NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 01:22 PM) I'd love to see Congressmen put on the same restrictions that I am as an employee in the trading sector. I agree. I can do very little trading or picking of any kind. I can pick funds in 401k's and IRA's, and I can have blind funds of various types... but I can't pick any individual stocks or ETF's, or invest in anything OTC or exotic, without prior clearance by the firm for inside or conflict of interest.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 01:20 PM) Mitt was never in Washington anyway. I more meant the figurative Washington.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 10:34 AM) Sox need the General Manager to have a bounce back decade. A bounceback from the best decade of baseball the Sox have seen in a century or so? I realize its fun with the hyperbole and all, but let's deal in reality here. What he needs to bounce back from is 2-3 years of disappointing teams and a few bad trades. The decade as a whole has been pretty successful.

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 10:56 AM) That doesn't really refute my point. Obviously, since he's running for president, he hasn't cut all of his political ties. But, really, I just posted the original comment and link to the article because I'm kind of sick of all of our political figures being a little out of touch with most Americans. I'd guess that Mitt has done everything to the letter of the law financially, but that doesn't mean that I have to like the laws. Given Mitt's ties to Bain and other Wall Street entities, if he was going to get privileged info, that is the route he would take. Not Washington. Also, much of his investments are now in blind trusts of one kind or another, so he's probably been away from most decision-making on that money for some time.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 09:50 AM) FWIW there was a recent study that found hedge funds and private equity provide fantastic returns for managers but, on aggregate, mediocre returns for investors. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/0..._investors.html This isn't commentary on Romney's investments, and I don't expect that he's doing something illegal or dishonest to earn those returns. Taken as a whole, no doubt this is true. These are all spaces where a lot of firms post erratic results, and many went under in the 2007-2010 period. But if you look at the performance of, say, the top 5% of hedge funds - where cap requirements and entry are closed for most people but not a guy like Mitt - the returns can average 20-30%, year in and year out, even in the long term.

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 09:38 AM) Pretty much. There are hundreds of hedge funds and proprietary trading funds out there that make those kind of returns pretty consistently. Some VC firms can do even better on select investments. And if you balance between funds well enough, you can do even better. These are fully legal vehicles. Mitt Romney isn't picking stocks himself anyway, and probably his investment advisors aren't either. They are investing in hedge funds, VC firms, and possibly they have partnership in a prop unit or two.

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 07:37 AM) Mitt's kids set for life. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-kids-...-184900265.html Mitt's making a 26% return on his investments and paying 10% in taxes. Maybe he can save our country. I'm sure all his stock plays are legit - no insider info, just good sound research and good timing. I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at with this post. Are you just saying that because he makes a 26% return, that must mean he's doing something fishy?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 02:10 PM) Damn. DA is taking on 2k5 and Balta at the same time? His post-count will be 25,000+ by the end of the day. It is also an utterly pointless battle. DA has shown for years that, on anything regarding Jerry Reisndorff, he is not going to deal in reality. JR is king of his Sox world, omnipotent and cheap.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 01:05 PM) If you're talking about realistic paintings, I think it's easy to make claims on skill. One reason Da Vinci is hailed as such a master was his deep understanding of human anatomy that allowed him to draw and paint the human form more accurately than someone who lacks that knowledge. NOVA recently had an episode dedicated to a piece that may be a "lost" Da Vinci that described some of the skill apparent in the work: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/mystery-masterpiece.html A couple of examples were eyelashes that were as thin as a human eyelash and not very discernible without magnification and how the eyes were drawn correctly, set higher in the sockets and primarily showing the bottom 1/3 of the eye. You can't ever take away someone's subjective, personal enjoyment of any piece of art, literature, film, photography etc. But you can discuss the various technical and artistic merits of a piece in a somewhat objective way. That's pretty much what I said - you can discuss skills at that level. What is entirely subjective is what the art does for a person, which to me, is the entire point of art.

So, looks like (with both graphs), we're now back to about where we were when Obama was inaugurated. If he can push those lines notably below that point, he's going to be awfully tough to beat in November.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 12:57 PM) Buehrle was never made an offer. He even said he would have stayed for less, and apparently told the White Sox as much. No offer means they didn't want him back. As for JR's power, I believe you are mistaken. I was always told JR had the final say, and Lee Stern seemed to confirm that when promoting a book a year or so ago. MB was never made an offer, that is true, but of course misses the reality and the full picture, as noted by other posters. As for JR, I am sure he does have final say, WITHIN BOUNDARIES as I noted. So he does not have "all the power", as you stated previously. He can't just go spend big extra money beyond what the team can afford, without getting some sort of approval from the voting partners.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 12:28 PM) I think with the really abstract stuff you have a point, but for lack of the better word "normal" art there definitely is good/bad and right/wrong.... that maybe a casual person wouldn't notice but someone who lives for art would. Just like movies... some people enjoy bad movies...that's fine and all you like what you like but end of the day it's a s***ty movie. I disagree. I think you can make some sort of right/wrong assessments about the skill needed or used to create it, but the exprience is entirely about the beholder. And even the skill arguments aren't as possible as a lot of people state, at least in my view.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 12:47 PM) He has final say on everything. He has all the power. The problem I had with the Buehrle situation wasn't that they didn't offer him a blank contract but that he wasn't offered a contract at all. Well, first of all, as I understood it, they did in fact talk with his agent and give an indication of wanting him back. When his agent came back near the end and gave them a chance against Florida's offer, they passed. But that is because it was an offer so far outside of what the Sox or anyone else wanted to go with MB. Second, no, he does not have all the power. He has the power to do certain things, but the partnership dictates, within some boundaries (who knows what those are), what they have to work with.

Iowa State just misses the new AP Top 25 poll. Harvard is at 25, Notre Dame at 26, Iowa State at 27. ISU plays @ OSU, then vs A&M this week. If they can win both, someone above them will probably falter, and we may see the Cyclones ranked for the first time in, what... 6 years or so?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 4, 2012 -> 10:35 PM) And that's a great reaction...I enjoy art...I do...but what bothers me is that some people think that they know the correct way to speak about it...implying that there is a "right" and a "wrong" way, or perhaps, a "sophisticated" and an "unsophisticated" way. I'm with you. I like art a lot, and I know a little, but the idea that there is a right/wrong or objective good/bad of any art is laughable. You may be able to see various level of skill in the creation of it, but the enjoyment is entirely personal and subjective. We have stuff up in our house because we like it, and in a lot of cases, because it tells a story or reminds us of a place we went or something important in our lives.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 12:05 PM) They didn't! The only source for this claim is one article in the Detroit News that makes this claim completely unattributed, not even to the usual "anonymous sources." OK. I have no idea either way, and I was fine with both ads. I was just frustrated I got dragged into a fight where people were characterizing my views as something they weren't.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 11:46 AM) You do realize that the person you are referring to a "owner" (I'm assuming it's JR) owns less than 15% of the team. It's not like the Bulls where he owns controlling interest and can do basically whatever he wants. He is the managing partner of the Sox but needs to go to the whole board to make big decsions like"let's lose money this year." In fact, last I knew, JR isn't even the largest single stakeholder, monetarily. He is the representative of the partnership to the outside world.

I've said since 2010, and am sticking with it. 2011, the expectations for Peavy should have been to pitch part or most of the season, and just survive enough to get his arm stretched out again. That's it. Anyone expecting he was going to be back to his old self or even in the territory, have no concept of history. This is how major arm (or arm-related here) surgeries work, the pattern shows itself over and over again. They miss a season. The next season they are back, putting in innings, but usually are nowhere near their old selves, and can't quite put in the full innings. It is the 2nd season AFTER - 2012 in this case - where you get to see if the surgery really worked. If it did, he starts being effective, and pitching 150+ innings. This is the season to see if he has a career left.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 11:21 AM) They DID make an ad stating that they didn't take a bailout, and were pressured by the Obama Admin to take it down. How's that for a level playing field. Ford's was blatant and direct about the topic, so not the same. But, for the record, I thought it was BS that ObamaCo made an issue of it (if they even did). Look, I'm just saying, I thought the Chrysler ad was good, and I didn't see anything IN THAT AD that said anything about one party or the other. That's all. Please don't try to paint me as some sort of Obama protector.

Also probably belongs in the Buster.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 09:50 AM) I like them too...especially the ads for the 300 with the Jay-Z remix of Heart of A City...and I dig the 300, but I just wish they would realize their logo/badge looks cheap. I've driven a 300 twice, both as rental cars, and the sight-lines are just horrible. Never been in a sedan with so little vision of the road and other vehicles. I like the styling, but that lack of safety and practicality takes away from it. This wasn't the current version of the 300 that I drove though, this was the previous generation.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 09:46 AM) I'm projecting the political background behind the auto bailouts and Chrysler in particular to come away with that projection. Apparently some conservative pundits had some faux outrage over the ad. I get it, I just think the outrage is indeed very faux. If Ford made a similar ad - they didn't get a bailout - there would likely be some Dem pundits screaming too, and they can also just go away.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 09:26 AM) Well that combined with it being how awesomely Detriot is coming back post-bailouts... He is a Republican but appears to be at least mixed if not center-left on social issues. He supported McCain in 2008. I've seen him dig into both parties. I really don't think he's distinctly Republican or Democrat, as I said, I think he's more like a libertarian. As for that ad, I don't really see a message that is pro either party. But it was a pretty good ad. Chrysler may have spent the last decade making s***ty cars, but I have to admit, their ads the past year or two have been fantastic.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 09:06 AM) Way too early to take anything from various polls. The relevant data right now is that the economy is somewhat improving and that is improving the President's current hypothetical chances. But there's still 9 months (H. Christ) of conventions, ads, SuperPAC's, possible wars with Iran, and based on current trends, 3 Greek bailout crises before we get to that point. Also, in the electoral college world, national polls are nearly irrelevant in any case. What matters are the polls in OH, PA, FL, IA, CO, NM, NV, OR, and maybe VA and NC.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 09:12 AM) Did anyone else see Eastwood's Chrysler commercial as intimidatingly pro-Obama last night? I didn't see it, but as I understand it, Eastwood is a libertarian of sorts. So that would surprise me.