NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 1, 2012 -> 03:22 PM) The short-sightedness in these nominations (this year, and any year there's an incumbent), is that the conservatives are demolishing each other to the point where recovery is impossible. Not that everyone doesn't know it, but it just baffles me that we teach our children to play nice, and then our world leaders act like morons, and it's been going on forever. Politics are such a joke. That reminds me, still cracks my s*** up that some of the more whacko far-right folks think Sesame Street is some sort of liberal brain-washing operation. The extremes in either party will always be crazy, the only difference right now is, the GOP seems to be allowing that part of the crowd to dictate terms. the Dems might be doing it too if they were having an actual primary race.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2012 -> 03:18 PM) It is exactly what I expect to be posted in here honestly. Then why are you complaining?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) By all means, I can't think of a better use of a thread than perpetual negativity to point out perpetual negativity. Oh come off the victim act. It was a posting of a news article that is absolutely on-topic and worth noting, and was offered with no commentary. What the hell do you expect to be posted in here?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2012 -> 02:57 PM) Same old filibuster, different day. I'll leave this thread to the Democrats again. I just want to point out... the posts that started this discussion were pointing out the rate of negativity in adds by the major GOP contenders. You then turned into a thing about Obama.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2012 -> 01:39 PM) There were eight years of negative campaigning. But of course if Balta moves the goalposts around to the right angle, it wasn't done. Honestly, you guys going to the hyperbolic are both hilarious. Yes, negative perceptions of Bush helped fuel Obama's election. Yes, Obama capitalized on that, and who wouldn't? No, Obama's campaign was not nearly as negative as McCain's, or even close to the ones we see now in the GOP primaries. No, Bush was not the only reason Obama was elected. No, Obama didn't do 8 years of negative campaigning. But you two feel free to try to make everything simple, and black and white, even when it is not.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2012 -> 01:34 PM) Link. That doesn't make what SS2K5 said untrue. Obama was able to play off he anti-Bush crowd without having to constantly point it out, it was sort of granted to him by way of W's own incompetence. Dislike of Bush definitely played a part in Obama getting elected, regardless of the advertising used. That of course was not the ONLY thing that got him elected... for an african american to be elected President in the US, a lot of things had to go right. W being such an awful President was only one of those.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Feb 1, 2012 -> 12:48 PM) That's all I played growing up. 12" Fast-pitch though. I found it difficult to make the transition to HS baseball though. Wow, I've never even heard of 12" fast pitch softball for guys.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2012 -> 12:13 PM) Well done to leave out the next line. Taken in context, it isn't as bad. But it does still highlight that Romney isn't terribly interested in the bottom 5%.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2012 -> 11:13 AM) He has barely played at the major league level since 2007. I think we are looking at the starting 1b for Charlotte. And I think this may signal that any slim chance Christian Marrero had of starting at 1B in Charlotte, and therefore any slim chance he had to eventually make the Sox, has vanished. Not really a surprise, just thought it was worth pointing out. Unless they see Marrero as an OF. More likely they just don't see him as anything at all.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 1, 2012 -> 09:44 AM) Hey southsider2k5 let's go back a couple of years when you and I were talking about commodities trading and you were telling me it doesn't affect the price of oil because whenever a speculator buys a futures contract, they have to also sell the contract to someone too. I figured something out though and you can tell me if I'm right or wrong. The way you described it, that's how it's supposed to work in theory and that's how the commodities market worked for several decades because it's a short term market. What's different is investment banks encouraging index funds and other large sources of money to invest in the commodities market like it was the stock market (there were rules against this from the start for very specific reasons but as usual there were loopholes found/created), the idea being to add "liquidity" which is redundant anyway because that's the entire reason speculators exist in the first place. Because this money is all for long term investing their only motivation is having the price go up over time (also not the point of futures which are only for a month, not 10 years) and it blows the whole market, not like the stock market where people buy and hold, or short sell and whatnot, and aren't dealing with physical goods that people use in real life. So, people are still buying and selling, but pushing dozens of times the amount of money into speculation means you're buying and selling at much higher prices that don't reflect the actual value of what's being traded, in this case oil. I am not southsider2k5, but I play on on TV... First, I doubt he said that commodity trading doesn't affect the price of oil. In fact it sets the general value of a certain variety of commonly purchased oil, which leads the market and gives price indicators. What he probably said is the SPECULATION doesn't MANIPULATE the price of oil beyond fundamentally dictated levels, except on rare occasion and for short periods of time. Also, I think you have a slight misunderstanding of how futures (oil or otherwise) work. They are not month-long instruments. At this moment in time, if I am a trader, I can buy contracts for oil that expire in a month or less (this would be called the Front Month), but I can also buy contracts for, say... June, or December, or December of 2013... and in some cases many years out. And in fact those index funds do not always just roll over front month to next, they sometimes balance via calendar spreads or just outright time spreads over multiple contract periods. I would say you are correct about one thing though - the existence of DBO and other similar commodity-long funds does, in fact, probably inflate prices more than just via trading fluctuations. For most commodities, those that are not nationally controlled, this isn't a problem because the spot, unregulated and smaller markets will work against the artificial rise. With oil, the delivery points are too few and too institutional, so even beyond just OPEC, the other actors can be a de facto cartel. There is a danger there. The way the market MIGHT react to that in the long run is, as oil becomes more expensive (it would anyway, but made worse in this instance), usage drops as people conserve, find alternatives, nations increase production, etc. So the overall effect is probably not as dramatic as you may fear.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Feb 1, 2012 -> 08:18 AM) One thing the college game has on the NBA is exciting finishes. The game is almost never over because these college kids can choke and do so regularly. It's fun to see a team s*** itself at a full-court press with an 8 point lead. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 1, 2012 -> 08:26 AM) I think this is the biggest difference and the reason people prefer college. When you have so many more teams that are of similar talent and age levels, there tends to be way more action at the end of the game. It's not the skill of basketball that makes the NCAA tournament so awesome, it's the excitement and randomness. Agree on both of these. The tense endings, and the upsets/parity are big factors as well. But I do still stand by what I said about effort. And before anyone gets in a tizzy, it isn't so much that I care how grindy a player is. It is that the game is simply more fun to watch when players are fully into it. That's true of any sport, really.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Feb 1, 2012 -> 08:07 AM) College basketball has become f***ing awful. lol@anybody who says college > NBA. Please. Just because college players don't get paid and the normal every day dude can relate to them better (i.e. they try so hard just like I do at my job) doesn't make the product better. No, what makes the college game better is that it isn't three quarters of watching guys not give a s*** followed by a quarter of, sometimes, actual effort. College players want to win and it shows. That, at least for me, is the biggest reason to like the college game better. Its not that I can relate to them, I clearly can't really relate to either. Its that as a fan, I appreciate sports well-played, not sports going through the motions. But I realize this is one of those things, people have their opinions and they won't change.

So, with 98% reporting, the Florida count looks like this... Romney: 46% Gingrich: 32% Santorum: 13% Paul: 7% FL is winner-take-all, so Romney gets all 50 delegates. Current delegate counts (IA, NH, SC, FL): Romney: 66 Gingrich: 25 Paul: 10 Santorum: 8 Next few contests and latest polls for each... Saturday, 2/4: NEVADA (28 delegates, proportional, caucus) latest poll: Las Vegas Journal-Review, 12/12-12/20 (before IA!) --Romney 33% --Gingrich 29% --Paul 13% --Santorum 3% Tuesday, 2/7: COLORADO (36, proportional, caucus) latest poll: PPP, 12/1-4 (before IA!) --Gingrich 37% --Romney 18% --Paul 6% --Santorum 4% MINNESOTA (40, caucus) latest poll: PPP, 1/21-22 --Gingrich 36% --Romney 18% --Santorum 17% --Paul 13% MISSOURI (primary - NOT COUNTED, real results are in March) X Saturday, 2/11: MAINE (24, proportional, caucus) *No polls since October, but early indications report Romney and Paul frontrunners Tuesday, 2/28: ARIZONA (29, winner-take-all, primary) *No polls since November MICHIGAN (30*, proportional, primary) latest poll: EPIC-MRA, 1/21-1/25 --Romney 31% --Gingrich 26% --Paul 14% --Santorum 10%

Used to be that boys did in fact play softball growing up, in Chicago - 16" in particular. Even the high schools had teams.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 05:01 PM) Romney's going to win Florida and he's going to take the nomination. Maybe Gingrich drags this out for a while, but he doesn't have nearly the national infrastructure that Clinton did to prolong 2008. Then, if he loses the general, conservative Republicans will again be clamoring for a ultra-hard-right candidate, convinced that they lost 1996, 2008 and 2012 because they nominated a RINO. I think Gingrich stays in at least through Super Tuesday, unless he truly runs out of money. If he's getting lambasted by then, at that point, it is a math question. Does Romney look like he will get enough delegates for a true majority? If not, and if Gingrich/Paul Santorum can together get better than 50%, it will get very interesting.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 03:26 PM) Robocall currently running in Florida. Yeah, I don't think Romney's campaign is any more dirty than Gingrich's, regardless of the current impression the media seems to have. Romney has more money and more ads running, but they are both running highly negative campaigns.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 03:11 PM) Really, that's not even true on an 8 year period. The real trick is the ungodly, ridiculous, totally unprecedented 1998 El Nino year. There's a reason why they always start any "There hasnt' been any warming in x number of years" in 1998, if you start in 99 there's a clear trend, if you start in 05 you've got like 4 years and the warmest was 2010 and that's stupid anyway because of the el nino cycle. The real trick is that 1998 el nino, where they can say that there hasn't been any warming in x number of years, because the warming during that single year was so completely unprecedented thanks to the strength of that el nino. Why do I feel like you are yelling at me while agreeing with me?

To be clear, I do think there should be winners and losers even at ages 6 and 7. Scores should be kept, albeit casually. I just don't think you start cutting players for a few years, and then only when necessary. As the kids eventually reach Jr High, where the teams play the best players to win, the rest tend to drop off on their own anyway. QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 03:51 PM) Get over your need to endlessly correct or criticize people for whatever reason you do it (I could only guess, to be honest). Seriously? You of all people telling others to get over something?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 02:59 PM) Oh Christ, get over yourself. The coach apparently has made a decision, which appears to be within his power, to move the team to a more competitive, all-boys league. Also, apparently, that girls' brother could be moved to a league where she can play if it's such a big deal to him. The title of the article was so ridiculously leading that it honestly did not originally warrant a read. This is the internet. "Oh hey, look controversy! Get me clicks, get me reads, woooooo!!! I have written something completely leading and made assumptions and presented it mostly as fact!" There are options for this girl. There are options for her brother if he in fact has any interest playing on a team where they point out his sister is better than he is (sounds fun). There are places this family can go. Instead, let's start a big piss party about it and try to stop a team from playing more competitive rosters next year. Fun for everyone. Make sure they all get a trophy, too. Regardless of the questionable wisdom behind pushing to get a group of 7-year-olds into a "more competitive" baseball league, the unnamed coach himself insisted in his conversation with their mother that Anna was a better player than her younger brother, even though Carson would be allowed to keep playing while Anna would not. In addition to Anna, one other girl and other boys that had played on the team are reportedly being cut to make the team more competitive. This whole article is bulls***. The above paragraph completely ignores the point. That girl could hit 30 homeruns (yes, of course exaggerating) in a season and it still wouldn't matter. Why? BECAUSE THE LEAGUE DOESN'T ALLOW GIRLS TO PLAY. "I root for her on the team, and she's just a good person to play with on the baseball team," Carson Kimball told KDFW. "I just think if I can't be on the same team as my sister I should just quit on the team I was playing." Jeez, even the 6 year old understands it. Find a new team if you have to play with your big sis. That's sure going to be healthy moving forward, by the way. So yes, NSS, your ability to impregnate a woman and your esteemed history of umping baseball in high school clearly make your opinion much better than anyone else's here. My stance is that this article is trying to create news where news isn't... these parents have options. Good post. Well, except the last sentence, I have no idea what my being a guy has to do with this conversation. My opinion is just that - an opinion, based on some background. I don't really agree it is creating news, I think it brings up a good discussion. Which it has. But I see where you are coming from. Also, the problem more than anything isn't the league rules, it is the coach of such a young team deciding to move their team to be "more competitive". At that age, that, IMO, is just an adult wanting to address his own failings. It isn't about the kids, and that is sad. QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) It is sexist to believe females should not be allowed to play alongside males in sports? No, it is sexist to say that people are being "p*****s" (or the like) because they are upset about a first grade girl being cut from baseball. That is the context, and why it is sexist and somewhat offensive. Actually even without the context, the use of the term is denigrating.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 02:32 PM) Often times, a thread inspires discussion on a related point or topic. Simply because a reply is located within the thread does not mean that the points discussed within those replies go directly to the topic of the thread or the article that inspired the thread. Those replies, as well as my own, obviously go to the general issue the thread raised. They are a commentary on the general topic. No where is there a reply by anyone that states 6-7 year old students should be cut. Go read Steve's post again if you'd like. It wasn't an inspired discussion, it was him deciding what the article was about without reading it. When all else fails, resort to the pedantic. No one said the exact words "6-7 year olds should be cut". That is true. If you want to take that and interperet it to fit your needs, go right ahead. But everyone reading this thread understood those posts just fine.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 02:27 PM) Agreed, but seriously, who straps their dog to the roof of a car??? Read a little more about it. Family vacation, a cage with a floor and a seperate windshield, on the roof of the car. Now, I have never owned a dog, and I don't really know how bad that might be for him/her up there. Just saying, its not like he pulled a Chevy Chase or anything. At worst, it was psychologically traumatic - so, not good, but not something worth making a campaign issue about. Especially since, at the time, it was pretty commonplace. And I don't think it is much worse than putting a dog in the back of a pickup, which you see all the time (and which is considerably more dangerous to the dog).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 02:22 PM) Where? Seems pretty clear what, for example, these posters think... QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 11:45 AM) The fact that things like this are even news just shows how big of p*****s we are anymore. QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 12:03 PM) The pussification of america has been in full force for years QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 01:41 PM) Someone start a girls league, then people won't b**** when a girl is cut from a boy league. And seriously, buy the kid a f***ing sundae and she won't even care anymore. It's the parents that are b****es. Seems they think the reaction to this is about being a "p****", which I think is sad and more than a little sexist considering the context. But regardless, it is their view. QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 02:23 PM) And I'll call you a condescending overlord self-important control freak. Feel free. Hope it makes you feel better.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 02:17 PM) You did the same to me yesterday. It has more to do with you disagreeing and trying to belittle someone by pointing out their ignorance. Why bother posting that? When people say something ignorant and empty, I will point it out for what it is. Call it what you'd like. And I don't think people who disagree with my on this are ignorant or anything like that, by the way. I disagree with them, but I can see people's points about when they should be more competitive, girls vs boys as seperate or together, boys on softball, etc. You didn't and wouldn't hear me say that.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 02:15 PM) No one here has made the statement that a 1st grader should be cut. Secondly, I have friends with children and family members with children and I probably spend a hell of a lot more time playing and teaching them sports than you have any clue about. Thirdly, how old are your kids? A bit of a lesson at the age of 12 or so about the fact that some kids are better at sports and thus deserve to play more than they do might ease the pain a bit when they get cut from their freshman baseball team or when they ride the pine every game on the junior varsity field hockey team. On your first point, yes, they did. Right in the thread. Second point, that's great! Hope its fun! Third point, a 12 year old is a lot different than a 7 year old. At age 7, they are in their first year (likely) of organized baseball. And at age 12, five years in, I fully expect players to get more playing time based on performance.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 31, 2012 -> 02:10 PM) Well you seem to have a recent habit of asking "Why did you even bother to post" if you don't agree with the content of someone else's post. That would seem to imply as though you are the one who ultimately decides whether someone is fit to post or not, and thus, the overlord crack. I did ask Steve that, but not because of his view on the issue. Because, if you see his response, it is clear he didn't even bother to read the article being discussed. It was like walking into a room, shouting a random non-sequitor, and leaving. Why bother?