NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Hatchetman @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 01:17 PM) good lord. who's our top prospect now?? Shelby or Poreda.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 01:15 PM) One of Konerko, Dye or Thome HAVE to go, or the Quentin trade looks extremely foolish -- neither Quentin nor Swisher are CFers. Swisher playing CF last year was more out of necessity, as I'm pretty sure Kotsay had some nagging injuries. Cripes... we're going for it in 2008. This is f***ing ridiculous. I've been wondering since they made the Quentin trade, given his speed and athleticism... maybe they want Quentin in CF? I'm not sure about this trade. I mean, I love having Swisher on the team, but Gio AND DLS is a lot to give up. Needs to settle in.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 11:34 AM) And all of a sudden, McCain is the liberal media darling again. Now why is that? Now I'll tell you... It's because the conservatives have vetted Huckabee and can't stand the idiot. The media was salivating over Huckabee because he would be easy fodder to become the "right wing nut" during the nomination process and leadup to election day. As YASNY pointed out, McCain is nothing but a jackass in an elephant suit, which is why people like NSS like him. Think about it. Wait... I like him because he is a jackass?

Trib has a nice little illustration of the Caucus process, for those curious.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 11:12 AM) It may very well be the GOP agenda, but it's not the conservative agenda. To a certain extent, you have to have an incentive to be successful. If you take the stance of arbitrarily taxing the rich because they are rich, you take away all incentive for an entreprenuer (sp?) to acheive to the utmost of his capabilities. Now granted, there are those that will take advantage of a situation that is over indulgent of the rich. But a smart businessman will pass some of the benefits of success down to those who's sweat and brains helped him achieve that success. I'm actually not criticizing that stance, nor the Dem one. Just pointing out that its not as simple as you painted it. I think most people realize that SOME things have to be handled by the government. SOME of those things are best handled at the federal level. Other things clearly are best left to private citizenry. The question really comes down to the handful of things that are in the fuzzy space between... health care, business law, etc. Those are the areas of contention - how much government involvement is good?

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 11:13 AM) I dont have the total history, but here it goes... Iowa is important because the media and the democratic party say it is. It's about momentum. In 2004 Kerry was I think 3rd or worse in iowa and NH. But he sprung ahead in Iowa and WON. The NH Primary a few days (maybe a week) later, Kerry won that. It's all about momentum. It doesnt mean everything, but it CAN. Iowa is important, but if the democratic party could make Idaho, Illinois, Texas, Nebraska more important if they really wanted to. Why is Iowa important? i dunno. Some argue they are the "real america" Or, a broad sampling that represents the rest of the country. I dont know how true that is. Iowa was originally chosen as a bellweather state for a number of reasons, but here are some... --Unusually well educated public --Geographically and politically centrist --At the time, with agriculture so huge in the economy, the breadbasket was much more important --Same with the rural population, which at the time was so much larger as part of the country's population

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 11:07 AM) Question for those smarter than me on politics (everybody who has posted in this thread, in other words): Just how important is the Iowa Caucus? I know it's the first one and happens here at the start of the year of the election, but what happens tonight matter as much as the media is making it seem like? Thanks in advance for any help you can give to a novice here. There is the literal importance of the delegates, and then there is the more dynamic effect of victory... At a base level, the primary/caucus system assigns a number of delegates to each state that go to the winner(s) of those states. Those delegates, essentially, represent votes at the convention which decide who gets the nomination. Iowa has 45 delegates to give out for the Dems, 41 for the Republicans. In reality, its been a long time (not sure how long) since it was really still in question anywhere near the convention (which would be in the summer of 2008). There is usually a candidate dominant enough well before then, such that other contenders give up and endorse someone else, until one remains. But if it does come down to the wire, there is a complex set of rules as to how that all works. Iowa's effect is big, being the first one, as it sets the tone, gives the winning or strong candidates major pub, and gives momentum. It also usually means the death of some of the lower level candidates, giving those votes to other more viable ones. This year, with such a tight race with so many viable candidates in both parties... the effect is huge. Much, much larger than what the 45 delegates (only about 1 to 2% of the national total) represent. The following primaries are so close together, and give such a boost to Iowa's winners, that having momentum of victory in Iowa is huge. For more, I'd check Wikipedia or the DNC/RNC pages.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 11:00 AM) And that, in a nutshell, is the liberal agenda. It keeps the downtrodden voting for them. And, in turn, they keep the downtrodden downtrodden so they keep voting for them. Why do think they want all these illegal immigrants to have voting rights? It's all part of the scam. To say that is "the liberal agenda" is like saying that giving more money to the rich is the GOP agenda. They may both be reflected in their fiscal policies, but I don't think everyone in either party is truly focused on that above all else.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 09:50 AM) Yet, I noticed you completely left Paul off the list. Yeah, I only put the candidates I saw as viable. I didn't put the rest. I think Paul will probably be right on the heels of Thompson and McCain, followed by Giuliani and Hunter with small returns. On the dem side, Richardson will come in a distant 4th, Biden and Dodd behind him in small single digits, and then Kucinich may have a blip here and there.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 09:30 AM) I agree on McCain. But Huckabee is much worse than McCain imho. I have to agree. McCain has made some bad calls, but overall I think McCain is much more honest and more invested in the fortunes of the country than Huckabee.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 09:27 AM) I'm going to step out on a limb here and say that Paul finishes above McCain and Thompson. Its possible. I actually considered that before making my guesstimates. Wouldn't surprise me too much.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 3, 2008 -> 09:25 AM) While we are pushing the non-fossil agenda, let's build some refineries in this nation. Or let's drill more off the Gulf Coast or Alaska. Let's put some more oil into the equation while we pursue these alternatives. Let's make it ecomonically worthwhile to invest in alternative fuel sources by giving subsidies and tax breaks to non-petroleum based companies to really open up the market and see what good old American ingenuity can come with without the deck being stacked in favor of the oil barons. And yes, I'm pointing my finger right at Bush43 by saying that. I'm also pointing at the southpaws for not letting us build new refineries or drill off the coast or Alaska. There is enough blame to go around to include both parties. Hell, they're all in it together anyway. I'd be good with building refining capacity. Not so much on drilling in Alaska.

These will probably be about as accurate as my Sox pre-season predictions typically are, but what the heck... Obama Clinton -6 Edwards -8 Romney Huckabee -3 McCain -10 Thompson -12

Since there will probably be much news and discussion on this today, you can use this thread for it.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 06:57 PM) Ron Paul. Why would you vote otherwise? He stands by the Constitution, and wants the uneccessary government programs out of your life. Why would you NOT want that? But, tomorrow will be 15 degrees in IA, and the Orange Bowl is on after people get out of work. So, it won't matter, because Ron Paul - even though he is not a DEM, is going to convincingly dominate much more so than new media corporations want you to know. Why don't they want you to know? Because you LOSING 70% of your money thru the year to various taxes, inflation, etc. is not something that the Federal Government WANTS you to find out & the News Media is simply an outlet OF the Fed. Gov't. We are America - we are Capitalism & Democracy. We are not Socialists. Why would you vote for ANY OF THE "LEADING" REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATS who are simply versions of Socialists? Do YOU want to pay to send your neighbor's kid to a public school & have the Dept. of Education TELL YOUR KID AND THEIRS what to learn just because the Dep. of Ed. says thats what they need to know? Do YOU want to pay to have your neighbor get medicare? No. No one wants that. We, the people, started a WAR and threw the English tea into the water over taxes that were MUCH LESS than the taxes we have now (and thats taking all inflation, etc. into account). Why do we simply put up with it now? Vote Ron Paul and win back your true rights as an American and watch the dollar get back on its feet, and watch America go DIRECTLY from an impending Depression after 4-8 years of Clinton, Giuliani, Obama, etc. and into a Golden Age with 4 years of Ron Paul Bureau Employee indeed.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 02:21 PM) Are the oil companies really making the money off the futures, or is it the market speculators who jack the price up because they 'fear' some shortage next month, or because OPEC burped? Serious question, despite my snip at the end. It isn't costing them any more to get the oil out of the ground than it did last year, but the fear of a shortage is what is driving it up. So, who benefits from the 'fear pricing'? When the sell the oil, either at spot market or if they play on the futures exchanges, they make money on its rise in price. Also, as they produce gasoline and what not, they still dictate those final prices for refined products, so they can make more money too, if they choose.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 01:52 PM) ABC and FOX news are not letting him in the debates. ABC had assigned a predetermined level of national polling which a candidate had to meet to be eligible to debate. Ron Paul didn't poll well enough. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/31/...bate-Limits.php What a load of crap. The guy is polling in early states like IA and NH higher than many of the candidates being invited in both parties.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 01:10 PM) thanks so much for the help. It is my understanding that the ownership of the land is not really in dispute. It's document through wills who owns what share (they all co-own the land). The problem comes with how a 32% ownership can force the sale when 68% don't want to or are indifferent. Yeah, that's beyond my level of understanding... but it sure seems like that would be against the legal documentation. I assume that an attorney was used as executor of the will with the division of ownership - that might be your best place to start.

By the way, fair warning - I am not an attorney. I happen to have some experiences with real estate law, but the above posts from me are as far as i can take you. Once you've figured out who actually, legally has title or willed title to the land, you need to see a professional.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 12:56 PM) I would argue it already is. the problem is that the government has been looking the other way instead of trying to make some major changes to move away from oil. But since they have waited so long, it'll take another 10+ years for infrastructure to be built. By then, what...$250 a barrel? $8 a gallon? It's going to be a rough presidency for the next president. He's going to have to make some hard changes, and people wont like it, but it'll be in our best interests in the long run. That's the key reason why its a crisis now, as you said - its the timing. Taking the scattered, unrefined technologies out there rolling and efficient and in wide use will take many years. If we don't start now, it will be that much uglier down the road.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 12:50 PM) When does this become an official "crisis"? $125/barrel? $150? I'd say its already one. Certainly, it SHOULD be among the handful of highest priorities for this nation's government to address.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 12:47 PM) I do not have that information. but my understanding is that the land has been passed down via a will. So, when my wife's great grandfather died, he passed his "share" to my wife's grandmother via a will. Then that is where you start - the person whose name is actually on the will. He/she owns the land, and the only exceptions to ownership are any legal agreements (documented) that he/she knowingly made. Follow the trail from there. If she didn't do anything legally documented to split the land, then its hers to do with as she pleases - as I understand it. But if I were you, once you figure out where that trail ends, I'd talk to a lawyer (probably someone who works probate). In the meantime, if you want to stop the sale, if you find out whose name is on the title, you can always point out to them that only the owner of property can sell it. even if they tried, when the buyer's title search was done, they'd find the seller wasn't the owner, and that would be the end of that deal (unless the buyers are stupid enough to not buy title insurance).

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 12:36 PM) I was wondering if someone out there might know a bit about this. Here is the story... My wife's ancestors bought land in Iowa back in the mid 1800s. Since then, it has been past down and divided to decedents. The land itself has not been divided, but the ownership shares have. They currently rent out the land and rental income is split based on the percent you own. There is no legal partnership or company. Just a simple handshake agreement. Recently, a group of relatives who own 32% of the shares said they want to sell. They issued this demand... buy out our shares at market value or we will proceed with selling the entire farm (basically, everyone with a share would receive a percentage of the sale based on their ownership percentage). Needless to say this has honked off the other 68% who do not wish to sell or simply don't care one way or the other. My question is: how is this legal? How can a minority ownership force the sale of something when the major does not wish to do so? Secondly: Past precedent within the family has been to offer land to family members for well below market value. (Recently, my wife's cousin bought 10 acres for 1/3 market value, and this same guy who is forcing the sale bought his 50 acres for less than 1/3 market value) So, could it be argued that their demands are unreasonable given past precedent? What name(s) is(are) on the title? And if the titled names are all deceased, was there a decision made by probate or otherwise legally as to whose name the land is actually in? Because as I understand it, the name on the title is everything.

I hope and pray that whomever gets into the White House in 2008 has the brains and the guts to work with Congress to truly prioritize getting us onto non-fossil fuels. Fast.

QUOTE(GreatScott82 @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 10:43 AM) http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/artic...sp&c_id=cws What would it take for the Rockies to trade their leadoff man? I know they want starting pitching... He would be a much better addition than Crisp... I'm not sure Taveras is a "much better addition than Crisp". Looking at his career numbers, minors and majors, through 2006, he looks no better than what Owens will give you offensively. 2007 was a big year for him though - was it a fluke, or is that the real deal? If he hits like he did in 2005-2006, or like most of his minor league numbers indicate, then offensively he's no better than Owens. Defensively, look at Taveras' 2007 CF stats compared to Owens (they played an almost identical number of games)... On FPct, Owens is .991 and Taveras .982... On range (RF), Taveras has an edge: 2.76 to 2.65... on ZR Owens is well ahead at .896 over .823. The arm thing though... Owens' 1 assist to Taveras' 7 seems to make Willy's arm a lot better. But I haven't seem Taveras play except a handful of times - anyone have any comments on his arm? It looks to me like Taveras is probably slightly better than Owens defensively, mostly due to his arm. Basically, its a question of career trend, just like with Crisp. With Taveras, is 2007 the real player he has matured into? Or is 2005-2006 what we'd get?