NorthSideSox72

Anyone else struck by the parallel between this thread, and the one about the Virginia house rep spouting fear of Islam? Maybe we can all just relax, and be a wee bit more tolerant of people who may have different beliefes than us. Different is not bad. And besides, as was pointed out earlier, I am thinking Santa is a far cry from religion. No offense, Mr. G.

Yet again, an idiot becoming what he hates.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2006 -> 07:56 AM) Interesting follow question that goes to the "illegals do the jobs that no one wants" arguement. One of the plants which was raided is taking applications, and had applicants lined up "out the door". http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/loca...5215724,00.html Reading that article, it seems in this case that this was more about rescuing the community and the company than the fact that immigrants were somehow blocking others from jobs. And before anyone starts in, I'm a proponent sending all illegal immigrants packing, and severe penalties on companies who hire them. The above is just an observation, and I'm just saying that this article does not indicate that immigrants are not doing the less wanted jobs. They often are.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 04:33 PM) It'd be a good idea in principle, but if nothing else, Denver is significantly larger than Albuquerque, and I'll almost guarantee that the convention-facilities in Denver are going to be several steps above those in Albuquerque. Just did a brief bit of google work, and we're talking about a convention hall with over 3x as much space in Denver, 7300 hotel rooms within walking distance as opposed to 900, etc. If the facilities aren't there, that makes it really hard to hold a convention. That's true. I've actually done conventions in both cities, and both have god facilities, but I am not surprised that ABQ is smaller. ABQ also has a much less condensed downtown area, few hotels within a few blocks as you said. Denver, in the last decade or two, has really ramped up its downtown area.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 04:08 PM) Denver is BY FAR the better choice, but there are a couple things in the way, most of them stupid. The party insiders seem to have a habit of favoring New York, because a lot of them are there anyway, and a lot of them could make a lot of money on it. Denver also has had a bit of a problem with not-having enough Union hotels or something like that, which would certainly annoy some Dems. If they don't wind up in Denver, they're out of their minds. The West is where the future of the Dem party lies right now. If they're not holding it in New Orleans, then Denver is the obvious other choice. Actually, that reminds me. Another interesting choice might be New Mexico, specifically Albuquerque or Santa Fe. NM is going blue, there is a huge Hispanic population, its a border state where immigrant policy is a hot topic, one of the candidates is Governor (which may be positive or negative), its a growing state... might be a good choice for them.

Dems are having a hard time deciding on a spot for the 2008 convention - Denver or New York. Given that Colorado and the mountain west generally are the new frontier for the Dems, and NY is either a given for the Dems or a given for Giuliani, I think Denver is the better choice for them. Plus after the GOP had it in the Big Apple in 2004, it seems like the Dems are just following them around.

Brownback has no shot period.

With the addition of Ross Gload, I predict the Royals win 103 games and the division crown. Then lose to the Sox (who won the wildcard) in the ALCS. Sox win the Series. Honestly, our pitching staff is pretty close to where I'd want to see it at this point - maybe one more good reliever will do it. We need a better LF and leadoff hitter (ideally one and the same). Other than that, I think the team is pretty much good to go. All of KW's moves so far have been positive for the team. But let's see what the team looks like in March.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 12:51 PM) It must be since few people seem to care or pay attention when minorities make racist comments. Again, if a white person makes racist comments you'd think the world was about to end for all the reaction to it. I'll rephrase. Its not alright WITH ME. Better?

QUOTE(NUKE @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 12:35 PM) This issue has a lot more to do with just McKinney and I only bring it up as an example. My overall question is why is it alright for blacks to make racist remarks and not whites? Recall that when the Seinfeld guy ( I forgot his name already ) made his famous rant against blacks it was preceeded by those 2 poor victims of his racist bile calling him a cracker and insulting him? How do people like Al Sharpton get away with calling Jewish people "evil interlopers" and still be revered by many as a crusader for civil rights? ( I cant keep a straight face when trying to put that name in the same sentence as anything positive ) Why is it alright to refer to white people as crackers and honkeys but if white people use racial slurs against blacks they are the personification of evil? Its not alright.

QUOTE(retro1983hat @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 11:48 AM) David Aaaaaaaardsma is not the door-closing reliever that makes me rest easy in the late innings. I sure hope KW isn't going to be Wyle E Coyote and after he assembles all the weapons for the year and pushes the plunger down ..... BOOOOM! It blows up in his face. Who is playing LF, CF, SS? And no, the correct answers should not be Pods, BA and the Tazmanian Devil Free Swinger Juan Uribe. Who said anything about Aardsma closing?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 09:46 AM) To be fair to Vilsack, TDS isn't exactly the place to answer a direct question. Yeah, but in this case, there were at least 2 questions that should be pretty easy to answer, and he didn't. For example, he was asked something like, "Our current President was a governor like you, and was questioned on his lack of national stage experience, what new do you bring to the table?", and he answered with what his Iraq policy would be. ???

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 20, 2006 -> 08:52 AM) Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. And without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishes. By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her self or himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher. The above courtesy of Greg Dunker and Jon Lowry - WKYX Radio - Paducah, KY Merry Christmas to you too, sarcasmo.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 11:17 PM) Gephardt's from Mizzou. I agree with you, but I could see either him or Obama or Clinton, and not really anyone else. BTW, Vilsack is expected to get crushed unless things changed. I watched the rerun of Vilsack's appearance on the Daily Show yesterday. I have to admit, I was fairly amused - he does seems to have a good sense of humor, and a quick wit. But, he also managed to avoid direct answers to almost all the questions asked of him. And he doesn't come off as terribly Presidential. I agree - not going to fare well.

And for anyone wondering what I was referring to re: Racism on the LEFT side... thanks to Nuke for the article to make my point.

A thread this weird could only happen in the doldrums of the offseason.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 05:39 PM) Khatami's party lost power because of frustration over the speed of which the government was moderating, and also the corruption involved in Khatami's party. Iran's people are poor. They aren't often thinking about the international risks or benefits of who they elect. I guarantee you that the vast majority of them are voting for people that they think will make survival easier. I think the lack of moderation in China creates a good example that can be applied to Iran. A population will accept a constrictive social policy in exchange for the hope of food in their belly and a roof over their head. Very true. But as more Iranians have more access to global information (which is happening whether their government likes it or not), the more global view they will have. They will see more readily the connection between their government's behavior on the world stage and consequences at home. That will change their viewpoint, to at least some extent.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 05:16 PM) Khatami WAS more moderate. Ahmadinejad does not reflect Iran at all. He just came along at a propitious time for an anti-US demagogue. Very true. Timing is everything. But the current dichotomy of leadership against the grain of the more moderate general populus won't last. As someone said earlier, akin to our own country in that way.

QUOTE(bmags @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 04:32 PM) well every bit of information i've read has shown how different the views of the iranian people are from that of the people who've been ruling them. They've consistently tried to elect in more moderate candidates. I've always had this feeling that if it was iran we went after instead of iraq, the rebuilding could have actually had a shot. I'd say that because of that moderation occurring in Iran's populace, and the increasing access to information, the problem may start to solve itself over time. There is at least a chance (how much of one I do not know) that the state will moderate from within.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 04:46 PM) Actually, you're the one who's totally wrong. The key word there is "Scheduled benefits". With Social security as it is currently structured, the "scheduled benefits" actually rise at a rate faster than that of inflation, so if inflation were 0 for the next 50 years, Social Security payments would still increase every year. If the worst case scenario in the Trustees prediction comes true, once the Social Security trust fund runs out, Social Security will still be able to pay out 85% of the "Scheduled benefits" at the time. But because Social Security grows faster than inflation, 85% of the Scheduled benefits 40 years from now is actually greater than 100% of the benefits now. Furthermore, there is still significant reason to doubt the "worst case scenario" projection, the exhaustion of the social security trust fund, because previous evidence has shown that the system is actually more stable than the projections indicate. In 1994, when they predicted when the trust fund would be exhaustsed, they predicted 2029. In 2004, they predicted the same even would happen in 2042, in other words, 12 years passed, and the exhaustion date moved 13 years into the future. How could this happen? Very simple...the Social Security administration in making those predictions assumes something like a 1.6-2% GDP growth per year. Any time that growth beats that number, more money comes into the system than was predicted, the date winds up moving farther into the future. In fact, if we average just over 2% GDP growth for the next 40 years, the Social Security trust fund NEVER goes bankrupt, and Social Security never misses a payment. Graphically, here's that same fact: The upper line on that graph is the "low cost" projection, the same one which has been consistently the most accurate for the last 10 years. This information is intriguing to me. Where did you get it?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 01:46 PM) It's pure speculation. That's all it is and all it ever will be. You guys are the ones doing this theoretical exercise. I'm saying that you don't have s*** to base it on other than pure rhetoric. Which doesn't amount to a hill of beans. We're just saying, based on what information we have, that we think its likely Gore would have done better. We do have s*** to base it on, its not rhetoric at all - its educated guessing. What's the harm?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 12:38 PM) This was an interesting read. I wonder what the causation and correlations really are, or if they are onto something. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1215/p09s01-coop.html Highly selective. I like the part about CO vs RI. Take a state with rapid economic growth PRIOR to 1996 anyway, especially in the tech sector (CO), and compare it to a state that has been heading down the economic drain for decades (RI). And then choose a one year change rate to compare? Then there is CA and NY, the two most urbanized states in the union. Big surprise that they have high taxes. I actually agree that, to an extent, lower taxes are better for the economy and can (when combined with other policies) help keep poverty minimized. But this article claiming direct correlation is pretty well ridden with holes.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 01:41 PM) That's my point. You are stepping out saying Gore would have been so much better, but there is absolutely nothing any of you can base that on. Its not "nothing" either. Its educated guessing. We know what Bush's policies have been, and they have been (on the whole) disastrous. We know what Gores policies would probably have been like, in the general sense. Therefore, we can take some educated guesses. They are not pulled out of nothing like the flip of a coin. but they are, yes, guesses.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 01:39 PM) Here's your assmuption based on a whole lof of nothing. We haven't had any successful attacks on us since. You are assuming that would be the case with Gore in office. I'm not willing to jump to that conclusion. Obviously its hard to say for sure. But my best guess is that Gore's foreign policy would not have created nearly the level of anger and hatred in the rest of the world directed our way. That may have allowed him to do a lot more to quell violence and gain enough Int'l support to actually fight a successful battle against violent extremists. Again, though, all guess work.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 19, 2006 -> 01:38 PM) Here's your assmuption based on a whole lof of nothing. YAS, everything said in reply to this theoretical question is assumptions based on a whole lot of nothing. Its just a what-if.