NorthSideSox72

Dan has been promoted to AAA Charlotte.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 05:10 PM) NSS will be thrilled. Funny it happened after one of his few bad outings this year.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 08:36 PM) While this is a valid thing to say...the fact is, they DO all do it, if and when they can. Lazy or not as an argument, it's reality. And yes, while they "cheat" in their own unique ways, cheating is still cheating. This is like hearing people say, "I only vote to vote for the lesser of two evils"...which is a most asinine thing to say. Voting for lesser evil is still voting for evil. Cheating is still cheating, even if it's done differently. Neither have ANY real motive to fix it, either, other than arguing it in public which is what they're really good at. Since both would have to agree to the fix, which will never happen, it gets to stay broken. First, I couldn't possibly disagree more with the bolded. Deciding to not vote at all because you don't love either choice is actually contributing to the very erosion of candidates you loathe. Second, its simply intellectual laziness to say "they ALL do it", whatever exactly you mean by "it". It is never "All", but that certainly would make things easier, wouldn't it?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 08:23 PM) http://www.cnbc.com/id/43598606 I said this before, the QE waves have been less successful than expected in great part because the banks are hoarding capital. And that won't resolve until certain other things occur: solid clarification of the regulatory environment most important among them. When the banks do start lending more freely again, we are going to see a big snap back, and unfortunately that will mean an inflation spike. QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 11:07 PM) If the government was going to default, it's going to default. The debt ceiling won't have anything to do with it one way or another, and artificially defaulting just for the sake of making a political point is f***ing insanity and nobody actually wants to be responsible for doing that when the chips are on the table. Whenever conservatives quote Obama in '06 talking about a failure of leadership I'm wondering what kind of cognitive dissonance it takes to twist that around. I want to ask "are you saying he was right then, and wrong now?" It doesn't work that way, and even acknowledging that there were votes to raise the debt ceiling back then is like prima facie evidence that Obama didn't just pull the deficit out of his ass with his Stalinesque government programs meant to cripple and enslave us all. If it was a failure of leadership (it was) then it gets put off onto the next president, when the problem's compounded itself and made into another partisan issue with manufactured reality. Lame... Its a speed bump. It serves a purpose, just not the purpose you seem to think it was meant for. Its not meant as a backstop, since it can always be raised. Its more of a sanity check.

QUOTE (oldsox @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 10:15 AM) Wasn't Milledge a butcher in LF until we DFA'd him? Yes.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 08:00 AM) So who do you want in the lead of spot if we replace Pierre with Viceido? Yes, we would prefer a guy with good OBP in the lead spot, but who do we have? Konerko, Quentin, AJ or Viceido? Do you want any of those guys leading off? Those are really stationed slow footed guys who are not going to help you on the base paths. Didn't we just moved away from the live and die by the home run model and tried to incorporate more speed into the lineup a few years ago? I don't see a team that currently sports a good offense in the majors without a legit lead off hitter in the lineup. We have guys who have a little bit more speed, in Rios, Beckham, Lilibridge, Morel, and Alexei. Those guys outside of Alexei are not hitting well enough to merit the top spot. So I am just saying why replace Viceido with Pierre and having to reshuffle your whole batting order, when you can just swap Pierre with Milledge. At this point, Milledge still have good potential and could fill the lead off hitter admirably. If we bring up Viceido, we have to replace Dunn with him in the lineup. So basically, you are saying you'd rather have Milledge than Viciedo in the lineup, all because Milledge more easily fits the prototypical leadoff profile. I'm sorry but I think that's a terrible way to build out your roster.

Morel is doing at this level what he's done at other levels. He started real bad at the plate, has been improving since with the average, and then adds a little power later. If you want him to develop, then let him keep developing. If you didn't want to wait, and wanted a guy who hit .280 off the bat with power, and with Morel's defense, well... how many of those do you think there are waiting around the minor leagues? Have some patience, he's getting better, which can't be said of some others on this team.

Ugh... leadoff "issue" again? There is no such thing. If you select players to fit profiles of certain hitting slots, you are artificially reducing your potential field of talent for no good reason. You find the best players available for each position, then you make the lineup after that. And Alexei can leadoff just fine.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 05:00 PM) And in that case of a person who is concerned about the integrity of the voting process...we would obviously expect that person to be able to provide us with a long, concrete series of cases where the voter registration process failed to prevent voter fraud but where an additional state-issued ID requirement would have done so. Otherwise, that person is insisting upon standards that he or she is admitting are solving a non-existent problem. To use your example...if I came to you and told you that anthropogenic climate change was a problem due that could be solved by reducing the atmospheric CO2 content, a reasonable question to ask in reply is "has atmospheric CO2 actually gone up by a substantial amount?" If the answer was "no", you might question why we need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere if CO2 in the atmosphere is not increasing. So in your world, fraud should only be addressed when its rampant and clear. Got it. Seriously, go back to my earlier post. If the best you can come up with is "but there isn't that much voter fraud", then its useless arguing with you, because I could just as easily say "there's not that much improper gun buying through dealers", and it is just as well founded. Its not a non-existent problem, it happens and you damn well know it. If you want to say "there are worse things we should address", then fine, say that, it would actually make sense. But to say it doesnt exist is the same thing as me saying anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist. Of course they exist, but no one really knows how much... should we just ignore them?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 04:05 PM) They aren't accommodating. They are prosecuted. And as a result there is a high trust in our elections without voter id. But for some reason it maintains an issue because people say "voter fraud IS bad" without realizing the motivations behind the specific bills, to suppress minority voting. It's nothing new, it's just taken a new form. This is called coupled motivation. You say the motivations behind certain bills is to suppress minority voting. No doubt for some, that is true. For others, its a simple matter of ensuring a solid voting process. They both happen to agree on some of the same agenda items. What is not true, and that you are insinuating, is that the suppresion of minority voting is the ONLY motivation which leads to the agenda. That is narrow-minded and false. I mean, I happen to agree with Al Gore that we need to do more to address climate change and environmental degredation. I don't agree for all the same reasons, and I could care less that he's also making money off of it - policy-wise, I agree with SOME of what he is saying. That does not mean my motivations are exactly the same as Al Gore's.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 02:06 PM) If you have a law that may be effective in preventing the incredibly small cases of voter fraud at the cost of hundreds of US citizens right to vote, is it a good law? This is the equivelant of bloodletting. It costs zero citizens the right to vote. Zero. You are confusing "right to vote" with "vote". It will, I am sure, cost some votes from people who were unwilling or unable to fully exercise that right, or unaware of the process. Unwilling and unaware, I could care less what happens to you. Unable, if physically so, as I said, I am all in favor of having a system in place to address it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 02:00 PM) You already do when you vote. I can take your name and tell you exactly which elections you've voted in, just not which candidate. (Hence why voter fraud is so hard to actually pull off). No, you don't, as per the bolded. Look, its real simple. IDENTIFICATION of voters requires checking off your name, lest the same name vote twice. IDENTIFICATION of gun owners requires checking your ID each time you buy one, lest you allow dealers to just go by recognition. I am OK with either of those identifications. Either way, the person leaves with no record of their actions beyond being in that place at that time. REGISTRATION of guns means having a list of who bought what guns. REGISTRATION of votes would mean applying your votes to your name on a similar list. I am NOT ok with EITHER of those. How is this not clear?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 01:56 PM) Well, first of all, no we do not require identification for purchasing guns, especially at gun shows. And secondly, so it's ok to require restrictions that deny people their constitutional right to vote, but it's not ok to require registration for gun ownership? Nice try twister. I said IDENTIFICATION is reasonable for both. REGISTRATION of guns is equivalent to associating a name with a vote. Using your logic, since you are OK with registration of guns, are you OK with attaching your name to your vote in the public record?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 01:52 PM) One other worthwhile point. Gun crime is not, in general, rampant. I've never been victim of it. But we can all see that it does happen, in various forms. So why is it bad to require registration for everyone who owns a gun? The response should, of course be..."well, gun crime is illegal. Why are we punishing people who are following the law for the actions of criminals?" Voter fraud is illegal. When there are allegations of voter fraud, they are acted upon. Same story. Asking "Why is it bad to act on that" is the wrong question...the United States already does act on it by investigating it as a crime and arresting people if it happens (and it's a very, very, very difficult crime to get away with). This is why its fully understandable to, again, establish identification for purchasing guns. But that is not at all the same as registration of those guns, which guts the heart of 2A.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 29, 2011 -> 01:49 PM) The other problem is that it can be very difficult for people with incomplete documents, physical limitations, lack of transportation, or working-hour jobs to get ID. You can come up with a dozen other reasons. The answer is not to make it easy for everyone to get an ID. The answer is to provide everyone with a valid ID, at state expense, if you want to institute one of those laws. Which also means hunting down the people who are difficult to find, at state expense. If the state is not proactively doing so, then the state is disenfranchising people. I disagree on that aspect. You should not have togo hunt people down - its their right to vote, not mandatory. Also, there are federal laws concerning allowing for time off related to voting, AND, most state ID offices are not just open 10-4 M-F either. Even if they are, have some damn priorities. Finally, regarding those with physical limitations, that is an ADA accomodation issue of sorts, and I am sure most states have laws for making that work. If a person is physically unable to go into an ID office, then the same rules applied to voting for that person should apply to obtaining an ID. Why is this made so complicated? And GIVING everyone an ID would still require ESTABLISHING their identity, by the way. You are basically just making it so that the state has much more cost because of people's laziness or lack of priorities (again, exception for physically disabled, and I'm fine with setting up a system for that).

Voter fraud, in general, is not "rampant", I think we can all see that. But we can also all see that it does happen, in various forms. So why is it bad to act on that? The fear among some, many on the left, is that the poor or minorities will be unfairly disenfanchised. To me, that's not a useful argument, because it dismisses the fact that everyone no matter race or finances can easily vote. So really, if people are asking for ID's, the fear boils down to, what if they have no ID? If ID's cost money or there are blockades to getting them that are beyond what is necessary to vote, then I agree that's an issue. But its really simply solved - if a state mandates ID must be shown to vote, then the state also needs to provide a way for all people who could be eligible to vote to obtain an ID of some kind free of charge. At that point, its not a poll tax, and the path is there for doing so, while you address some types of voter fraud. What is the problem with that? Now I will say that I agree with many Dems who point out that its just as important to more thoroughly check voting machines for problems and fraud. I have argued before, all voting machines should record the vote electronically, then show a paper receipt with a voting ID on it - one copy for the voter showing that vote ID and elections, and one that goes in a bin for later random or full checking of the electronic versions.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Jun 27, 2011 -> 11:25 PM) Randomly turned sigs back on to view on the board because I had no clue what mine was. Apparently it's "Hello." This also prompted me to check my "profile" information on ST. Apparently my favorite Sox minor leaguer is Sergio Miranda. My old AAP! He's still drifting around the minors, he actually came up in conversation in FS yesterday.

QUOTE (FlySox87 @ Jun 28, 2011 -> 08:08 AM) That's legit. When were you in? What was your MOS? I wasn't pointing out that most of the posters here probably aren't vets because I was trying to be condescending or put myself on a high horse, if that's how it came across. Most Americans haven't served in the military, and since this board isn't dedicated to vets, I figured it was no different. And I wanted to point out from an insider's view what the consensus was on certain of the president's actions. It might sound really arrogant, but I do give extra consideration to what the troops think. I did so even before I joined up, and I continue to do so now. I won't vote for a president who doesn't have their well being in high regard. And I certainly won't vote for a president who insults them. Just my opinion. I want to hone in on something here. When did Obama insult the military? And how have Obama's policies been any worse (or better) in treatment of the military than Bush's?

QUOTE (danman31 @ Jun 27, 2011 -> 10:00 PM) Haha this early promotion to Kanny reminds me of Escobar. He got promoted from Great Falls after a week or two IIRC. So did Sergio Miranda. And he did well in Kanny too, before falling off the map in W-S the next year.

Wow, a 1-0, 13 inning game. That's a lot of shutout innings.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 27, 2011 -> 05:05 PM) George W. Bush issued 288 executive orders during his time in office. To this point, 2.45 years in, Barack Obama has issued 54. So, again, just off of numbers of them, Bush issued far more, and did so at a higher pace (although in both cases it's possible that things will accelerate). Full list. So, just like the fears of Obama becoming an arch liberal with his policies... the idea that he has somehow turned into an executive dictator is patently false. Interesting. Unfortunately, one of his executive actions is Libya, which is kind of HUGE. Iraq and Afghanistan were actually endorsed by Congress.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 05:24 PM) I never claimed they were postponing reports for YEARS. Nor did I claim that it was significant fudging. I'm just saying it's possible (and probably likely). And Y2HH is claiming that murder rate drops are some sort of illusion. For the numbers to have not dropped at all, instead of how much they've dropped, there would have to be MASSIVE fraud going on in reporting of homicides. And just by their nature, that is nearly impossible to pull off.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 27, 2011 -> 04:23 PM) Again, factually inaccurate. By the current count, this President has issued 18 signing statements, 2.5 years into his first term. The previous president issued 130 signing statements, covering an estimated 1100 elements of the law. Hard to say if AD meant executive signings - which, yeah, it was obvious Bush did that way more often - or executive ORDERS, which is different.

I would be happy and honored to meet and/or talk with any current or past President. I may get pretty pissed at some of the ones we've had or have, but they are still the leader of the greatest country on earth, my country. And I still believe that Bush or Obama or any of the others are not the compelte buffoons they are often characterized as, they're all smart people who decided to take on one of the hardest jobs in this country, knowing what it would do to their lives. So even if I feel they may blunder regularly in trying to do the job, I still respect that they took a shot at it, and I respect what they stand for as President.

Ozzie said that T-Pain had more forearm stiffness the other day, so I doubt he's coming up soon. Hector probably around for a while.