NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Pants Rowland @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 07:49 PM) May I ask who you will support, assuming you get the chance come primary day? Just curious. Well, my guy was Richardson. He's a social democrat but has a history of balancing budgets and encouraging business growth, and has an OK record on the environment (not great though). Combined with an impressive background ranging from SecEnergy to US Congressman to Governor of a growing, diverse and culturally torn state, I thought he was the best candidate available. But he proved unable to survive in the era of TV. At this point, I'd prefer Obama or McCain. I'll probably vote for either of them if they make it. If they both make it, probably Obama. And you?

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 08:35 PM) The US was an absolute monster in the New World by 1863 compared to Mexico and their Latin American neighbors. That isn't really true. They were not anything like a "monster" in any sphere at that point in time.

QUOTE(Pants Rowland @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 05:56 PM) 100% agreement. Despite hsi time exclusively in the House, I do find Paul to be well-informed. While I disagree with him on a few issues, his overall platform is compelling and does make you think about serious flaws in the system that we accept as normal but should be outraged over. He makes some great points. And I gave him some serious thought for a while as a candidate - my posts in here could prove that. But upon further, deeper review, he seems to me to lack the leadership skills necessary to be President. I think if you had a more viable candidate who was serious about reducing government waste and scope, he'd be a good guy to have in your administration.

QUOTE(Pants Rowland @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 05:47 PM) I did necessarily think you were pro-Senate. I see your point, but my take is being a Senator typically is a reflection of your lot in life and not necessarily of your qualifications. Compromise is great but I find the palm pressing and back patting in the Senate revolting at times. I like the independent nature of representatives although I do agree that the best options are typically former governors with track records to compare rather than voting records on every silly bill to come across their desks over the past 25 years. Thanks for the book tip. I guess I see two different kinds of back-slapping. The congenial, business-like art of compromise across party lines is not only good, but its precisely what is missing (for the most part) from the current government, particularly our stubborn-as-chic executive. Then there is the back room, you fund my oil company and I'll see you at the country club kind of B.S. And that is revolting to me as well.

QUOTE(Pants Rowland @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 05:12 PM) Please enlighten me as to how being a Senator is better experience than being a representative. I recently learned that the Senate was modeled after the House of Lords while the House of Reps was more in line with the House of Commons. Senators were well-to-dos who did little to nothing until Jefferson split from the Federalists. Things have obviously changed dramatically since then, but one thing that is certain is it is very difficult to be elected president of the U.S. if you served in the Senate. Frequently out of touch and overly compromising, the work and experience of the Senator is in no way shape or form any more senior or qualifying for higher office than that of a Rep. That is why you frequently see former governors win the oval office. They have legitimate executive experience rather than faux leadership of a state such as that of a Senator. Further, Senators are so pressured to fall in line with party voting that they get in the habit of compromising their convictions. To me, that is forgivable and necessary to make the Senate work. With that said, while a forgivable and necessary evil, the compromising/patronizing mentality of a Senator is not the type of politician I want to be the Commander in Chief. I agree that executive experience is a positive, but I also like the independent nature of a congressional rep. They typically vote their conviction and have a better perspective on taking care of their constituents than Senators do. An interesting read to find more on how the Senate evolved is JFK's Profiles in Courage. The more you learn about the Senate, the more you realize it is very much an elitist body that is extremely difficult to enter and nearly as difficult to get ousted from. You seem to have interpereted my statements as meaning I like the Senate. I don't. But its just reality that Senate seats are fewer, harder to get, and generally populated by more experienced people who have more direct interaction with the other branches of government. Its the senior body of the legislature. And while the Presidential candidates tend to illustrate their ability to stick to their guns, in reality, the Presidents who have been most successful have been the ones who knew how to compromise and work with the other party. That's what the Senate does well, and that makes them much better candidates for President than House Reps. Still, all else being equal, I prefer executive leadership experience - like that which governors often bring to the table. ETA: And to add, along the lines of books on the Senate, I recommend Master of the Senate - about LBJ.

Toyota announced that they will have their first plug-in hybrid fleet out in 2010. GM meanwhile says that their Volt plug-in vehicle, scheduled originally for 2008, then 2009, is now a "stretch" for 2010. So instead, using a loophole in the CAFE standards legislation, they are producing a whole array of ethanol-powered tanks like the H3 concept. As usual, the American car companies have decided to abandon investment in making alternative technology work, and are taking the cop out. Meanwhile Japan keeps on rolling.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 04:30 PM) I'll just go with some of A and some of B. So, our global warming will actually help us avoid the issue of lack of sun spots. This reminds me of the Simpsons episode where the Doctor told Mr. Burns that the only reason he was alive was that all his deadly diseases were cancelling each other out, like they were all jammed in a doorway.

QUOTE(Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:53 PM) I think Phil Rogers should subscribe to SoxTalk and read Bureau's posts, or anyone else's for that matter. Among other things, how could anyone possibly rank Getz ahead of Shelby? Nothing against Getz, but have I missed something? Does Shelby suck ass and look to top out as a AAAA player or what? Sometimes, people's lists take into account how "close" players are to making it. Getz is probably just a utility IF, though I think maybe he has a shot to be a decent 2B. But he's a lot "closer" to ready for MLB play than Shelby is, even though Shelby has a higher ceiling.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 03:01 PM) When I brought up her experience I stated exactly what I meant- her experience dealing with the pressures, the limelight, etc. She has real-world experience which allows her to understand what to expect when you are the leader of the free world. That, in and of itself, is valuable. Talk about how other candidates have experience as Senators, and as Reps, but many of them can't run an effective Presidential campaign, let alone run the country. I'm no Hilary supporter- I am an Obama supporter- but I don't think you can take away the very unique real-world experience that Hilary has. And that is not even counting whatever involvement she had in policy-making. I know I can't prove that, so I won't buoy my argument with it. But to compare her to Barbara or Laura in regards to her involvement as First Lady is really not an accurate analogy. What experience she does have is one of the reasons I dislike her as a candidate. She was not elected, yet she boasts proudly of having policy-discussion access (not just circumstantial) to the highest level people, not to mention saying she was privy to a lot of sensitive information, WITHOUT a security clearance of any kind.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:23 PM) I don't agree with that. Hillary and Obama have less experience. The don't do jack in the Senate, and they've barely been in there. I also think you are putting too much weight on limited Senate experience. Yes, I flip-flopped from my "I'm done with this discussion" statement. I definitely agree on Obama's 2 years in the Senate and a couple terms as a State Senator. Hillary too, for that matter. And Dennis Kucinich I think, though he's close. There are a few.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 01:46 PM) Honestly, I think you underestimate the amount of government experience all those years in the House of Reps gives someone. For one thing, the house has exclusive rights to initiate revenue bills. Obviously a Senator's vote carries more weight than a House reps (because there are less Senators). He has more government experience than the top Democrats running, thats for sure. I'm just going to leave it at that, because I think you just made a blanket statement "Paul has the least experience" and now you're just going to stay with it no matter what. I said "nearly the LEAST experienced candidate in the field", not THE least. If you are going to put my quotes in quotes, then make it my quote. And its still true. He is near the bottom of the list in experience. There are a few whose exprience is less - Giuliani definitely. Others have few years but higher level experience as Senators, or executive experience as Governors.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 01:23 PM) That's just it, if it is organized enough to have someone's name attached to it, the backlash could be ugly. Think about how easy it would be to paint the leader of the effort as scared of the Republicans enough that they have to resort to sabatogueing their primaries. Its been done before by the GOP to Dem candidates as well. I am sure there would be backlash of sorts, but I am also pretty confident it would be forgotten about by most people later on.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 01:16 PM) That's what the popular line of thinking is... But these numbers really make you wonder if that is the reality, or they are just doing a better marketing job? I wonder what the numbers would look like on the Repub side if someone like Colin Powell was running. Hard to say. I'd guess the racial "divide" is pretty similar in the two parties. And here is something else to think about... with those numbers for black and white, it may very well be the Hispanics who really decide this thing. All the more reason for Obama and Clinton to try to pick up a Richardson endorsement, and have Richardson campaign for them a bit.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 01:11 PM) Unless there is an organized effort to screw the Republicans, crossovers have to benefit John McCain more than Mitt Romney. Yup. Its just a matter of how organized the effort is.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 01:05 PM) Clinton leads Obama 41-27% among white voters, while Obama leads Clinton 66-16% among black voters. So is there a racial divide in the democratic party? Probably less so than in the Republican party... though its hard to say because there are so few non-whites among Republicans. Race is still an issue in this country, unfortunately. But I think its off-base to think its a Democrat thing. So far, Obama has managed to not get too involved in the race-baiting, but that seems to be changing a bit. Clinton's camp is nipping at the issue here and there, and Obama has felt the need to respond a few times, sometimes not well. Ultimately, I think that just hurts Clinton, as long as Obama doesn't take too big a bite on the bait. But if Barack does go in on race full throttle, he's lost.

QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 11:26 AM) BA Top 10 is up: 1. Aaron Poreda, rhp 2. Lance Broadway, rhp 3. Jack Egbert, rhp 4. Jose Martinez, of 5. Chris Getz, 2b 6. John Ely, rhp 7. Juan Silverio, ss 8. John Shelby Jr., of 9. Adam Russell, rhp 10. Kyle McCulloch, rhp Best Hitter for Average Chris Getz Best Power Hitter Brandon Allen Best Strike-Zone Discipline Chris Getz Fastest Baserunner Paulo Orlando Best Athlete Lyndon Estill Best Fastball Aaron Poreda Best Curveball Lance Broadway Best Slider Kanekoa Texeira Best Changeup Lance Broadway Best Control Jack Egbert Best Defensive Catcher Donny Lucy Best Defensive Infielder Robert Valido Best Infield Arm Juan Silverio Best Defensive Outfielder Paulo Orlando Best Outfield Arm Jose Martinez How is Miranda not in that Top 10? And I have a really hard time putting a 16-year-old in the Top 10. I wonder how much BA actually knows about the kid.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 12:39 PM) FWIW, there was also a bunch of Michigan primary polling done over the weekend. Overall, the result suggests there's no clear leader at all. The average of those polls winds up putting Romney and McCain at 27 and 26.3 respectively. What with the uncontested Dem primary, I think that all these pollsters are having major issues wagering on who's going to vote in the Republican primary, because none of the likely voter screens that worked in the past would be applicable if you get a lot of crossover. And the crossover is unpredictable as well. Normally, you'd think McCain would get the biggest boost - and he probably will. But, there will also be some Dems trying to vote for some GOP candidate they think is most beatable in November. I think it all comes down to... how organized is the effort to mess with the GOP primary? My guess is not very, so McCain will get the edge.

To borrow from Balta's post in the DEM candidates thread... someone finally did a Nevada poll. Here are the GOP results: John McCain: 22 percent Rudy Giuliani: 18 percent Mike Huckabee: 16 percent Mitt Romney: 15 percent Fred Thompson: 11 percent Ron Paul: 6 percent Duncan Hunter: 1 percent A state where Rudy is actually showing up on the radar. Interesting.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 11:14 AM) Most of the pollsters appear to have decided to simply avoid Nevada after the New Hampshire debacle, but there's a few still attempting it. I've been wondering why no one was polling out there. Wow, Edwards at 27%? I am kind of surprised he shows that well out there. Doesn't seem like it would be a strong state for him.

Good. Another small step (along with the multi-sport research consortium announced recently). Let's hope this actually gets implemented in some useful way, along with more complete, more random and more frequent testing.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 08:48 PM) a real good source told me pedro alvarez is leaning towards signing boras, so he might be available when we pick....too bad we dont deal with boras though The Sox would draft a Boras client if they were the right player - you still get the guy for his time in the minors plus a bunch of cheap years after.

There Will Be Blood NSS72's rating: 3.5 very weird stars Saw this on Saturday. Very strange film. You pretty much have an idea of what you are going to get within the first 15 seconds - the imagery and the strikingly bizarre music set the tone. Definitely unique, not like anything else I've seen. Daniel Day-Lewis' performance is beyond superb - truly amazing is a better description. Paul Dano's job also very well done. Great cinematography, striking scenery (supposed to be central CA circa 1890-1920, but also filmed in TX and NM), biting dialogue, and a depth of symbolism I didn't fully take in until the next day. Also, good and creepy. The music was soooo strange; it was as if the soundtrack was attempting to convey the energy of the minds of the characters in a scene, as opposed to the scene as a whole. It made for a sometimes discombobulated feel. And the ending was intellectually disorienting. Not a feel good film, but definitely worth seeing.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 09:21 PM) I don't think that is an accurate analogy. Serving in the House is comparable to being in the Senate. If you want to stay with baseball, it's more like comparing the AL to the NL. House Rep is not comparable to Senator. They are on a very different level. Not only is the Senate the senior house, we're also talking about the senior/higher 100 versus the lower 435. Its AAA over AA or A+. And Governors, having executive experience, I'd put well above the US House, and possibly above the US Senate as well.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 04:57 PM) His resume seems to be line with the the candidates of both parties I would say his experience is middle of the pack, if you count in Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, ect. I wouldn't say losing an election should disqualify anyone form running again. McCain has lost before, so has Romney, so has Edwards. Experience is not an issue with Ron Paul. He's not going to win the GOP nomination because of his political stances (mainly because of his consistent opposition to the Iraq war), not because of his lack of experience. Biden and Dodd seem to have the most experience, and they aren't getting any votes. QUOTE(rowand's rowdies @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 05:42 PM) another soldier talking about Dr. Paul. FACT: The military donations are highest for Dr. Paul. FACT: Ron has nearly as much and sometimes more experience than the rest of the field. He is also 72 years old and has seen a lot go down. He also hasn't suggested 100 years in Iraq like the other 70+ year old. He was in the Air Force in the Korean War, did you miss that in your reading? So maybe I don't need to read anymore. Thanks though for the suggestion. Did you get that from when Ron has suggested other candidates read up on different subjects they fail to know enough about? He ran for President in 1988, which is before Obama was even in government. Richardson and Biden are no longer in the race, so maybe your the one not in tune (again). Dodd, who cares? Thompson, oooo 10 years in Congress, only 7 behind Ron. Oh wait, many as a lobbyist? That's honorable. Maybe that's where he got his spunk and arrogance. Huckabee, gov of Arkansas? Awesome, we had one of those already not too long ago. Apparently that's the way to get to become the President of the US. Hilary? Are you kidding me. All we need is a President who will cry to get her way and/or votes (SHE DID DO THIS, SO I'M NOT GENDER BIASED). Do we need to have the Clintons and Bushs' running this country from 1988-2008+? That's the best we can do? No wonder we are focked. Romney is just a jerk from what I see, don't like him flip flopping. He was gov of Massachussats, I guess he has some good experience, just don't like him. Guliani, don't get me started. His own kids don't like him. He will start a personal war with the terrorists that attacked his city. That's 90% of his campaign. Edwards is ok, just nothing special. Anyone I missed? You two seem to be equating experiences like House Rep the same as US Senator, Governor, etc. That's kind of like saying that a guy who spent 8 years in A-ball has more experience than someone playing at the major league level for 4 years. Its more years, but not in the same league.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 04:31 PM) Hasn't Ron Paul been in congress for a total of like 20 years or something? I think he was elected to his current seat in 1996, and also served in the late 70's and early 80's. Not 100% sure on the number of years. 15 years, on and off since the 70's as a house rep. Compare that resume to, for example... McCain: Vietnam vet and POW, Navy liaison to the US Senate in the late 70's, Congressman 1983-87, Senator 1987-present, 2000 major party Prez candidate Huckabee: Lt Gov for 2 terms, US Senator briefly, then Governor for about 10 years Richardson: Former energy secretary, former US Congressman, UN Ambassador to US, 2-term Governor Biden: 6 term US Senator - 34 years Dodd: US Rep 6 years, US Senator 25 years Thompson: 10 Years US Senate, a bunch of years as a lobbyist Ron Paul has never made it past US Representative, failed in numerous political bids... his resume is just not anything like the most prolific, and I'd say is closer to the bottom of the pile in that regard.