it to happen. I wouldn't say "caused by", more like, "allowed to worsen". The seeds were there well before their time, there were many factors outside US control, and things continued to get worse after.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 11:53 PM) I meant for like, when you see who was the biggest loser.. im not 100% on how that show really works, I just know they lost weight I can't speak for everyone, but, my goal weight is for the end of the year. I'm thinking that losing 48 pounds before Saturday night might be a bit too challenging for me. Amputations would have to be involved.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 11:36 PM) Ok, if you want to talk semantics, even though you know exactly what my point is, fine. I'll be extremely careful in every word I type just to prevent you from taking my words out of context or distorting the obvious meaning of my post. I believe- just me- I'm not saying you should, or you do, or that anyone else should or does, but I believe that the two of them are working as a team to further their political careers. NOT their marriage. But their political careers. I believe their marriage is a sham- something put forth to appease the conservative voters who would struggle to vote for a divorced or separated woman (whose ex-husband happened to be an ex-President). I think they have basically agreed to stay together formally for each other's best interests, not for love or because they believe they can work it out, or anything else. Not even for Chelsea. I could be wrong. I could be entirely off base and nothing could be farther from the truth. But this thread was started as a question asking us to explain why we dislike Hillary Clinton, and those are my reasons. I dislike the Clintons quite a bit, but even I would have to guess that their marriage may have stayed together at least in part for Chelsea. Especially when she was younger, and when Bill was off filandering. I'm as fairly certain they both care for Chelsea quite a bit.

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 11:18 PM) You are missing the point. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. Of the 100% of resident of both Cabrini and the Robert Taylor homes that signed off on Daly's plan to turn the projects area into mixed income for both a new living standard only 15% are living in those mixed use homes. The majority live no where near Chicago, their jobs lost, relocated against their will when they have SIGNED contracts to right of property. How is that acceptable? Are we going back to Old father Daly's plan to ride around in fire trucks spraying down the homeless to get them to leave now. You and iamshack are speaking as if they dont have an entitlement to their homes because they are section 8 funded, or on welfare. That is a pretty piss poor mentality to have. So I dont care remove me. Because if you obviously cannot stand or understand the plight of the poor and only think of your numbers or the tax write off it is then maybe we are better off silencing every poor person out there. He did make an ignorant assumption. Whether you see it is not the case, because I am offended. Because that was my life, filled of broken promises. I am done with this thread. No one is suggesting silencing everyone who is poor. And its fine to disagree with someone's assumption. Just don't make it a personal attack. Look, if that was your life, then I have some idea why this would be a very sensitive topic for you. And I think you might find some people here willing to have an intelligent conversation with you about it. But that won't happen if your reponses will all be so full of bluster. Here is a question for you - how did the leap occur from everyone supporting the mixed housing plan, to only 15% being in them? Where did the other people go? Why did they not elect to be part of the new housing, or were they not allowed to for some reason?

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 10:38 PM) like wild fire.... awesome guys. I will set up the spread sheet tomorrow and like I said, it'd be cool if we had before and after photos (no nudes, even "tasteful" ones, Jims) Can I just submit a picture of my hairy belly?

QUOTE(Reddy @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 07:13 PM) a book he only put out because Edwards did so first. (i'm allowed to be a little bitter every once and a while right? lol) You don't actually believe that, do you? Because that was Obama's second book in any case.

QUOTE(Misplaced_Sox @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 10:41 PM) It is about making money off poor people, disenfranchising them of their home by promises of integration in a mixed income society, like as promised. You obviously will never understand and you sound like a real ignorant person. Live a day in a poor person's shoes. Go to work with them, listen to their problems, then go home with them. Understand the realities you are talking about. This was not vacant land. The inhabitants of said ghettos signed off a new proposal to rehab land for the chance to live in an integrated society and not one that bred more poor people. The ghetto was first designed as a social construct to keep people poor, it becomes a breeding ground for cheap workforce. Reference the Dr. Martin Luther King on those points about the systematic poverty. You don't promise people one thing and then turn your back and make a profit off them because they don't have a voice to speak out from. Obama also bought land for part of his house for a dollar, he was not rehabbing the land. Listen carefully - you just called another poster "a real ignorant person". You need to tone it down, or you can just stop posting in here. Your choice. Back to your material information... as you have pointed out, the projects were a really poor design for everyone involved. Now we have the new plans, in great part pushed by Mayor Daley, to integrate income levels in housing. I am sure that is no perfect solution, but, be honest here - are you really saying its not an improvement from the cell block-like projects?