NorthSideSox72

It is sort of bizarre... the commenters who represent the debate hosts (tea party) seem to think Perry did the best in the debate. Pretty sure the only way you can say that is if you went in deciding that was the case before it happened.

Caught only some parts of it. Perry seemed like he was fine with the zingers, but also seemed paper thin in his actual positions on... anything. Romney was his usual self, for good or bad. Cain is sort of bizarre. Ron Paul did his usual schtick. I've said before I think Huntsmann is the most sane person up there, still seems that way, but he's go no shot. Bachmann is basically Perry, which is to say flash and dash with nothing behind it (those two really don't seem terribly bright). I am still convinced that Romney is the only one in that field who can win in the general, barring a massive economic worsening. Paul, Bachmann, Cain all seem completely lacking in actual leadership abilities. Perry has some leadership "look and feel", but he'll need a lot more substance to win the nomination - as people get to know him better, I think he will fall like a rock.

The idea that we are on "the same path" as we were in the early 30's clearly and demonstrably false. But what I think SS2K5 is getting at - and to an extent I agree - is that he is concerned that certain current economic factors combined with the apparent path desired by ObamaCo could lead to a similar lack of growth. Stated as that, the point makes sense.

Small accomplishment I know, but still the first time in years... Iowa State got two votes in the latest USA Today Top 25 poll. Can't remember the last time an Iowa State team appeared there at all. This Steele Jantz kid seems like he might be a nice surprise.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 09:46 AM) The GOP is completely dishonest and rails against policies it pushed for for decades simply because there's a Democrat in the WH?! Say it isn't so! What's sad is that it largely works. The Dems aren't exactly a paragon of honesty either... but I do think the leaders of the current GOP are more in denial of historical realities (whether political, scientific or simply factual) than any party leadership on either side that I have seen in my lifetime.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 09:29 AM) You can quibble with this a little, there were some Vietnam-era deficits run, but "Consistently, every year increasing deficit as a fraction of GDP" turns right at 1981. (Note, 2nd graph was pre economic collapse, so the last couple yeras do not appear). That is one of the things that irritates me about some of the conservatives currently, who want to blame the deficits and debt as being a new thing under Obama, or that it is a liberal policy problem. Reagan (and the Congress he worked with) was the first modern Prez to take us heavily into consistent deficits, and Bush II (2000-2008, mostly with GOP majorities in Congress) was the Presidency that was most solely responsible for the current deficit producers. Then there are the things that are not even really under Presidential or effective Congressional control, like SS and Medicare. Obama's stimulus money pales in comparison.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 08:45 AM) The entire world knows that Kenny wanted Cito. Where have you been? You keep saying that, but I have never seen evidence of it. Could be true, but again, I don't think it is that black and white.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 12, 2011 -> 08:41 AM) Are you alleging that Kenny Williams did not make the decision to hire Ozzie Guillen post 2003? He's hinted at that multiple times now. From what I have seen and heard... KW was interviewing candidates. JR said, hey, talk with Ozzie too, you might be pleasantly surprised. JR and KW both claim vehemently that it was KW's call, and the two of them did seem to get along well at first. Its hard to say of KW hired Ozzie under pressure. It is also not black and white - I highly doubt Jerry said "you will hire Ozzie". But it is also pretty naive to think that JR's liking of Ozzie didn't at least play into Kenny's mind somewhat. I'd bet that Kenny was willing to hire Ozzie anyway, and JR liking him put him over the top.

QUOTE (winninguglyin83 @ Sep 11, 2011 -> 07:48 PM) As somebody who has never seen either guy, I wonder this: Are Leesman and Shirek good enough to pitch in the Sox rotation in a couple of years? winning baseball? About Shirek... It was a bit of a surprise that they put him back to starting again. All indications the past couple seasons have been that he tires out as the season goes on, and that he really doesn't have a solid 3rd pitch. He's also got a fairly high-effort delivery, but can hit mid-90's with the fastball despite not being a big guy. Does have good sink on his pitches, draws a lot of ground balls. Was actually a very highly sought-after guy in his early college years, but had a bad season (on and off field) and the Sox picked him up as a "bargain" high risk, high ceiling type pick in the draft. Seems to profile as a reliever to me, but the Sox seem to think he may be able to keep starting, so we'll see.

Only picked six (Santos, Crain, Frasor, Ohman, Reed, Santiago), because the likely 7th will be Zach Stewart (or possible Humber). Thornton, I think, will be traded. QUOTE (whitesox901 @ Sep 10, 2011 -> 01:03 PM) For Sure Santos Crain Ohman Dolsi maybe Thornton (trade bait?) Maybe Sale (move to rotation?) You think Freddy Dolsi, who at age 28 put up a 6.87 ERA with batters hitting .300 against him in AAA, is "For sure"? I'd say there are about 20 relievers in the Sox system that are more likely to get that spot than he is.

I knew Morel's pattern coming in. And the thing is, if Dunn, Rios and Beckham (or even 2 of them) had performed even just sort of near expectations, then Morel's development would not have been a problem. As it was, he ended up out-hitting all three of those guys. I've watched him hit this year. He was very tentative early in the season, swinging defensively all the time. Then he started focusing on going oppo, but still no power. Now recently, he has been putting more into the swing power-wise, in certain situations. He is definitely improving. An upgrade at 3B would be great, but honestly, it isn't what I'd think is priority #1. Dunn and Rios are bigger issues, though they are untradeable. And I think the LF position (I am assuming Pierre is gone) is a more important place to look for improvement than 3B. I'd be OK with Morel at 3B for another year, and if he puts up numbers like his 2nd half, that works just fine. QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 02:31 PM) Yes sir!! Raising the payroll to 125 million meant it was an all or nothing year for the Sox. Well, if you look at the salaries and contracts, I really think 2012 gets carried along with 2011 in that sense. The only guy going to FA that would be costly to re-sign (and that we actually want) is M56. In 2013, you have Danks, Quentin, Peavy (option), Floyd (option), Frasor, AJP and Ohman coming off, as well as Viciedo and I think De Aza hitting arb. The 2012-2013 offseason is the big reckoning.=, contract-wise.

Buried at the bottom of a Trib article, MG reveals the names for the "younger" fall league (instructional league)...

For the record, I was not originally discussing Reagan, Obama, Carter, Kennedy or any other President in terms of how good or bad they were. Just pointing out the mythological proportions that some people take their heroes to. I personally think Reagan did, overall, a better job than Carter... but I also think that many current conservatives are in laughable denial of the reality of what Reagan was (basically, he'd be thrown off the GOP bus in modern times for being far too liberal). Similarly, many Dems were (not so much ARE anymore) inflating the IDEA of Obama to be something that no President could possibly have achieved even in good circumstances, let alone with a deep recession, major deficit problems and multiple wars going on.

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 9, 2011 -> 09:47 AM) It was from several books, Bernie Sanders, Speech he did in Dec, which is now a book. Robert Reich's "Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future" The Young Turks, internet news sites.. Though, I have looked and others have tried, yet I/they can't find anything to discredit that claim. The bolded is the opposite of how this works. You cannot come in with some overly precise number for something very difficult to measure, with no citation other than your recollection of a speech or book, and then say nothing refutes it. If you want to throw a number out there, you will not be taken seriously with it without showing us something that proves you didn't just make it up. The number may be right, but, what is included as infrastructure? What time frame? There are fundamental issues with saying in some broad sense that infrastructure projects get 104% return.

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 09:53 PM) What don't you get please? I think Kap wants to know where you got the seemingly random 104% ROI number, for a suggested general bill that hasn't even been fully written yet.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 12:54 PM) Do you know approximately at which minute mark you appear? I'll definitely look out for you. I don't know yet. They used the office I was working in at the time (a trading firm in the CBOT) for a couple scenes, I was in them both, but I haven't yet seen the film. The company got a special showing recently, but I no longer work for them, so I couldn't attend. Look for a scene in an office where an executive is seen talking to a group of employees sitting on some stairs. And if they focus on the guy with the cough, I am about 2 people behind him. The other scene was passing shots of people at desks in that office. QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 01:16 PM) He's Matt Damon's daughter, I believe. LOL, nicely done.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 08:53 AM) I can't disagree. I do like the genre though. I'll probably wind up renting it. Go see it. You might see me, I was a paid extra in the film.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 10:50 AM) The funny think is that I feel the same way about RR references as I do all of the Dems who try to be with JFK. It is an effort to connect to a feeling or an ideal, instead of a specific plan. You could parse out just as many phrases from Kennedy, who said things like you can grow the economy with tax cuts, and make modern Dems look just as out of touch with their hero. Its cheap theater. But you don't see all the major Dem candidates (in 2008 in this case, since 2012 has only one Dem candidate for Prez) trying to say they want another JFK. You do see pretty much all the GOP candidates referencing and trying to make themselves out to be Reaganites (which, by stated policy stances, they are not). What we did see was people expecting Obama to be something ridiculous, and it was laughable. But I generally agree with your point, people look back on previous Presidents and try to make them into something they wanted them to be.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 10:21 AM) I just wanted to put this somewhere, this seemed like a good enough place. Gee, who woulda thunk it? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-jobless-...set=&ccode= Since expectations of the surveyed market people were for a lower number, um, yeah, it was unexpected. I think maybe you guys don't read the articles you are commenting on. Each week, there are forecasts put out by market news vendors like briefing.com, where they survey knowledgeable market people (who by the way, are a lot more likely to vote red than blue) to ask what the number will be. If the number was expected to drop, but actually increased - as it did today - that is called "unexpected". You are reading something into this which isn't there.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 10:09 AM) Problem is unless you are in one of the first 4 or 5 primaries, your primary vote rarely counts anymore. F*ck Iowa and New Hampshire, why do they always get to decide who I get to vote for? (rhetorical question) I personally believe that it is much more complex than that. Participation in the political process can be a lot more than voting. Not that I don't see your point, I agree that the primary system setup is a bit ridiculous. Need to have a rotation of some kind.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 08:56 AM) Could you imagine the Tea Party's reaction to these candidates? Modern day conservatives like those who now predominate the "tea party" have made Reagan into a mythical figure that bears little or no resemblance to his reality. The reality is that either of those guys would be looked at now as a political moderate, and certainly not in step with the GOP party lines. They'd be ostricized and would never be elected in any party primary. What's really funny about that is, for all the times I heard and still hear people claiming that Dems were seeing Obama as "the savior", they are doing the exact same thing about Reagan... and in Reagan's case, his record is now out there for all to see! Dems (some of them) were in denial of political realities, and took the whole hopey changey thing to mean some idyllic figure that couldn't possibly exist. Republicans (some of them) are doing that to a guy who we already KNOW FOR A FACT wasn't that. Come back to reality, folks.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 8, 2011 -> 10:01 AM) Like I said, I haven't even wasted my time yet. It is a complete waste of time. Interesting, I didn't figure this coming from you. You don't think the primary phase is just as important, if not more so, than the general? The more people don't give a s***, the worse the candidates are that will come out of these primaries.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 04:54 PM) You're still only risking a set dollar amount, not "100 shares of BoA or 100 shares of Google." I don't stand to lose any more money just because Google shares are more expensive if I'm investing $x dollars, not buying x shares. But I'd imagine that price inherently reflects risk, at least in part, which is why I picked Google ($$$$) and BoA ($). You are looking at this purely from a natural price perspective. If you look at the greeks, you will see why share price and risk do indeed have a relationship. It is not nearly as simple as you are making it. Now, for a very small time investor, these sorts of analyses may be over the top and not worth the time. Actually, for truly small investors, the problem of share price is mostly about brokerage cost recovery than anything else.

I was working remotely in Memphis that day, so I wasn't in the downtown Chicago office of my company, which was evacuated. But on a really creepy note... there was a conference going on, on the top floors of one of the towers, hosted by Cantor Fitzgerald. It was on some Fin Tech stuff. A couple people at my company were invited to go, they passed, then myself and another person were invited. We discussed it, decided to pass as well. Weird to consider I could have been up there on the Cantor floors when it happened. My company did lose 3 people on 9/11. QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 01:42 PM) I remember in the days that followed how weird it was to look up and not see a single plane in the sky. That was truly one of the strangest parts. Only planes I saw were the occasional fighter jets running CAPS. Unsettling.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 7, 2011 -> 03:52 PM) Ford would be undervalued if they didn't have 98.5 BILLION in debt on the books. That said, they have been paying that down, but that's a LOT of debt. As it stands, it's valued properly...and I'm a shareholder and have been for close to 10 years -- first I bought in at 9.99. I later bought in at 2.17 or so. Wish I had bought more of the 2$ ones in hindsight. MMM is a great stock, but it's paying a rather low dividend at it's current price. If you want an investment opportunity, invest in one of the many tobacco companies, Reynolds American (RAI), for example, pays a near 6% dividend at a P/E of 16. These are what I call "moral" stocks, however...while I have no issues with investing in tobacco companies, I won't invest in any big oil companies...because I despise them, despite knowing that it's a bad business decision on my part. The reason I tell people tobacco companies are a solid investment with a long term outlook is because China is getting hooked like the US was in the 50's-70's...only there are over 1 billion customers there, compared to what we had here. Speaking of the tobacco play, Kraft is going to split sometime in 2012, so the talk goes. Could be an interesting move.