NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 03:10 PM) Clinton Launches Obama Attack Web Sites http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/st...2659&page=1 I cannot say how much I hope Obama wins Iowa. An open letter... Dear Mr. Richardson- I think you are a great candidate, but you and I know you can't win. Please drop out, endorse Obama, and become his VP candidate. You'd be perfect, and your support would hand Barack the nomination. Sincerely, NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 03:14 PM) The Garland trade was just horrific. KW should have actually inquired with Cabrera's agent prior to trading for him if he was actually interested in extending his deal now. OC has no interest in that, and we traded our best chip for very possibly a one year player on a team not expecting to contend. When you combine that trade with the fact he re-signed Uribe, it shows a GM who is clearly overmatched right now. He has no grasp of today's baseball market. Lost me with that first sentence. That trade was one of the better ones I've seen Kenny make. It was exactly what the team needed.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 06:05 AM) Tancredo to drop out of the race (thank God). Announcement scheduled for today. No word on if he might endorse any other specific candidate, who would then acquire the much-coveted psychotic militia vote. Update: Tancredo officially drops out, and endorses Romney. Not sure if that helps or hurts Mitt. Tancredo was getting 2-3% in Iowa, which is something I guess. But he is awfully divisive.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 02:19 PM) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html That is a poorly written article - and I don't think I've ever had to say that about the WSJ. A few errors and misrepresentations... 1. There is one Dem who has consistently said he wants a balanced budget amendment and will not raise taxes - Bill Richardson. 2. People in the very high income ranges get a lot of income from investments - interest, cap gains... that the lower income groups do not. And as the article even states... the AGI numbers will of course have gone up big time from 1990-2000, but not from 2000-2005. The article then adds a tepid line about "hard work", which is all well and fine but has zero to do with the analysis of the data. Wow. I like the WSJ a lot, despite that they do clearly lean to the right. But this article is pretty bad - it spends all its time talking about tax portions for salary grades but then glosses over the "oh yeah, there is a reason for that" part.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 01:53 PM) So wtf is the rumored trade? I read this entire thread and not once have a seen what the rumored trade is. Coco and Bowden for what? POST #6

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 02:06 PM) http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24056 What is this site, like a conservative version of The Onion or something? I think Pat Sajak has been seperated from his brain.

QUOTE(vandy125 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 10:39 PM) More Ron Paul Ownage... I thought it was particularly funny that if you look closely, you'll see that Fox News can't spell the the word "side" correctly. I do agree with most of Paul's political agenda when it comes to how government should be managed and run.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 01:11 PM) Maybe in hell... where players with no talent are nearly as good as players who have proven they can put up consistent numbers on the ML level! At the median point for what Crisp would likely do in 2008, yeah - a mild upgrade. And at millions more in salary. Now, if he returns to to CLE form (which is certainly possible), then obviously he's a huge upgrade. But if he has another 2006 or 2007, at his salary, then acquiring him was almost pointless. Somewhere between, he could boost the team a bit. But again, none of that is taking into account what you'd have to give up from the depleted farm system to get him. Basically, the only way a deal similar to what is being discussed is good for the Sox, is if he does in fact return to previous form. And that is a pretty big gamble.

Crisp is a mild upgrade over Owens, but I still think you have to give up too much to make it worth it.

I was probably the biggest proponent of picking up Jenkins. In fact I think I said he could be had for in the 6-7 million a year range over 3 - this is right in line. After the Quentin deal though, there really was no need for another corner OF. Unless that is, Quentin is capable of playing CF.

Well... its not like the US ever lived up to their end of those treaties anyway. Not much point in the Lakota hanging on to the s***ty appendages still left hanging off of those lies.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 12:56 PM) For being the guy who gets uppidty when people miss your posts, you might want to read up a little higher I think Balta put me on ignore shortly after I said I thought Bush was a good choice for Time's Person of the Year in 2004.

QUOTE(Chisoxrd5 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 10:10 PM) While that may be the case, I always hold pitching in higher regard than position players. It's also my opinion that we had a much better shot of resigning JG than we do of resigning Orlando Cabrera. Every indication I've seen has been that JG wanted to move out west, and was unlikely to re-sign with the Sox. I think the team has a better shot at re-signing Cabrera, than Garland. Plus SS was a bigger need than SP for the team, and the team got some cash for the deal, and draft picks if Cabrera does indeed walk. It was a solid deal overall.

Tancredo to drop out of the race (thank God). Announcement scheduled for today. No word on if he might endorse any other specific candidate, who would then acquire the much-coveted psychotic militia vote.

Not a good day for candidates yesterday... Rudy Giuliani is hospitalized when he falls ill in Missouri, and Dennis Kucinich's brother died.

Not a good day for candidates yesterday... Rudy Giuliani is hospitalized when he falls ill in Missouri, and Dennis Kucinich's brother died.

QUOTE(G&T @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 02:39 PM) Here's the Louisianna statute. uh oh. I wonder if they'll prosecute. Stupidly written law though. By that law, when they were 18 and 15, it was OK... but now at 19 and 16, its not.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 02:42 PM) I can not stand DJ with or without Hawk. He is absolutely horrible. I haven't heard anyone as bad as him. He made Chip Caray tolerable. So you've actually heard DJ without Hawk? Because I heard him do a national game last year with someone else, and I have to say, I thought he sounded pretty good. I think Hawk is what destroys DJ, really. Those two just have zero chemistry of any kind.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 03:35 PM) that one was so weak. I thought it was one of their best. Dead on with where this society is going.

Thanks for the analysis CKnolls, but... do we really need 3 minute updates on the bond sector? And you do seem to take things to the nth degree here. Cutting the ratings for one bond carrier, even a huge one, will NOT cause the forced sale of anything like $2.5T, if anything at all. Unless they are cut way, way down.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 01:06 PM) Well, on a different though related subject, this is also interesting. Clearly, the only solution to this is about $20 billion a year in subsidies for the fossil fuel companies. How else will they stay competitive with this sort of innovation? And thankfully, we're not turning those fossil fuel subsidies into research credits or anything, because all that would do is spur more innovation of this sort and cut the cost of renewables even further. And thank Goodness the Republicans filibustered the bill that required electric companies to generate some fraction of their electricity through renewables, because otherwise there'd be even more incentive to manufacture these things faster. That is fantastic to see. I've been believing more and more, as I read further into it, that a distributed-model solar array is the best, cheapest and most stable way to get off fossil fuels. At a far cheaper price for the panels themselves, people will start using them at home left and right (and businesses will do the same). Suddenly, roof space becomes energy-producing space. And as energy companies continue to add differential energy capabilites to their systems (the ability for users to contribute in energy as credits, then draw when needed), that will only accelerate growth. I have every intention, when we buy our first house, of exploring the possibility of putting panels on. And I agree with your rant, Balta. You were talking about CFL's earlier... here is a situation where an industry is on the brink of making a breakthrough that would save FAR more money for everyone, and in this case, the government is actually supporting the OPPOSITE with tax breaks and subsidies. It makes me ill. I think that this sort of small-company effort, a grass-roots campaign if you will, is the only way we'll see a real move in the right direction. I'm glad to see that its gaining a little steam.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 12:40 PM) Given what I believe about the energy and climate situations in this country, I think this is a totally appropriate place to put the line. It inconveniences very few people and the potential benefits are large, even if the majority of people were switching anyway. There would always be a decent chunk of people who did not make the change if the government didn't mandate it, and the benefits of every single bulb are big enough for me to not complain. I think that continued, or bolstered, incentives and other programs would have gotten almost the same gains, without the destruction of a usable, safe product. Therefore, I would have favored the former route. But then again, if I were, say, in Congress, I wouldn't go using any political capital to stand in the way of this one either. I feel strongly both ways.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 12:38 PM) Just responding to the bolded part -- steroids have been a controlled substance since 1990 (iirc -- something like that), but HGH was not. There were some noises in Congress this summer or the summer before about making it a controlled substance, but as of 2005 (when MLB explicitly banned HGH) it was NOT a controlled substance. HGH requires a perscription, correct? It may not be on the FDA's schedule of classified controlled substances, though. I'll take your word for it, because I do not know for sure. That's what that part I added the "I believe".

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 12:30 PM) A lot of people don't like the "quality" of light coming from CFL's in certain areas (I don't have a problem but I like softer lighting). They also contain mercury and are a major PITA to dispose of properly. Plus, they don't work with dimmer switches as of yet. Also, CFL's don't work very well in really cold temps, so it'll put you in a tough spot in an unheated garage or shed. People are already buying more and more CFL's, and more are being designed to look nicer and work in just about any application. Seems to me that the market was going that way anyway. I think that's what this hinges on. I don't want the government regulating every little thing down to what lightbulbs I can use in my lamp. I want to save money, so I use CFL's. Incentivise them or discount them as ComEd is doing. Ta-da, the market works! You highlight two big reasons not to mandate this, that I agree with: 1. There is subjectivity involved in what is "good" here. CFL's are not an identical product - they put out different light. Some feel its a better product. I don't agree, and I think the benefit of CFL's far outweighs the negatives - but that is not a reason to ban a product. 2. The market is already working, and incentives are helping. Making a big move like this should only be considered if the market ISN'T working.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 12:33 PM) Of course there's a line there. But I for one consider the slippery slope argument to be one that doesn't work, simply because you elect people for the express purpose of being able to draw that line. I'll turn around one of your examples with this. Right now, it clearly makes no sense to have a mandatory doctor's visit during a year. But it's easy for me to imagine a scenario where that would make sense. Imagine some sort of extreme viral outbreak hitting the country, where if people catch a disease and go untreated, they die and they take out everyone they run into after a certain point in the virus's progression. In that case, where the lives of potentially millions of people could be saved by ordering people to visit a doctor, I think that'd be a very appropriate response. The current energy and climate change crises aren't yet at that level of intensity, but then again, it's a much smaller step to mandate people purchase a specific variety of light bulb than it is to order them to visit a doctor. Don't get me wrong - I was actually not trying to make a true slippery slope argument. I was in fact saying there is a line, that is a good thing - I just think the line is a little off the mark in this specific case. I would not want to make an all-or-none argument out of this at all.