NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 04:04 PM) That's pretty bad to hear Stewart is better suited for the bullpen. Really makes you question our scouts I agree, but I also think he might be right. I'm honestly more comfortable with the idea of Axelrod as a starter than I am Stewart, having seen them both pitch multiple times.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 10:25 AM) LOL, the Mullet family is cutting everyone's hair! One of them is even named Lester. Lester Mullet.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:59 AM) Bachmann may have leaked classified information last night, or if may have just been more crazy rants. But she does sit on an intelligence committee I believe so... http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/23/bach...ing-gop-debate/ Oops. Yeah I saw her do that. She managed to leak potentially confidential information, and in the same sentence, say something fully nonsensical (what does "penetrable by jihadists" even mean? Wouldn't that be true of all of them? It is a completely subjective assessment). She probably saw some documents about the sites, the researchers pointed out 15 sites with higher vulnerability, and she turned it into what she wanted it to be. She also said the CIA can no longer interrogate people (LOL), the ACLU is handling CIA operations (LOLOLOL), the US money going to Pakistan was a blank check (no, a substantial part goes directly to helping keep those nukes secure, which is how you even know about those 15 sites), Hezbollah is putting missles in Venezuela, Obama's every action has been to prevent energy independence (no, he has moved against your particular choice of path that direction - remember Solyndra?), and a number of other outright lies. And that was in just one debate. She is seriously a lying machine, even compared to the other candidates. She really is a Class A moron.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:43 AM) How do we know anything for sure? How do I know you're real? How do I know I'm real?! Is that a duck-billed pladypus (sp?)?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:38 AM) The poll is pretty shady, I agree... but I think you're wrong about it being 100 respondents per outlet. It's taking the answers from the number of people who use method X as the answer number. So for NPR - that's about 120 people (21%) For Fox News - that's a lot more. NPR/PBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, other... at best, there is enough room in that poll for a little over a hundred each. And if some are a lot higher than 100, then others are a lot lower, so again, poll is highly sketchy. This sort of multi-variable framework for a poll basis, you need to be calling thousands of people.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:36 AM) Plus, New Jersey. LOL, awesome. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 23, 2011 -> 09:36 AM) I don't think MSNBC comes near the level of open, blatant and deliberate bias that Fox does. It is nearly impossible to match that. I think they are damn close. I'd say Fox is maybe a little more openly biased, but I also think MSNBC is sloppier and less journalistic (tallest midget contest).

1. There really is no point discussing any polling data with Y2HH, because he's made it pretty clear that any poll is useless. 2. 612 respondents means you probably have less than a hundred for each news outlet, and I consider that way, way, way too small a data set to be reliable. The T-score calcs being used are using the 612 basis, which is not at all an accurate use of that test. This poll, in particular, is highly flawed. 3. Should it really surprise anyone that people who primarily get their news from MSNBC, or even slightly worse, Fox, are uninformed? Those aren't news outlets, they are places where people can scream about s*** and skim over the surface of issues like a perfect skipping stone. NPR/PBS and BBC are probably the best available channels for news, but neither can cover the breadth of news in the US to be truly complete - no surprise their viewers/readers are more informed. CNN is likely between. None of this should shock anyone. 4. Is Fox News more biased (and shallower) than MSNBC? Maybe by a little, but it doesn't really matter, as they are both trash.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2011 -> 07:56 PM) I've never understood why you depose him so much. He's trying to troll me, I think. also, pretty sure you meant despise, not depose. Or not? QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 22, 2011 -> 10:40 PM) Huntsman said something about wanting more drone strikes and decreasing troop presence. So, basically the exact same policy of the Obama Administration for the last 3 years? Okay I guess. Pretty much, yes. I fail to see why that's bad, but I am sure in the Heritage Foundation crowd that was unpopular.

Watched most of the debate. It was actually one of the stronger debates overall, there were even a few very good policy exchanges between some folks. This one is worth watching. Basically, as far as I can see, this crew of 8 falls into two distinct camps. Camp 1 is basically the island of misfit morons. It is also mostly made up of former flavors of the month in the race, who shot up the polls because they were loud and discordant, then people realized they were terrible, and they crashed back down. Those four basically did what they always do: Perry continues to bumble his way through debates looking clearly overmatched... Cain continues to not actually answer any questions asked of him unless it deals with tax policy... Bachmann continues to show her dual personality, being diplomatic at times, then without changing facial expression suddenly stammering out hate and anger... and then there's Santorum, who is basically MacCarthy (except replace communists with A-Rabs). Seriously, that whole crowd is embarrassing. Camp 2 are the people with brains. Romney as usual looked Presidential, but his policy points keep fluctuating. Gingrich looking very strong again, 90% of his words were policy wonk stuff and made him look highly intelligent. Huntsman with his best performance to date, actually had a pretty big slam on Romney about CinC authority. And then Ron Paul was his usual stuff, occasionally veering into tinfoil hat territory, but mostly sticking to his guns on libertarianism. The four of them had some great exchanges, particularly the early one between Paul and Gingrich, where I thought they both made some great points. Again, if you recorded it, I'd watch this one, it wasn't nearly as bumbling as some of the earlier ones have been. My grades for the debate: Gingrich A- Huntsman A- Romney B Paul B- ... Bachmann C- Santorum C- Perry D+ Cain D

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 22, 2011 -> 01:56 PM) This wouldn't have happened if we had several 320 lb bald white guys toting Ak-47's around every one of our protests. I can't tell if I'm joking or not. See here's the thing though. Tea Party and Occupy have some similarities, but their tactics are entirely different. Tea Party has stuck more or less to law and order, their protests and get-togethers have been largely law-abiding, and they have chosen to use the political system to their gain (instead of just yelling about it). Not to say I agree with the Tea Party platform at all, just pointing out that civil disboedience has been used much more heavily by Occupy.

I think adding the vector of left/right here is silly, I really don't think the police response (on a large level) is different due to that. Might an occasional officer act differently for different protests? Maybe, they are human beings. But honestly, the idea that this happened because they are liberal is unfounded in any sort of evidence. The protesters at UC Davis defied orders to stop trespassing. The police acted, which they needed to. Some of them apparently acted in too escalated a fashion. Seems pretty simple to me.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 22, 2011 -> 12:17 PM) I bet if you polled people and asked would you want drastic spending cuts or a mix of tax/fee increases and smaller cuts, the vast majority would go with option 1. Might not like how the owners/republicans are going about it, but the end result is what they agree with. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2011 -> 12:22 PM) Those polls have been done repeatedly over the past year(s) and the results have been heavily in favor of a mixed approach. Even among Republicans there's decent support for a mixed approach. This is from the summer but a good indication: http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/b...er-taxes-really I've seen multiple of these polls, people heavily favor a mix, which of course is the only thing that makes sense if you really want to dent the deficit.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2011 -> 12:10 PM) Gotta wonder, why were students participating in a nonviolent left-wing protest at UCD brutalized by police actions while Penn State students were allowed to riot over losing a football coach? Because police departments are not part of some giant conspiracy, or even in any communication with each other for the most part. They act differently, that's the nature of the beast. Do you think the chief of the Happy Valley PD is on the phone with Davis PD every morning over coffee to talk shop?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 22, 2011 -> 12:08 PM) I don't have a problem with the Republican's stance against any new revenues. Though to be fair, i'm not sure what the Democrats proposed. If its a "new revenue" in terms of simply rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, I'm fine with that and agree that they need to be rolled back. If it's some more bulls*** "we're not raising taxes just fees and costs for EVERYTHING just so we can continue to spend money," then no. This whole fight is very similar to the NBA lockout. The owners are the Republicans who are trying to change the system. They have the leverage (the American people are behind them) and know it, so they're going to fight for the best deal for them going forward. At the end of the day a 10% cut across the board is probably going to sit well for the vast majority of voters. The players/union are the Democrats who are agreeable to some slight changes to the system, but only on their terms. They want to have their cake (we provide) and eat it too (at no cost!) Actually, like the NBA lockout, neither party has the American people behind them. The fans / people are 90% of the mind they are both being stupid.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2011 -> 11:32 AM) It'd also take away dice-rolling skill and make it a completely randomized game. I'll ask a stupid question here... is there really such a thing as dice-rolling skill? Other than cheating in some fashion?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 22, 2011 -> 12:01 PM) The students were presented with a chance to leave and had clear warning. To me, that is pretty convincing. It is pretty convincing that action should be taken. That doesn't justify skipping a few steps on the force continuum against passive resistance.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2011 -> 11:28 AM) Right, if two sides come to the negotiating table and one side will not accept any offer at all except the one that meets every one of their demands and gives zero in return, it's hard to blame the other party for any of the failure. That of course is not what happened. Both parties came in with steep demands that the other party didn't like. That includes your Democrats, who were not very flexible on some things. However, it is also true that the GOP upped the stubborn ante a few extra degrees by standing adamantly against any sort of tax increases. That would be equivalent to the Dems saying they were adamantly against any program cuts at all. So yes, the Republicans were the more stubborn, less useful party in these talks. But that doesn't mean the Dems were without blame.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2011 -> 10:28 AM) yup. I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with that: I don't know how you can accuse the Democrats of failing when success was impossible unless they simply gave in to every Republican demand. And I'll highlight that the Republicans were adamant on making an 11-figure hole in the budget permanent, belying any notion that they're actually serious about deficit reduction. Not sure how you are disagreeing with me. Unless you are saying the Republicans are 100% at fault, whereas I was hinting at more like 75%.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 22, 2011 -> 10:25 AM) There are various state-level laws regarding the intensity and volume of pepper spray containers that can be purchased privately. California, for example, limits private sales of pepper spray to 2.5 Oz, basically enough for a brief squirt. Thus, the canister deployed against these people would be illegal for private purchase, and was only available for military or police use. I can't find quickly if there is a difference in concentration, but it wouldn't surprise me if the stuff they deployed was also quite a bit more potent than what can be legally purchased privately I"m fully aware of the fact that police can purchase chemical agents at different concentrations and volumes than private citizens can. I just never thought about it as a military thing, other than military police.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 22, 2011 -> 10:12 AM) "The Congressional Budget Office is a reactionary socialist institution which does not believe in economic growth, does not believe in innovation and does not believe in data that it has not internally generated." I repeat my early question. Is that Newt? By the way, I am surprised there is no talk about the epic fail of the Supercommitteeofbudgetaryawesomeness. I blame all of them, though it sure seems that at least the Dems were willing to negotiate their stands on cutting programs. The GOP'ers were apparently not interested in budging on taxes. So the Dems failed, and the GOP failed worse. No wonder people like Communism and Root Canals more than Congress right now.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Nov 22, 2011 -> 09:59 AM) Those kids were blocking the sidewalk. If that doesn't scream military grade pepper spray to the face I don't know what does. I bet they were communistic as well. Military grade pepper spray?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 22, 2011 -> 09:08 AM) This won't be something Kenny does. I really believe this is a straight to Jerry deal. I think you are right about handling the final say on Mark, but I stick by my general point, that KW has to move some salary off first.

I suspect that Mark's world domination tour will end soon, and he and his agent will then come back to the Sox and lay it out on the table. Problem is still the same though. I think KW would like to sign him, but I also think he's being forced to move some other salaries first. So as more time goes by without any trades, the likelihood of Mark's return diminishes.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 03:32 PM) 2004 when the upper deck was re-mapped. when "upper box" seats in sec 520-506 and 542-558 were turned into upper reserved(upper box used to be every section's first 15 rows) and last year, when the sox lowered prices in upper reserve. OK 2004 was a complete re-do on how the seating up there worked, so I am sure that had to happen. I had actually forgotten about the upper deck lop-off being that recent. But Sox payroll went UP from 2004 to 2005, not down. Ticket prices went down last year? For season ticket holders? News to me, mine stayed the same and I thought others did too, but I could be wrong. Anyway, of course in 2011, the payroll was the highest ever. So again, up.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Nov 21, 2011 -> 02:33 PM) Assuming this is accurate, the only way Doyle and Kuhn are eligible for the AAA phase is if the Sox simply want to get rid of them. So beyond the MLB 40-man, they'd have to be left off the 38-man AAA reserve list. Considering Kuhn has already been in AAA the Sox would have had to remove him for him to be eligible and the Sox would have to have a hatred of Doyle for him to be left off that list. Oh good. So Doyle, Kuhn, possibly even Short and others (Shirek was one I was curious about), can still be protected off the 40, if they think no one will put them on their 25.