NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:34 AM) Ok, a HUGE Walmart just opened in Lockport. Starting pay is more like $10 per hour, and there are benefits available, for all. But hey, $6 per hour makes them seem $4 more evil that they really are. As for their 'blackmail' business practices, when you buy 80-90% of a companies entire production, you have leverage. It is up to the seller to find new customers so as not to put themselves into that position. I know 80% of business usually comes from 20% of your customers 9it is very true in my business), but when 80% of your business comes from 1 customer, you are just inviting future heartache. The $6 an hour was just an illustration that it is far different than $45. $10, fine. I wasn't really trying to make the $6 important. And you are definitely right about distributors, but that is really only the case if you chose it. You see, I think many companies WERE distributing to lots of people. Then, Walmart comes in and takes over the business in the area (which is fine), and says, OK, now we have 90% of your distribution. I am not saying its illegal either, by the way - just scummy.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:23 AM) So, who to believe -- a US senator with no reason to be biased or a scientist whose job depends on getting you to believe in global warming and giving him money to study it. Hmmmmm. Now that is hilarious. Who to believe? A Senator whos very nature is to be biased to his party, or a scientist actually in possesion of facts and evidence? And you would pick the Senator?! Amazing. Some people are so actively in denial about this that they would rather believe a Senator than a thousands of scientists in a matter of... science.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:15 AM) It has been many more times than just the 70's. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759 and A speech from Inhofe? I am sure there have been scares, and fearmongering, because that is unfortunately the nature of some people. But, at least right now, the hard scientific evidence is just so completely obvious and overwhelming that our climate is changing, that the only real debates worth having are when, how much, and what can we do about it.

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:10 AM) From the mid 70s to the mid 80s North America had some of the coldest winters on record. In January and February of 1977 there was an especially vicious cold snap, with heavy snow. The city of Buffalo was marooned for about a week. December 1981, December 1983 and especially January 1985 were extremely cold. Many record cold readings from these times, especially January 1985 still stand. A seasonal cold front known as the Siberian Express was constantly in the news and on weather maps during that era. The winter temperature averages for many North American cities, including Chicago were ratcheted down in the early 80s. Many environmentalists in that era were warning that we were surely on the cusp of a new Ice Age. I have an old tape of a show narrated by none other than Leonard Nimoy which gives graphic warning of an impending Ice Age. Weather patterns change gradually over time. If we were about to freeze in the 70s and 80s, we're not about to turn into a hot house now. You can agree or not with me, like me or not as a poster, but I never try to BS folks. Not on the internet, and not in real life either. That was an era of extremely cold winters, and yes we were warned of an impending Ice Age. The Global Warming propaganda machine would make Joseph Goebbels jealous. I do definitely remember the cold spells. No question about it. But like you say, weather patterns change gradually over time. That's why I'd be surprised if any significant number of actual scientists, who had actual evidence to back it up, were saying that it was a harbinger of an Ice Age. I do know that we have seen CO2 spiking since the middle of the 20th Century, so I suppose even in the 70's that the spike may have started to emerge. But pointing at some cold years and saying its an ice age is almost as silly as that Day After Tomorrow movie.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 09:06 AM) I don't recall any ice age threats back then either but I won't say they didn't occur. Science tends to get more advanced and accurate with time. I would feel more assurance that the scientific facts of today are more accurate than those from 1970, 1950, 1920, etc. Look at it from a medical standpoint. Would you feel that the advances in medicine are less accurate than what was known in 1960? I'd be more curious to see if it was a small handful of marginal scientists, versus a great majority of the climate science community, that was saying it.

I had no idea where to put this, so here it is. Nike has designed and produced a shoe model specifically for Native Americans, and will ONLY distribute them to native tribal groups and agencies. Profits will go into health care for American Indian tribes, reservations and individuals. Just thought it was worth pointing out - sometimes corporations do good.

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 08:49 AM) I just have one question. Were they right, wrong, or just kidding when they told me in the 70s and 80s that we were surely on the verge of a new Ice Age? Who told you that? I grew up during those decades, and I don't remember that being said. Not to say it wasn't, I just don't recall the discussion.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 08:39 AM) I agree. BTW, 7000 posts, congrats Jeez. I spend waaaaaay too much time here.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 25, 2007 -> 10:05 PM) I wish the GOP would regan control. the GOPerheads around here have been nuts since they lost. You want Donald Regan to run for the GOP nomination? He does have an impressive resume, but he died in 2003.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2007 -> 07:21 AM) Well early news in is that there has been a tentative agreement reached in the GM strike. One more thing I wanted to share is that I have seen the justification of Toyota and the like as they build cars in America, and pay American workers. Finally I found some numbers. If you include all compensation that both employees receive (wages, health care, pension, stock plans etc) the average Toyota worker makes $45 an hour. The average GM worker makes $73 an hour, when everything is factored in. I have asked before, and I will ask again, why is there no movement of people against Toyota, the way that there is against Wal-Mart. Really we are talking about the exact same business model and techniques. They both look for markets where they can under cut price and wages. They both are permanently removing higher paying jobs from the US. As a matter of a fact, looking at the numbers we should be more outraged at Toyota, because they are taking upper-middle class jobs (well heck upper class jobs according to some of the Dems) and replacing them with jobs that pay on average, with benefits included, about $60,000 LESS than the jobs they are offering. Where are the Stop Toyota campaigns? Where are the exposes on CNN? Where are the union protests? Why are they striking GM, when they should be striking Toyota? Seriously, I'd love to hear an explanation of why Toyota is immune. Wage pressure is a reality in every industry, but I do think that there is a big difference between Walmart and Toyota. At $45 an hour plus benefits, its just not in the same realm as $6 an hour and probably no benefits. Also, at least for me anyway, it isn't low wages or lousy benefits that bothers me about Walmart. Its their predatory and borderline blackmail business practices with their suppliers and with other competing businesses - those are the areas where I feel they cross the line.

This AG nomination was one of the best things to happen between Congress and the Prez since Bush took office. Lets hope that doesn't get derailed because a firm he worked at happens, among I am sure a very long client list, to represent at least one person who is unsavory at best.

A white supremecist named William White. You can't make stuff like this up. Some incidents bring out the best in people. This one seems to be bringing out the worst.

O'Reilly is a jackass in any case. I suppose one might take the comments as racist, I think maybe they are. But I guess, given the source, it doesn't much matter.

5-1 Sox lead, and Bannister doesn't make it out of the 1st inning. Sox seem to have his number (although, some of the hits were pretty lame).

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 25, 2007 -> 06:04 PM) I guess you are not familiar with a form of bear hunting popular in the south. Basically let the dogs out at dusk and start drinking beer. Soon you will hear the dogs on the scent of a bear. Jump in your truck, follow the radio tracking on your dog's collar, and wait for the bear to be treed by the dogs, walk up to the tree with the bear stuck up there. Draw lots for who gets the kill, and blast away. http://www.smarthunter.com/newsletter/black_bear_hunting.htm Like I said, I found it disgusting, but interesting that so many people would come to his defense. I just don't understand it. So that's disgusting, but still not nearly on the scale of torturing an animal for months or years. What is your point?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 25, 2007 -> 06:15 PM) I take things to extremes and you don't, ever. Right right right. Like the time you accused me of hating all Chicago coaches ignoring the fact that I Really, I just wanted to point out that Poreda did what is expected of him at that stage and it doesn't mean much of anything. You were talking about his dominance with one pitch as if it meant that he'd be able to carry that into the future. That simply isn't so. If Poreda can't develop good secondary pitches, he's going to grow up and be Matt Thornton. And I love Thornton's arm, or did before it lost some heat this year and hitters started lighting him up because they expected strikes, but that isn't a high ceiling. As 29 and others have pointed out, there is zero chance that Poreda was that successful with one pitch, even in Rookie ball. I am sure his other stuff needs work, but to say he doesn't have it is just not plausible given the results.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 25, 2007 -> 07:01 PM) It doesn't matter, that's what you people don't get. It WAS, and IS, and WILL BE, a part of the war on terror. Why is that SO hard to get? Why doesn't anyone want to admit that? Because it might make Bush partially right? It doesn't matter - it WAS a part of the war on terror, WMD's or not, because of the situation over there. The case was made VERY poorly, but it was a part of the larger war on terror. Period. In their mind it was part of their idea of the war on terror. In reality, by trying to mix the battle against terror with a greater push for a "changed" Middle East and a frankly colonialist bent, they went off the tracks and into Iraq. Now, because they created a nest for terrorists in Iraq, of course, terrorists showed up. In some twisted way, I suppose they like the idea of creating their own battleground. Too bad about that country we invaded and decimated though.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 25, 2007 -> 06:12 PM) <!--quoteo(post=1509612:date=Sep 25, 2007 -> 03:19 PM:name=NorthSideSox72)-->QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 25, 2007 -> 03:19 PM) <!--quotec-->So, Richardson is apparently making enough gains to make some other candidates get a little nervous. He is now in double digits in support in both Iowa and NH. Candidates have started pecking him about his Iraq troop withdrawal promise, which appears at odds with earlier statements that he may leave a few soldiers in the area. Things keep getting more interesting as we get nearer the first primaries. Richardson started running an ad today featuring left leaning bloggers talking about his Iraq policy. It's certainly an interesting thing to see as a campaign ad. Richardson's campaigners seem to be aware of something important - that they cannot catch the leaders being like a regular candidate. His first ads were those ones where he was in a fake job interview, and he actually used humor to get his face and name out there - something you almost never see among politicians. Here, is is trying to get attention from the new "connecteds" - bloggers, who will dictate a lot in this campaign, for better or worse. I actually don't necessarily agree with Richardson's particular Iraq escape plan, but I have to say I think he's been pretty impressive as a campaigner thus far.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 25, 2007 -> 06:13 PM) I didn't say that Mr. Bollinger said it. I said that Mr. Bollinger made the case for why we are there and that Iraq IS a war on terror - a point that quite a few Democrats don't want to concede... you know, the ones who say "it was all for oil, and Bush lied, and people died" and all the other cutesy stuff. Bush gets ridiculed for saying that we need to stick tough on the war on terror on a daily basis somewhere either in the media or by Congressional peckerheads looking for a soundbyte. Speaking of soundbites, I'm going back to my favorite thread... You keep turning one point into something else. Iraq was, and still is, a distraction from the war on terror. It is only not a part of it because they created such havoc in Iraq. So the one who say it was not about terror are right - but now, Iraq has become a battle ground in that fight. So no, Mr. Bollinger made no such case.

Interesting note - its Tuesday on the last week of the regular season, and not a single NL team has clinched a playoff birth yet.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Sep 25, 2007 -> 05:31 PM) I'm not too familiar with the Denver offenses that Griese led in Denver, but I can't imagine the talent around Griese being anywhere NEAR as good as it was in Denver. He's got no wide receivers, his backs can't pickup blitzes, the line is getting old and has been very hit-or-miss (mostly miss). The only thing Griese has on offense is a decent group of TEs (IMO -- I'm pretty fond of the Olsen/Clark combo). All the more reason to have an experienced QB like Griese in there.

So, Richardson is apparently making enough gains to make some other candidates get a little nervous. He is now in double digits in support in both Iowa and NH. Candidates have started pecking him about his Iraq troop withdrawal promise, which appears at odds with earlier statements that he may leave a few soldiers in the area. Things keep getting more interesting as we get nearer the first primaries.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 25, 2007 -> 04:59 PM) Why would you let Orton go esp. since he's not a FA? I clearly think you're right on letting Grossman walk, and either drafting or trading for one before the start of next season, but I can't see how it makes sense to give up on a 3rd rounder who's been sitting on the bench for the better part of 2 seasons now without at least giving him a shot to be a backup again next year. I guess I don't believe Orton is worth it, but, if he has another year under contract, then that's fine, keep him as a backup.

I'm hoping this means the club is going to overhaul the QB situation entirely. Let Griese run the team the rest of the year, let Grossman and Orton go at the end of the year. Draft QB's as much as possible, look at trades, and look for those backup QB's out there that have starting potential but that are blocked. Bring them all in next summer in camp, and let the best man win.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 25, 2007 -> 04:36 PM) His viewpoint that we need to stay there to fight the war on terror is what I equate to being "villified". And where did Mr. Bollinger say we should do that?