NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 12:27 PM) He won that reelection by one of the narrowest margins in history 1.5 years after starting a war and 3 years after the biggest attack on U.S. soil in decades, maybe centuries. IMO, Karl Rove was the correct choice in 2004. And 2001, IMO, was the biggest cop-out of them all. By far. That year, by the award's definition, the winner was Bin Laden. He literally changed the course of world history that year. And the Magazine caved to all the people calling them saying they'd cancel their subscriptions if they named him the person of the year. Rove could have been a good choice in 2004 - but I think Bush was better. And Balta, you do realize I am NOT saying that Bush won sort of "mandate" with that narrow victory. Not at all, despite his protestations otherwise. But the reality is that it was, even in a close election, a huge boost for not just the man, but for that set of policies. And that put the US on the course its on now, mostly for ill. I think the rest of the world was still sort of wincing, and waiting for the US to get back on track, in 2003 and early 2004. Then with his re-election, it was obvious the US had just plain derailed, and that it wasn't going to be back on track for at least another 4 years. And here is a screwball for you to play with. It is my opinion that because Bush was re-elected, and because we have gotten now a much more obvious look at just how f***ed up his policies and methods are, this country is now much more likely to go the right direction in 2008 (that is to say, away from pretty much everything he has done).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 12:16 PM) I for one don't mind it one bit. This is a simple case where the market isn't necessarily going to produce the result that is most beneficial to the country. There is a gigantic benefit in economic and national security to the energy drop that would be created by this shift, and there appears to be almost no downside other than the initial startup cost of purchasing the newer bulb, which would still drive some nubmer of people onto the older ones. It makes perfect sense for the government to mandate these things. I can't believe I am taking this side of this argument, but, I am. I don't think the market should be manipulated to the point where it always gives the result most beneficial to the country. I think regulation of business is there to keep elements of the economy from derailing horribly, but that is a different hurdle. And believe me, I do agree that ultimately this is something that will benefit the country as a whole. But then, so would banning alcohol. Or putting regulators on cars so they can't go more than 75 mph. Or mandating that all people get annual checkups at the Doctor. Do you want to do any of that? There is a line there. I think this crosses it, though just by a bit. We live in a country where we get more freedom than most, and we live with some negative consequences for that.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 12:14 PM) No. By far his most influential year was 2003. That was the year he made the decision that defined his presidency and probably the next 20 years of American foreign policy. Not sure I agree. I mean, I guess you could say 2001, or 2002, or 2003, or 2004 are all pretty close. But 2004 he won re-election, after everything that went on. That was HUGE on all sorts of fronts. 2003 the Iraq War started, I know, that's even bigger in some ways. But 2004, that was the culminating moment for his policies, I think.

QUOTE(sayitaintso @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 10:47 AM) Ozzie kept finding ways to put in GrindERSTAD last year, so don't underestimate his ability to play crap players on a daily basis. Ozzie Grinderstad. At this point, I think Ozzie is mildly annoyed with Uribe. Not really the same.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 12:11 PM) If that is the standard, how could it not be GW Bush? Has anyone had a bigger impact on the world? It was Bush - in 2004. Which was his biggest influential year, I think. Well, maybe 2001. But 2004 was a solid choice.

By the way, something to consider here about the law versus the rules of MLB: Things like ex post facto protection cover the application of federal and state law. They do NOT cover the enforcement of workplace rules - and that is what Selig would be doing here. Therefore, regardless of what your personal view is on the Constitutional ex post facto clause or any other such thing, Selig can do whatever he pleases as far as penalizing players. He could ban them all for life if he wanted to, and there would be no remedy for the players in any criminal court. And ex post facto does not fly in civil court (per, again, one of my links). The only issue here really is how far Selig will go. He COULD go as far as he wants.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 11:17 AM) And from Northsides own damn site, god I f***ing hate laziness: http://sol.lp.findlaw.com/2000/seling.html At least im being paid for this. increasing retroactively the penalty for a prohibited act. So yes they can be penalized as they would have been when they committed the act, but you cant rewrite the penalty. Sorry for saying that they had to have "knowledge of the penalty", I meant that if there is a penalty you cant retroactively change it. Thats why asked what the penalty was in 1992, because that was the law they had knowledge of. IE Back between 1992 and 2005 the first offense was not a suspension. You cant go back and time to change the penalty to be now a 50 game suspension. I cited that specifically to address your incorrect use of "ex post facto". Note that the site I went and found (lazy man that I am) specifically tells you what ex post facto covers - and it STILL DOESN'T cover what you said it did: that knowledge of penalty is required. Or did you already forget what you posted? Oh, and, here is that smoking gun about steroids you were looking for. It also covers any controlled substance without a valid perscription. That would include HGH, I believe.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 11:59 AM) This is a much, much, much better choice than the copout after copout after copout that has made up the last 6 years. I actually liked 2006's too.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 11:53 AM) An interesting part of the new energy bill... http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/e...ght-bulbs_N.htm I'm all for CFL's, but I don't see why the government should be mandating it. Believe it or not, I agree with you. There is a difference between the government incentivizing people (via tax breaks or credits, etc.) to move in a desired direction, and outright killing off something. I don't think I like that provision - even though it will probably benefit all of us down the line.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 10:37 AM) When was HGH banned? Because my understanding is 2005, not 1992.... The Cream was banned by the FDA in 2003, not sure what baseball's rule says on steroids say but my understanding is that FDA ban is what triggers the MLB ban. Perhaps actually read my post before you start spouting off? Now if you want to go after players caught for anabolic steroids, prescription drugs, go ahead. Also a key part of ex post facto, which you conveniently glossed over is that they must know the PENALTY. What was the penalty for taking steroids in 1992? I dont believe it was being suspended from baseball for life. So yes, if you completely take my post out of context and say that I argued anabolic steroids were ex post facto. But I pretty clearly said "some substances", ie HGH. Which is what many of the Mitchell report are being accused of. I figured my audience of fellow baseball enthusiasts would know these facts. Oh here is an article about how in 2005 the police entirely changed: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2224832 If baseball wants to penalize players on the pre-2005 scale (10 game suspensions), for taking drugs that were illegal prior to 2005, I dont think anyone would really have a problem with it. Well actually the first offense was no suspension prior to 2004.... Ah, I see you changed your post. If there was a specific penalty that did not involve discretion by Selig, then you are correct that acts during that period can only be penalized at those levels. No one argued otherwise, that I have seen.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 10:37 AM) When was HGH banned? Because my understanding is 2005, not 1992.... Perhaps actually read my post before you start spouting off? Now if you want to go after players caught for anabolic steroids, prescription drugs, go ahead. Also a key part of ex post facto, which you conveniently glossed over is that they must know the PENALTY. What was the penalty for taking steroids in 1992? I dont believe it was being suspended from baseball for life. So yes, if you completely take my post out of context and say that I argued anabolic steroids were ex post facto. But I pretty clearly said "some substances", ie HGH. Which is what many of the Mitchell report are being accused of. I figured my audience of fellow baseball enthusiasts would know these facts. There was a post made here a few days back that made it clear that ALL performance-enhancing substances were banned in '92. I think Balta posted it. In any case, I do not know when/if HGH was specifically mentioned. Ex post facto does not require you know the penalty - you are simply wrong about this. Here are three different citations for that definition, none of which stipulate pre-knowledge of a penalty. You still don't seem to get what it means, which is amazing to me. If we use your argument that a person must know the exact penalty at stake for a given crime, virtually every criminal could get off. In reality of course, case law is very clear on one fact - ignorance of the law is not a valid defense for breaking it. Its kind of funny you now decide you just meant HGH. If HGH were considered OK by baseball before 2005, then I agree no one should be penalized for acts before then. But I get the impression that all performance enhancers were covered. I'll go find that post.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 10:30 AM) If Uribe is on the team, there will be no platoon. Ozzie will plant him at 2nd base, and Richar will whither and die on the vine. Let's hope not. That would be just about stupid. I don't think it will happen. I don't think Ozzie was too happy with Juanny the Tazmanian Devil by the end of last year.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 10:01 AM) Well Ill go ahead and back Pratt on this one, Whitesoxfan101, No this has nothing to do with "if some one else jumped off a bridge would you." No one is saying that what these players did was "Okay because some one else did it." The argument is: The Hall of Fame has never penalized players for cheating before, baseball has purposefully subverted drug enforcement and even promoted drug use, baseball has made millions and "saved itself" on the back of the drug use, and now baseball wants to play the holier than thou card. It isnt about if other people did it, its okay, its about basic ideas of justice. An ex post facto law is basically the most unjust law, it was so repulsive to our founders that in Article 9, limits on Congress, it is explicitly listed as prohibited. These players were not caught by baseball. They were not punished by baseball. There are some questions as to what exact rules were even in place for baseball for certain substances. To go back and punish players now with rules that were never there, with penalties they had no idea they might face, is ex post facto. It goes against the basic notion of justice, that you should have notice of the crime and the consequences of it. For an attorney, your understanding of the phrase "ex post facto" seems a little odd. Steroids were banned by baseball in 1992 or so, and further, it was per se illegal to use or possess them without a validly-acquired perscription. Therefore, they broke the rules AND the law. If the law or the rule were put in place AFTER the act, then it would be ex post facto. All that said, I actually do agree with the general idea that the focus should be on preventing future acts. The Mitchell report is causing just that, it seems - we are being told that testing will be tougher now. But we shall see how far it actually goes.

QUOTE(scenario @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 10:02 AM) Good intel iamshack. It seems logical, but since Payton just turned 35 years old I have a hard time imagining the Sox would actually consider it. But, since the O's probably need a shortstop, it seems like a reasonable destination for Uribe... Is there someone else on their roster who may be of interest to us? The best we can hope for from BAL for Uribe is someone NOT on their roster. A prospect of some kind. The Sox won't get any high end guys, but a mid-level prospect with a little potential perhaps. And I'd be pretty happy with that. As it stands, I get the impression the Sox are planning to platoon Uribe and Richar at 2B.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 09:11 AM) That article is trash, as is anybody who argues steroid use is ok because everybody did it. This goes back to the most basic point of common sense, would you jump off a bridge just because everybody else did? Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, is it really necessary to call a poster's article trash? He put a lot of thought and effort into it. I don't agree with it either, but I wouldn't call it "trash". Or did you not realize that GP wrote it?

I think its an excellent choice. Not because he's a great man, but because of his huge impact on the world. That is the criteria as I understand it.

New polls for this week are showing that the Huckabee run may be coming back down to earth... New Iowa poll by Insider Advantage shows Romney taking the lead back in Iowa from Huckabee, and Giuliani is just not even on the radar... Romney: 28% Huckabee: 25% Thompson: 11% McCain: 7% Paul: 6% Giuliani: 5% One new NH poll this week too, this from CNN, shows Romney's lead to be stable in the 10-15 point area (where most polls have been for some time)... Romney: 34% McCain: 22% Giuliani: 16% Huckabee: 10% Paul: 5% Thompson: 1% And in SC, Rasmussen showing that Romney comes back to tie Huckabee... Huckabee: 23% Romney: 23% Thompson: 12% McCain: 12% Giuliani: 11%

Two new Iowa polls out, both showing Obama leading. He has had a lead on each of the last 3 polls published, and 4 of the last 6 (along with a tie, and a Clinton +3). Also of note, Edwards seems to be picking up a little steam too. Results... ABC/Wash Post, 12/13-17: Obama: 33% Clinton: 29% Edwards: 20% Richardson: 8% Biden: 4% Insider Advantage, 12/16-17: Obama: 27% Edwards: 26% Clinton: 24% Nothing new in NH this week, but, South Carolina has a new one out, showing a tie... Rasmussen, 12/16: Clinton: 33% Obama: 33% Edwards: 17% Biden: 4% Richardson: 2% Most recent 2 week poll averages for each of the first 3 caucus/primary states actually being considered (ignoring Zogby and Fox polls)... IA: Obama +3.5 over Clinton (6 polls) NH: Clinton +1.0 over Obama (3 polls, I removed the Fox poll) SC: Clinton +1.8 over Obama (5 polls)

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 05:52 PM) http://www.suntimes.com/business/702073,coal121807.article sounds like a good idea I was pretty psyched when I read that. Still a fossil fuel, so not the best option... but if it can do what they say it can, its certainly something worth doing during this century.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Dec 16, 2007 -> 08:01 PM) Official trailer for Dark Knight now online: http://atasteforthetheatrical.com/deathtrap/default.htm I downloaded the high quality version, and watched it a few times. Noticed something interesting... The Chicago shots are not in their complete version yet. Notice that the shots are all "naked" - they haven't been Gotham-ized yet. No CGI scrubbing. Part of me hopes they stay that way, but I don't think they will.

With the GOP field being in such disarray it seems... Romney leading NH, Huckabee leading IA, Giuliani leading nationally and McCain nipping at everyone's ankles... this may be Paul's moment. Still a very long shot, but... with those millions he keeps raking in, he could easily afford an all-out campaign assault on Iowa right now. As the shine comes off Huckabee, and the big three struggle to get about 20% with McCain and others taking another 20%, that leaves room for a shocker. Paul has been as high as 10% in Iowa in some polls, so getting 20% if he puts on a furious rush is not completely impossible.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 06:27 PM) Do you have a problem that almost only American athletes are going to suffer becasue the probe did not look into South America? Do you have a probelm that for some of these athletes who are not national citizens, they can return to their home country to take some of these drugs legally? Where is the justice in that? That's why the next step needs to be better testing with near-zero advance notice. Do you think that no rule or law should ever be enforced unless there is a 100% airtight perfect enforcement solution available?

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 03:28 PM) I guess, technically, when Paul loses the GOP primary and gets the Libertarian nomination he isn't running as an independent. Well, that's true, but I think Paul put it (in one of the debates) that he is running for the GOP nomination, and that he won't seek the office without that. Or something to that effect.

QUOTE(SoxFanInDallas @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 03:03 PM) I am not sure you 'get' my point. I am that as an excuse. What MY issue is is that the Mitchell Report is a 'sliver' (Sen. Mitchell's words) of the problem that existed in baseball. What is going to happen is that HOF voters are going to NOT vote in Clemens and Bonds or anyone else noted in this report. As the Senator said, it is a SLIVER of the problem. Owners, commissioners, etc. perpetuated the problem. So, net effect is that during a period of time going back to the 70's and 80's when players were using amphetamines, etc., steroids started to also enter the picture. While this was happening, the whole league was turning its back on the problem. So, I have a problem that a guy like Clemens will likely not make the HOF, but there are guys that will not have been identified that may have shot themselves up weekly, but just happened to not get their stuff from the guys that cooperated with the investigation. Welcome to how laws are enforced. You never, ever get everyone. You get as many as you can, and the risk of getting caught cuts down the number of future rule-breakers. That will never of course cause a complete cessation of that rule or law being broken - just reduce it. That is what Mitchell is trying to do, with this first big step. Others will come along and, hopefully, further the effort. But for now, I have no problem with Clemens or Bonds being penalized for breaking the law and the rules of baseball. The "but Mommy, Jimmy does it too!" excuse holds no sway with me (in fact, better that Clemens points out Jimmy so he can be penalized too). And judging by the fan reaction in the public to this, a significant portion of the fan base agrees. As far as the HOF is concerned, those folks who are being seriously considered will be put under the microscope. Its unlikely that, for example, Clemens is kept out, but Maddux is let in without anyone giving him a second look. His records will be dug into by someone too, before his name comes up on the ballot.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 03:18 PM) He should run as a Libertarian. ... in the event that Republican primary voters select a candidate other than Congressman Paul in February of 2008, the Libertarian National Committee urges Congressman Ron Paul to seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party to be decided in Denver, Colorado during Memorial Day weekend of 2008. http://www.lp.org/fp/article_546.shtml QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 03:19 PM) He would be a perfect fit for Unity08. He has said repeatedly he won't run as an independant. Of course, candidates have been known to change their minds. A Paul/Bloomberg or Bloomberg/Paul ticket would probably get a lot of support.