NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Dec 28, 2006 -> 09:42 AM) I don't know if every Senator did, but whoever was in a leadership position sure did. It is just a simple matter of doing the right thing. Reid is in charge now, and needs to be at certain things, such as a state funeral for an ex-President. The group could have gone on without him, and that would probably have been ok, but as it is, it just doesn't seem right. And no, I am not saying it will be Bush's fault, this is all Reid. Maybe he isn't used to responsibility having been the minority for so long? I certainly am not a defender of Reid. I think he was the wrong choice for the role, myself. He is just way too much into the game in Washington. I do agree, the Senate majority leader would seem to be someone who needs to be there - its the right thing to do.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 10:28 PM) Not to interject politics into this, but why is Reid, Durbin and 3 others still going on a junket to South America when an ex-President has died? Isn't it incumbent upon those in power in our government to attend such things as a funeral of an ex-President? And it isn't like they were out of the country when it happened, according to Reid it would have been 'too difficult to cancel'. Bull. And if some South American President or Dictator got mad at a cancelled meeting due to a funeral, oh well. I honestly don't know what the normal expectations for something like that is. Did every Senator and House Rep attend Reagan's funeral? I really don't know. QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 28, 2006 -> 03:04 AM) It'll be Bush's fault. Just wait and see. Ah, the victim mentality again. Did we really need to go here in a thread about Ford's death?

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Dec 28, 2006 -> 02:09 AM) 5: I'm an alcoholic (Not a dangerous one, though. I'm the most fun drunk that's ever lived). 4: I love to smoke weed (I think only Rowand44 knows). 3: I have a tattoo of a severed head on my left shoulder. 2: I actually like watching beheadings at www.ogrish.com (Yes, I know, I'm sick). 1: I have a crush on Steff. I love it when she goes off on somebody. And she's just really intelligent and smart overall. Gotta love the 2am confessional.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 04:47 PM) Oh, its exactly what the Democrats should do if they want to do the right thing, but unfortunately, the other side may be in such a mood where they'll take anything the Dems do that one would consider "right" and use it to try to make sure they get back in power in 08. I don't see that happening. What the GOP will be able to sneak through is stuff that moderates and independents are good with, just as the article states. But that won't cause some massive shift in momentum. I like this not just because its "right", but because it promotes some of the bipartisan and apolitical causes I'd like to see moved forward.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 04:44 PM) I think a lot of you are forgetting the issue which is going to dominate the 08 race even more than it dominated the 06 race...the debacle in Iraq. As things currently look, it looks pretty likely that by 2008 there will be more U.S. troops in Iraq, not less, and the situation will probably be even worse, as it is getting worse every day, week, and month right now. That's going to be a hell of an albatross on a lot of these candidates, especially those who were in Congress when the vote on it happened. McCain has been even more hawkish on Iraq than Bush, and Bush is about to prove that his "more troops" strategy he's been advocating for a year won't do anything. Hillary is going to have the same noose around her neck, since she voted for the damn thing. It may even hurt Edwards, even though he's come out and called for the beginning of a draw-down, since he voted for it too. That gives a real advantage to some of these outsiders, the governors or Obama (since he wasn't in Congress in 02 to vote on it). Beyond that, a lot of it may sort itself out based on what they're saying after another year of casualties and no progress. You can talk about splits between fiscal and social conservatives or whether the liberal elites will back Hillary over Obama, but I think what's going to decide these primaries, and this election, will be the question "How the Hell do we get out of Iraq?". 2006 was just a preview of it. No doubt that will be issue #1.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 03:54 PM) Dr. Johnny Fever proved this theory wrong. Thank you very much. Who?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 04:28 PM) See, here's why they don't let me write headlines and sub-headlines. Link. Headline: Democrats pledge to stop Congressional abuses of power Sub-headline: Republicans pledge to take full advantage of Democrats' good will. Headlines aside, that all sounds like good news to me.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 01:27 PM) Yes, there is some expansion of supply outside of Opec, but first of all, it is not nearly on the scale of the potential drop in OPEC production, and secondly, it's in many cases not even enough to keep up with demand growth (China's oil demand is expected to grow by something like 7% this year, and those estimates on Chinese growth keep winding up on the low side) Oh I am not saying its enough to keep up with growth. Just that it is part of the equation.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 12:51 PM) Til they find hybrid diesels. I think biodiesel is a big path to the future. Anything that makes use of efficient biomass (switchgrass and such) will likely be big in the future. Corn will subside as a crop for multiple reasons, and those higher energy crops will replace it. 50 years from now, the majority of Iowa's fields of gold will be something other than corn and soy. I just meant that "clean" diesel is a bridge.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 12:43 PM) No one ever listens to me... We heard you. Its just official now. Oh wait, here you go... Feel better?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 12:41 PM) You're assuming that "Fixing their oil infrastructure" is the actual solution to the problem here. In reality, that may not be the case at all. Like most countries in the Middle East, Iran has been pumping on its oil stores for nearly a century now, and has been doing so for decades with no major new resources discovered. It may very well be that Iran's production has fully peaked, and no additional measure of technology will be able to bring Iran's production back up. That would leave basically Saudi Arabia and Iraq as about the only countries in the world who aren't on the verge of going over the other side of the peak and seeing production declines...and Saudi Arabia may be right on the cusp also (they have never been very truthful about their supply estimates). If it is about drying up existing tables, then that is definitely a more expensive ball of wax. But the possibility is still there. In terms of new oil fields, keep in mind too that many countries NOT in OPEC are increasing their internal production dramatically, or are about to - Russia and China come to mind for example. That will also have an effect.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 12:39 PM) But Daimler Chrysler is becoming a pioneer in clean diesel technology which is going to really help with flexfuel/biodiesel conversion in the US and will go a long way towards helping us become energy independent. That is their chosen route, yes. Daimler Benz was always a market leader in diesels, so naturally they will continue down that road. But that is really an earlier bridge tech thing, which will peak and end more quickly (but earlier) than hybrid engines.

21stCenturySouthSider or... SouthSideroftheThirdMilennium That way, you only have to change your name once in an eon.

QUOTE(103 mph screwball @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 12:30 PM) I'd like to see an open competition between him and Uribe this spring. Uribe could use a fire under his behind and Cintron deserves a shot. Best player win. I know Uribe can play near gold glove D and makes more money, but if he is the better player, let him prove it. Uribe can be that right handed bat off of the bench and be a good super sub. Somehow, I feel this idea will get me scolded here at Soxtalk. I'm not saying dump Uribe, I'm saying let him earn his job. Either way, glad to have Cintron back. I like your thinking on this.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 12:10 PM) Nice number for Cintron... I wonder what the Crede negotiations look like right now? It has been awful quiet. Good signing. I was wondering the same thing about Joe. That illogical little superfan in my head keeps saying "Maybe they're doing a long term contract for Crede!". I really want to get my Crede jersey signed when I go down to ST this spring, and I don't want it to be his last year (or worse, have him not be there at all). That was the fan talking, so don't try to apply logic to it please.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 11:54 AM) I wouldn't be shocked to see BOTH of them nominated. now where is that vomit smiley...

Good article about the Bears' move of the game time this Sunday. Seems to be a pain in the arse for all involved.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 11:48 AM) The electorate doesn't decide the candidates, the parties do. I believe the polarity will continue. And if the parties fail to serve the electorate, they don't get their party into power. I am not convinced one way or the other yet, but I am leaning towards us seeing one or both candidates being more towards center than their party lines.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 11:42 AM) Just like Democrats always appeal to their base to get nominated, the GOP do the same thing. Personally, I'd like to see both sides swing toward the middle. You're definitely right, that tends to happen in the primaries, then each candidate tries to swing to the middle before the big election. And of course, that is a really stupid way to do things. 2008, though, I think we may actually see relatively centrist candidates from both parties. The electorate is tired of the polarity. Just a feeling I have.

1. I've been to 41 of the 50 states, lived in 4 of them, and own property in 2 (soon to be 3). 2. My first month of posting in Soxtalk (Sep 2005), I was posting from India, on a business trip. 3. I was, in a very small and bizarre way, involved in the Jon Benet Ramsey murder investigation (some of you know this already, I think) 4. I believe I am the only graduate of Iowa State who posts regularly on Soxtalk. 5. I am the only member of my family who is a Sox fan - the rest are Cubbies.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 11:15 AM) It's for this very reason that I made my post about McCain. The conservative base is not happy with Bush's policies and won't let a moderate GOP'er get nominated. Religious/social crusaders? What is that all about? Do you get that straight from the secular progressive handbook? Are you trying to stir up the Muslims? I wasn't refering to anything religious whatsoever. I have to say again, I like the secular progressive thing. Anyway, YAS, I was trying to point out the divide in the GOP. You do see what I am referring to, right? i think its just true that there are those two factions in the Republican party right now, and I am wondering which faction will ultimately have the party line when it comes time for a nomination.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 10:49 AM) What would Saudi Arabia gain by helping Iran produce more oil, and keeping them in power? If Iran's production collapses, the price of energies on the open market skyrockets, while the Saudis are the only country in OPEC with excess capacity. Its about control. Saudis come in, like any business to another failing business, and tell them they'll take over operations. They will help get infrastructure good enough to function (though not great - have to be careful there), and tell Iran that they will get a large part of the profit. Meanwhile, the Saudi (or whomever, Saudi is just one possible) company brings a chunk of the profit home, and gains greater control of the oil market than they had before. Its an investment, which would generate income in the mid-term, and control in the long term. Or, same scenario, but instead, a global oil conglomerate. They could do something similar, although, they would be even more hated than the Saudi umbrella company would be.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 10:24 AM) The only issue with a scenario that has the Saudis helping Iran is that they can't stand each other. You have the basic Arab-Persian divide and the Sunni-Shia divide. So any aid would be far-fetched, IMO. I think we need to look at it differently. Even countries that hate each other will cooperate for financial survival (Iran) or financial gain (Saudi Arabia). The leaders in that part of the world talk a lot of political smack, but they all know that oil is everything. They are business leaders first.

RIP, Gerald.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 27, 2006 -> 09:57 AM) OH! Good call. I really liked John Edwards last time around. However, if Edwards is smart, he should bring in Obama as VP. That gives Obama time to really learn the ropes and prep himself to run for President once Edwards is done. Edwards is at this point (IMO) the most electable of the Dem candidates, in a national election against the GOP. That said, I do not think he'd make the best President.