NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (3E8 @ Jan 17, 2011 -> 12:32 PM) Prepare to be shocked. Martinez: 12/50 Benoit: 5.5/16.5 Inge: 5.5/11.5 Peralta: 5.25/11.25 Ordonez: 10/10 Penny: 6 (incentives)/6 $44.25M in free agent contracts for '11. $105.25M by total contract sizes. To be clear, I meant add, as in, add players that we're already on the team. Not new contracts to the same players. But I will admit I was surprised at the V-Mart signing, followed by what really looks like a bunch of garbage. I just don't see them as being competitive in the division this year.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 08:51 AM) I didn't rule her out yet since I honestly did no research on the candidates or read up on the race until watching the debate. And they only had 4 candidates on (lame). Rahm, Braun, Chico, and De Valle. Well that's stupid - 4 out of 6? I mean, if it was a field of 20, then I get having to cut it down. But to leave just 2 out? Lame. Dock Walls is a joke though, so I don't mind him not being there.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 08:45 AM) Mosely Braun was awful. Final nail in the coffin for my potential vote. You were still considering her before that? ETA: How as that 6th candidate, Watkins I think is her name? She's the only one I know very little about.

QUOTE (SleepyWhiteSox @ Jan 17, 2011 -> 07:11 PM) I drive a 97 honda passport suv. The vehicle I should be driving is Falkor the luckdragon from The NeverEnding Story: Dammit, now I have that f***ing song in my head.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 08:10 AM) Link I swear, this topic makes me angrier than virtually any other in the political landscape. We have this huge opportunity here, and we are missing it. We need something to lead us forward and actually result in not only job creation, but export creation. This would do both of those AND reduce pollution AND help national security. Its just so f***ing obvious.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 18, 2011 -> 08:07 AM) Assange? How so? I was actually referring to the person who obtained the documents originally. Assange, I am not sure how the laws may work for that sort of secondary passing of information.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jan 17, 2011 -> 02:17 PM) What's stopping a disgruntled pilot from just crashing the plane and avoiding a third party altogether? I can see a cause for concern, but not for the reason you specify. That was my thought. Pilots carrying guns is a policy fraught with risk, but being disgruntled really isn't one of them.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 17, 2011 -> 11:13 AM) I think he is referring to the fact that the Swiss guy is a "liberal" a*hole. I could care less if he's a liberal, but he is indeed breaking the law.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 15, 2011 -> 08:42 AM) Borrowing against your 401k is still better than taking money out of it. They are really one in the same. When you take a "loan" from your 401k, you are literally cashing out shares to fund the loan. The only difference between that and just plain selling out of it, is that with the loan, you don't get the tax penalty... unless you leave the firm, miss a payment, get fired or laid off, etc.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 04:10 PM) So how did politics exist before they became this ridiculously partisan? Now that we have reached this point, we can never turn back? I guess it's time for me to move to Canada... Its not been some continuing curve, or a single new trend. Levels of anger and bulls*** are always there to an extent, and then ebb and flow at different times. Things are angrier now than they have been in a while, but they've also been much angrier at other times. Also, the interwebs amplifies this stuff.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 03:28 PM) Even if Palin didn't want to back down from her past actions, she could have handled things a lot better than accusing her detractors of blood libel. No one is arguing against that either, I don't think.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 03:25 PM) So by being more defensive she comes out the victor in all of this? What? No, in this war, they both lose AND the public loses, because they are both acting like assholes.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 03:22 PM) Are you that blind that you don't see why so many people saw a connection and brought Palin's name into the discussion? This didn't come from thin air. Congresswoman Giffords literally asked Palin to take the target down. The sniper target with Gifford's name on it. You REALLY can't see why Palin's name was brought up after all of this? I'd agree that makes the topic fair game. My only problem is when people try to place blame on her for it, or in your case, try to say it has to be somehow proven it wasn't a partisan crime (which is, again, impossible and ridiculous). QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 03:23 PM) I think he has a valid point that Olbermann's apologize was almost certainly done to draw attention to Palin's lack of apology and defensiveness. Agreed. Olbermann is the ultimate opportunist. As far as I'm concerned, I can't wait until both fade away.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:25 PM) Again, at $3 million per year, with incentives based on PA's, versus $14 million per year, yes. If money were infinite, obviously not. But assuming we would then invest that other $9-11 million in other players, yes. It wouldn't be $3M though - it would be $3M plus whatever you paid for the other side of the platoon. Who could you get for similar money for the other side that you think would produce similarly?

It appears that your new RNC chair, replacing Steele, will likely be Rience Priebus.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 01:03 PM) I think you're even giving him too much credit there. I think he knew some federal politician made a habit of showing up at the grocery, and decided it would be a great idea to shoot her. Pretty sure that's what I said, using slightly different words.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:27 PM) How come the aim to get women into combat hasn't taken on as big of a media event as DADT? I seem to remember some pretty big stories on that too, so I am not sure what you mean. And I think there are still some combat roles even now that don't have women - submarines just recently started allowing women, I think.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:57 PM) But no one has proven this yet. Everyone is assuming. Just because he didn't write it in his journal or facebook page doesn't mean he didn't plan on doing it. You are completely backwards with the burden of proof here. Its impossible to prove it wasn't partisan, you are setting an impossibly high bar. The proof should be if he DID do it for partisan reasons, and there has been no indication whatsoever of this being the case. Frankly, I think it was a matter of convenience. This was the US house rep for the Tucson area, which makes her the most easily accessible federal elected official in Tucson. Therefore, that's who he targeted - someone he could get to.

This didn't really fit anywhere else... Anyone been following this? Tunisia, a moderate and heavily tourist-dependent country, has been having increasing economic problems over the past decade, and has been under pretty much authoritarian rule for a couple decades. Tension began boiling over recently over unemployment and improper or corrupt government/police activities. Violent protests and riots started a few days back, and are getting worse. Today, the President of 23 years, fled the country, leaving the PM in charge.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:54 PM) I think the Palin we see is the real Palin, but that's the scary part. Real in basis but heavily exaggerated for effect.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:51 PM) Which is not much. Actually, I'd say its a lot. The whole country has access to all sorts of information on this guy's writings, reading choices, postings, personal relationships, family life, academic history, etc. If there was motivation of a specific political slant involved other than "the government is out to get me", we'd have discovered that by now.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:46 PM) Yes he's an idiot but I still don't understand why so many, with almost no evidence other than a youtube profile and a little facebook data from googling, is 100% convinced that this was a 100% apolitical event. Just because his facebook page didn't say "I will kill the local Democratic Congresswoman because Sara Palin and other leaders I admire told me to" doesn't mean that there couldn't be some political motive in this. After all, he went to a political event and went up to the Congresswoman and shot her first. That didn't seem random. My first inclination would be that somehow this was politically motivated. Maybe I'm wrong but who knows? None of us have interviewed him or searched his belongings or interviewed people he knows. We really don't have that much info into what he really thinks to completely dismiss this as politically motivated. And yes he seems to be crazy. And even if he admitted that he did this because he agreed with Palin or Rush or whoever doesn't make it their fault but his. But it would be evidence to those politicos to tone down their rhetoric instead of getting defensive as we've been seeing. I just hope that investigators are looking at all possible motives and not excluding one because it could hurt some people's feelings. Seems pretty clear with what we've learned so far that this guy wasn't aligned with either party, and oh yeah, he's also a nutjob. That's why we can't really blame any specific party or politician, and shouldn't.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:22 PM) from what I've read, congresswoman giffords challenger in the 2010 election, had events where participants were encouraged to shoot M16's for fun, while listening to the politican talk about the importance of taking out Giffords. Certainly taking out wasn't meant to be shooting her, but again, this rhetoric needs to be changed. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01...from-office.php And her opponent is an irresponsible idiot for doing such a thing. Still doesn't have any level of causation.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:16 PM) Certainly I'm not a legal scholar, but couldn't the same type of laws that prevent people from carrying weapons on airplanes or in schools be applied to political events where elected officials are present? Well first, they already are some of the time. Second, yes, you could pass such a law, but to what breadth? If its any elected official, that's a whole lot of people, when you consider local officials. And what defines a "political" event? Do you include candidates? Such a law could quickly become very restrictive if not made appropriately narrow. And furthermore, if people are looking to do harm, such a law is probably not going to achieve anything, because they will simply not follow the lesser law (since they plan to break the bigger one anyway).

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:03 PM) not Yeah that helps the discussion. I don't agree with BS here, but he's at least trying to make a salient point and defend it.