NorthSideSox72

I doubt he picks up any FA's, unless they are at the minimum on minor league deals... Definite: Crain, Ohman, Thornton (unless traded), Reed Probable (IMO): Stewart If Thornton is traded, then add one of: Quintana, Santiago, Veal, Leesman, Hernandez Then add one or two of the following (in no particular order): Dylan Axelrod (though I'd prefer he be starting in Charlotte, and may be in the rotation if Floyd is traded) Anthony Carter Deunte Heath Gregori Infante Nate Jones Jhan Marinez Dan Remenowsky Brian Bruney Brandon Kloess Those are the guys who will see game innings in ST. Should be a fun horse race to watch.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 6, 2012 -> 03:48 PM) If you read the ruling Montana went pretty far out of its way to determine that the ruling was based on their interpretation of the Montana law. The reason this is important is that Corporations are only given power by the state they are registered in, not by the Federal Govt. Therefore in order to overturn this, the Supreme Court would have to basically rule that states cant create certain rules on Corporations, even though the Corporation only has rights granted to it by the state. The difference is important, because Citizens United was a federal law attacked in federal court. The ultimate argument Montana will make is that a corporation does not have any rights that are not granted to it by the state and Montana does not grant corporations the right to anonymously run ads. Also more complicated arguments will include that Montana when applying Montana law is interpreting its own constitution and therefore Federal review is inappropriate. This is going to much harder for the Roberts court because it pits 2 big money corporations versus states rights. Not a good place for a "conservative" court to be. Because if they rule in favor of MT, any state can make a similar law and it basically would make Citizens United irrelevant. That is what I am hoping for. Interesting note though, the corporation in this case that was funding the ads was registered in Colorado I believe, not Montana. That may add a federal entree via interstate commerce.

Huntsman now climbing to 3rd in latest NH Poll at 16% (with Romney falling a bit to 37%, and Paul at 19%). A few of the recent polls have Jon in double digits, but this is the highest yet, and he is trending up. Everyone else in that field has peaked at some point, I guess this was inevitable... but I don't see him catching Romney in NH, not nearly enough time or money. A 2nd place finish keeps him alive and still in the picture, 3rd is marginal. Lower than that, and he's toast (meaning zero chance toast, as opposed to the current 1% chance not-quite-toast).

Huntsman gets the Boston Globe endorsement. I figure he has less than a week left to his life in the race, so trying to get some posts in now.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 03:04 PM) Does Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz now? I don't think they are that desperate yet. Their navy, what there is of it, would be crushed in short order. Then what? Not a good end for them or anyone else. I think it is much more likely we will see internal changes in Iran. Which is the whole point of the sanctions. QUOTE (SouthSideTeacher @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 03:08 PM) bravo. very nicely done here. Agreed.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 10:28 AM) Huntsman really can stay in with a strong top 3 performance in New Hampshire. Nobody's expecting to beat Romney in his backyard. He's run with little money to begin with, but he can stay in for quite a while. I don't know... I think SC and FL will be tough for him, he has to make it to NV intact. And IMO, the only way to do that is Top 2 in NH, hope for a backslide from Romney, and campaign like hell in SC or FL. If he's in 3rd or lower in NH, I think he drops out. If he's in 2nd in NH, he continues, but needs to get a Top 3 finish in one of FL or SC, to make it to NV still breathing - and then he needs to win NV or be close to it. He just isn't getting enough financial support to make it any other way.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 4, 2012 -> 10:23 AM) I wish I could find a decent photo, I think my explanation is still inaccurate. All of the dikes were in the rolling hills, none on a flat feature. Looking across the desert to them we would see a wavy line. They are still standing horizontal like the back of a stegosaurus. And yes, the NPS rangers all referred to them as dikes, I believe volcanic dikes to be more precise. Do you mean vertical? Because that is what the bolded sounds like, and that is what the other volcanic dikes I have seen look like.

8 votes? Holy Frijoles. So, as some have stated, the main purpose of Iowa is to narrow the field. We had 8 candidates getting significant support, about 2 months ago... then Cain imploded, leaving 7. Iowa looks like it will flush Perry and Bachmann out of the race (thank God). Now we're at 5. Now for my predictions... New Hampshire is of course the firewall for Huntsman - his only possible shot is if Romney starts to tumble (for whatever reason, maybe he loses votes to Santorum) and he manages to win NH or be close to winning. And since that is incredibly unlikely, NH will probably spell the end for him. That leaves 4 - Romney, Paul, Santorum and Gingrich. I think Santorum's near-victory in Iowa is being overblown in terms of importance. He lived there for 3 months, went to all 99 counties, basically bet the farm. He won't do well in NH, so I think NH goes: Romney (by a lot), Paul, Huntsman, Gingrich, Santorum. So I'm guessing Santorum is hanging by a thread after NH. South Carolina is next. If Romney wins SC, it is all over, but I don't think he will. If Gingrich or Santorum can pull off a win or stay neck-and-neck at least, then they stay in. Paul will likely not do well in SC. I predict SC ends in a huge mess, with Gingrich just edging out Romney, Santorum and Paul in the second tier. So we stay at 4. Florida will rid us of Santorum, who will have gotten beaten badly in NH and finished near-bottom in SC. Romney will win it by a lot. That leaves Romney, a limping Gingrich, and Paul. Gingrich will run out of money in Florida, and get creamed in Nevada. So after Nevada, which is around the same time as Romney-easy Maine, Gingrich drops out, basically handing Romney the crown. Paul will stay in, and he may even make things interesting for a while in states like NV, ME, and AZ. But by Super Tuesday, Romney will have raked in enough points that it won't matter. Here is the nightmare scenario for Republicans though - Romney does win the nod, but Paul has so much grass roots support that he chooses to run as an "I" in the General. Might happen.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 3, 2012 -> 02:48 PM) Tony Horton's Power 90 routine.... Power 90 Interesting... I am trying to find on their site what equipment I need for this. One thing seems obvious - I need a TV and DVD player. Fortunately, I can put up a cheap one in this space pretty easily. But I appreciate the advice - doing a 90 day program like this as a jumpstart seems ideal, as that takes me to April or so, and I can start mixing in outdoor activities at that point.

OK, since a lot of you guys seem to have a lot of knowledge here, I'm going to throw my situation at you and see what advice you can give me... I need a winter workout routine. During the summer I'm on the bike a lot, play sports, etc. But it is winter in Chicago, and I refuse to go out and run in this (but will do so in the spring). What I have available to me is a workout area I carved out in my basement, with the following: --Weight bench (ranges flat to incline, but no decline) --Leg attachment (only does quad and ham curls really) --2 barbells and one straight bar, both with plenty of plates for anything I am likely to do --Got my mountain bike up on a resistance flywheel thing, so it is now an indoor trainer --Push-up bars --Yoga mats and blocks, and an open space on the floor for non-machine exercises My main goals are fat burn and toning up muscles - don't really need muscle bulk, that's one thing that is not an issue for me. I can dedicate one workout a day, 6 days a week, probably about 30-45 minutes each. I'm 39 years old, used to work out a lot, years ago. But I fear my knowledge from then was maybe not the best anyway, and I don't have a gym to go to currently either. I'm tall, but also now about 40 pounds over where I'd like my weight to be. Also have some persistent knee and ankle issues, so I need to use caution on high impact leg stuff. Diet-wise, I have control over breakfast and lunch, but dinner is family time so I have to go with whatever we are making that night. I take a multi-vitamin daily, but no other supplements currently. So... if you actually read my entire post... what would you recommend, SoxTalkers?

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 3, 2012 -> 02:02 PM) I guess my point would be that Keanu Reeves has never had a performance anywhere near as good as Farrell's in "In Bruges". In order to pull off that role he has to have some acting chops. And yeah: "In Bruges", "Ed Wood" and "Sweet Smell of Success" are my 3 favorite all time movies in no particular order, that's how good that movie was, IMO. Well I have to admit, I have not seen In Bruges, so maybe that would change my mind about him. And both Farrell and Reeves do have a couple films I've seen where they fit nicely, but I can't take much of either one of them.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 3, 2012 -> 01:35 PM) Remake starring Colin Farrell. Supposed to be much closer to the source material than the Ahhhnold version. More of a spy thriller Farrell? In a spy thriller? I'll pass. That guy is just another Keanu Reeves to me, he isn't an actor, he has one character that happens to sometimes fit the movie, and is almost always irritating.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 1, 2012 -> 05:44 PM) TDKR, The Avengers, Prometheus, Total Recall, The Hobbit. Im really looking forward to this summer Total Recall? I didn't realize they were doing that again. Or is it a sequel? QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 2, 2012 -> 11:07 PM) Finally got around to watching The Prestige. Not bad. I thought it was pretty good, but I thought the Norton magician flick The Illusionist, out around the same time, was better.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jan 3, 2012 -> 10:39 AM) Wait, I thought this case was about a state law? On appeal they'd have to prove Citizens United applies (though, as you said, with this court that won't be too difficult). That was his point. If the plaintiffs who were trying to overturn the state law appeal to a federal court, on grounds the state court attempted to supercede federal law, then the federal court will review and could potentially overturn the state court's decision. Or, the federal district court could agree with Montana, and then the plaintiffs could go to Federal Appelate court, and do the dance again. If the state decision is reviewed and still upheld there, they could appeal the final step, to SCOTUS.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 3, 2012 -> 08:25 AM) You do realize that with this court, that is the last possible thing you'd want, right? Well, for one thing, I am not so sure. When you have widn socks like Alito on there, if they feel enough heat, they may come back and agree with the narrowness to cover themselves. And for another thing, it will take a couple years or more for this to wind back to SCOTUS most likely, and who knows what the makeup will be at that time.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 3, 2012 -> 07:55 AM) With the law on the books the way it currently sits, it was the correct decision. It's also still hard to justify the underlying basis of where the case came from...that a privately funded group shouldn't be allowed to put out an Anti-Hillary movie just before the election, solely because it happens to be close to an election date. That was difficult to square constitutionally anyway...that some types of private spending are more limited clsoe to an election date but not at other dates. BTW, as the article you posted notes, it won't take long for a Federal Court to overturn this ruling on appeal. Maybe. The narrow interperetation may stand, and may force this whole thing back to SCOTUS to clarify.

This was a fairly stunning event in terms of the godawful Citizens United decision. Basically... not only did the MT Supreme Court in no uncertain terms say that the Citizens United decision was a horrible miscarriage of justice - and that corporations did not deserve even equal duty to voting rights let alone special ones... but also decided it was only very narrowly tailored to fit the specific instance in that case. As such, a Montana state law banning anonymously funded poltiical speech was upheld. This makes me happy, and I thought deserved its own thread. Just curious... did anyone here, no matter what party they associate with, think that SCOTUS decision was a good one in any way, shape or form?

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 2, 2012 -> 11:56 AM) This is because Kalapse rocks.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 2, 2012 -> 12:30 PM) As soon as you can point out for me the person Ron Paul has not expressed hatred towards in some fashion, I'll become embarrassed. Ron Paul. I win. And you really do fall for mr genius every damn time.

QUOTE (kyle @ Dec 28, 2011 -> 07:01 AM) Hey, Just though you would like to know that Garrett is recovering from hip surgery. They tell me he is in rehab as we speak. Thats explains why he didnt pitch much last season. They tell me it was his left hip and his labrum and ball and socket were repaired. Garrett hope rehab is going well for you good luck. Thanks for the update, much appreciated. It is hard to get info like that on any prospect, let alone one off the radar. Not surprising that a guy at 6'10" would have hip problems, unfortunately. But he is still young, and the clock hasn't quite run out yet.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 04:33 PM) Huntsman has (incorrectly) claimed that this will lead to blackouts this summer. also "an historic" Huntsman has claimed (somewhat correctly) that regulations (using multiple examples) which cause the need for this type of investment on older plants will result in some plants closing, which may result in more blackouts when demand gets too high. And he's right. Where I diverge from him though, is that, I think that doesn't give enough reason not to do it.

QUOTE (flavum @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 04:27 PM) I fear that if the Sox are in the lead for this guy, he's not that good. During the KW years, the Sox have won bidding on two players: Ramirez and Viciedo. Seems to me those have both worked out pretty well so far. It is always a gamble, but your fear seems to have no roots in reality.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 04:18 PM) Cespedes is not a MLB CF. He's a corner. Sez who?

So, funny this came up... just this week, for the first time I can remember, I received a mutilated package from USPS. It had in it a spray bottle of chalkboard cleaner (we have a chalkboard wall in our basement for our kid). What arrived was a plastic bag, containing the remnants of the original brown, padded package, and some of its contents. It appears that it was run over a few times, then lit on fire. I kid you not. It isn't just torn up, it was clearly burned by something. And the bottle inside was busted, and all the stuff leaked out. Fortunately, it was like a $4 item, and I can just contact Amazon about it.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 08:56 AM) It's not uncommon to have a young pitcher start off in the bullpen to get a feel for how to get MLB hitters out and work with the MLB pitching coach for a year then move to the rotation the next year. There's no problem with it if you don't try to ove him into the starting role the same year. If he has an off season to prepare for being a starter he'll be fine. For Sale, it made sense. He was being groomed pretty much exclusively at the major league level, and his arm wasn't tuned to 200 innings yet anyway, so it made sense. Molina is trying to build up innings (being a transitioned position player), has been a starter for a couple years, and isn't being jumped early. The cases are just not that similar, and I'd rather Molina was getting starter innings in the minors learning how to pitch.