NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 05:39 PM) Disclaimer: I'm about to post a couple of biased links, anyway this author is making a case that the economy is about ready for some real growth, on the order of 4 or 5% and not this 1 and 2% we've had http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archiv...-in-2011/66159/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archiv...-part-ii/66250/ They used some of the same reasons I have been stating in here. So let's have a theoretical discussion here... let's say the economy does indeed pick up steam during the next 6 months or so. What are the political ramifications? It helps Obama, but what about Congressional GOp'ers and/or Dems?

QUOTE (flavum @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 05:30 PM) Johnnie Lowe has been garbage in the AFL. 15.15 ERA. Sweet. He's a fence guy. They always send a few guys to the AFL that they want to decide whether or not they really are prospects.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 06:07 PM) Well if you're counting Morel as the starting 3b at this point, every one currently thought to be in our starting lineup besides CQ(and hopefully Q isn't the every day rf this upcoming season) is at least above average defensively, so there's a start. That's my thinking. Leaving RF and 3B out, the Sox were above average at every position, in my view. Certainly improved from recent years. And Teahen isn't starting at 3B, so there will probably be an upgrade there, and Quentin, I hope, isn't in RF.

QUOTE (Real @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 04:05 PM) Per his wife's facebook page & the score You're Facebook friends with his wife? Anyway, congrats, nice to see. I assume Alexei didn't win then.

QUOTE (fathom @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 03:43 PM) You'd be going from one of the worst to one of the best, especially with regards to range. Again with the hyperbole. I'd call it more like going from pretty good to very good.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 02:51 PM) http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2011666&spid This is dictated by each state, correct?

QUOTE (3E8 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 02:42 PM) Kettle brand spicy thai any flavor potato chips, win. Yup. Those things are like crack. I personally favor the Cheddar and the Black Pepper ones, but they are all teh awesome.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 02:38 PM) SPEC-U-LA-TION!!! Clap clap, clapclapclap... SPEC-U-LA-TION!!! Clap clap, clapclapclap... Which is all we do on this site during the offseason. I actually like that the author here took a different approach - ignore rumors and try to analyze practicalities. Sure its speculation, but it actually added something to the discussion.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 02:17 PM) The Republican in that race just conceded, and he went out of his way to specifically state that he believes those ballots reflect the will of the voters and he will not mount a legal challenge. That's actually quite classy.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 11:34 AM) Sarah Palin paid off a lot of people in the GOP establishment in Iowa. If she runs, she's got solid institutional support I would bet. Yeah that part I just don't know about, I have no idea of the ground games that any of these candidates have put together. But it seems like Iowa has tended to go after someone other than the national favorite in recent cycles. Obama beating out Clinton and Edwards was a surprise at the time, for example. And remember, this is a state that made more ground on gay marriage than most others, despite being a mostly rural state.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 10:49 AM) i'll be interested in seeing how the GOP nomination process goes in the next 12-18 months. If this riff between the moderates and tea party continues to grow, they may shoot themselves in the foot (aka- Alaska, Delaware, Nevada senate races) If the 2008 schedule is still in place, it would go like this. 1. Iowa 2. Wyoming 3. New Hampshire 4. Michigan 5. Nevada 6. South Carolina 7. Louisana 8. Hawaii 9. Florida 10. Maine I could easily see the Tea Party favorite winning #1/2, losing 3/4 and then grabbing the nomination after nailing 5/6/7. I think they'll struggle in Iowa too, which tends to be pretty moderate.

Did anyone actually get to see the OT in the Iowa State - Nebraska game? The article on ESPN is vague at best as to what happened at the end, and I can't watch video from here. It looks like NEB scored early in OT, then ISU scored with no time left, and faked a PAT to go for 2 but failed? WTF?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 08:03 AM) You think "Enforcement only!" is a straw man? Come on man. That is the only policy that the political right will accept. In 07, you had Bush trying to figure out a way to push a bill that the Republican caucus would be happy with, but they refused to move a bill that had any sort of guest worker program or any acknowledgment that there was anything which could be done other than increased enforcement. Enforcement only is exactly what the incredibly vocal minority that cares about this issue wants. And really, the "Virtual fence" is one of those things the budget hawks ought to be raving about. It's been a $20 billion money pit that has produced absolutely nothing except profits for Boeing. That could pay for 10 Obama trips to India! I used to use the line "Defense spending doesn't count", because people are happy to rant and rave about out of control spending, even spending that doesn't exist, but the moment anyone tries to say "maybe $100 billion a year to occupy a country isn't the best use of our money", "Oh my we can't cut spending, how dare you not support the troops!". If you're willing to keep dumping money into the southern border, I think it's probably fair to start lumping that in with defense spending. That's an interesting point - and I am actually not all that opposed to having that be more of a military thing than it is. But on the enforcement only thing, your memory is not the same as mine. The right is (in general) against any sort of amnesty, and they've been slow to accept demand side measures. But I don't recall the complete blockade against a guest worker program, at all. And for the record, I was talking about people HERE, since you seemed to be talking about people HERE. Even the furthest right wingers on here like Alpha, if I recall correctly, are fine with making changes to allow more workers in legally as part of a plan.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 07:41 AM) The answer to this is clearly a $40 billion invisible, non-functioning fence. Seriously guys...what do you think the answer there is? If everyone coming across that border was doing so legally, then the couple hundred people you really, really want to catch would be the ones who stand out, by doing so through other means. That's a problem created because we want to pretend that enforcement-only is a realistic policy. No one other than the straw man you are creating, again, is saying that enforcement at the border is the only part of any new policy. You are quite simply making that up. And yeah. I'd rather have a $40B virtual fence that takes another $20B to get right... than an $80B real fence that still requires the $40B telemetry anyway AND has much, much worse side effects.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 08:13 AM) After it took two days to declare a winner, I don't want to see anyone complain about the Republicans calling this election a mandate. This from the worst governor in the entire country. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-11...e-tax-pat-quinn As bad as Bush's declared "mandate" after a 51-49 wartime win was, Quinn's is laughable. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 09:54 PM) http://www.wsbtv.com/news/25596196/detail.html Another reason I tend to agree with Republicans on better defending our borders, but not necessarily on the methodology. That said, I'm highly skeptical of a "news" article that refers to a long list of "terrorist nations". They seriously, honestly, just labeled the entire populations of those countries as terrorists?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 8, 2010 -> 07:27 AM) I like Ike!!!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 09:36 PM) I filled up for $2.63 a week ago. Its been going up in recent weeks, I'll be you are higher today. But of course, I also filled up in Cook County, and Chicago, so I'm always a solid 30 cents higher than NW Indiana.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 6, 2010 -> 12:09 PM) A couple of farsighted, newly elected Republican Governors seem ready to turn down 100% funding from the government for a couple of high-speed rail projects in their states. Yeah, I saw this about the Wisconsin thing, in the Trib. I mean, if the state had money at stake, I could understand halting work and studying the real positive vs negative of doing it, because its possible it may not be a good use of the money. While I am in general in favor of better and more rail infrastructure, that doesn't mean that every rail project is a good one. But in this case, its stupid x3. For one, the federal government already made the outlay for the money - if they don't use it, its just going to go to a rail project in another state. Why turn down free money and jobs and infrastructure like that? Second stupid thing, by doing this in this way, he makes it far less likely for his state to get big grant money in the future. Third and finally, this is part of a regional and national rail infrastructure, so this is not all about Wisconsin.

QUOTE (3E8 @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 09:56 PM) In a previous thread you had no real idea or not if the Tigers would be spending money this offseason, yet said they would not be anyway without providing any evidence for your claim. Going by OPS against and WHIP, the Giants' pitching staff 3 worst months were 3 of the 4 months that Posey was behind the plate (June, July, August). Their pitching staff had an unreal Sept/Oct (.543 OPS against, 0.945 WHIP) which really improved their overall 2nd half numbers. Their bullpen also got bolstered by bringing Ramirez over from Boston after Posey took over catching. Posey was the 2nd/3rd best bat on a team that was below average in scoring runs. His OPS was over 150 points higher than the aggregate of other NL catchers. The offensive value he provided is obvious. There is no clear link between Posey and Giants pitching performance. Without a full season catching a major league staff and not actually becoming a catcher until college, it's probably safe to say Posey hasn't had enough time to really hone his game calling/managing skills yet. Like I said all instances are different, but in this case Posey's bat was of greater value than his "intangibles". OK first, there is a huge difference between analyzing what's happened, and guessing what will happen in the future. I was quite clear about DET and the word that has been seen in articles that they are not likely to have much money to spend, but that obviously, its a guess. So I fail to see the relevance here. The stats you quote are telling though - you are probably right that he's not very strong in that area yet. But you also fail to include what I'd consider the mutliplier here. He's catching pitchers 9 innings, 4 out of every 5 days, give or take. He's hitting +/- 4 times a game. Whatever benefit a catcher provides in catching is by nature of multiple times as much value as his bat. If he is decent behind the plate overall (pitcher handling, game calling, defense, throwing runners out, etc.), then that has more value to a team than even a very plus bat, IMO.

QUOTE (3E8 @ Nov 7, 2010 -> 08:33 AM) It all varies by team, by pitching staff. The World Series champion Giants were 19 games over 500 with Posey, and this is mostly due to his bat, not intangibles You have no real idea if that's true or not. Giants pitching did awfully well.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 04:23 PM) The commodities are going crazy because of the hit in the dollar with the latest in Fed policy. Its going to be ugly when people are paying $3.50 at the pump again. We're already paying $3.10-$3.20 in Chicago, I don't think $3.50 is going to be chaos. It means dollar issues and/or economic growth increasing. Since hyperinflation doesn't seem to be a near term risk (might be in the longer term though), I'd say overall, $3.50 gas means good things.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 02:58 PM) I think you're wrong. amounts added = carbon dumped into the atmosphere, at least by my reading. Further, the preceding paragraph: So, we've already added 500B tonnes, and if we keep going at present rates, we'll pass 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes, the total amount released during a 55 million year long period. I agree that there is a big difference, but I still think my reading of the sentence was correct. I think the "55 million year event" is similar to "100 year flood". It doesn't mean it endured for that long, it means a periodic event time.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 01:34 PM) I don't see anything that could plausibly be viewed as wrong for a media company to want to know beforehand whether or not their hosts are making political donations. That's not a prohibition, that's them asking to be informed. The information on large political donations always becomes part of the public record. They're going to know about it eventually, a requirement to tell them first is a smart move. I wouldn't mind if they had to disclose it, but the "beforehand" part bothers me, because it suggests the possibility of reaction by the company. I understand he violated his contract, but really, its a contract that could probably be successfully overturned in court. Of course, that might void the entire contract, so its not likely he'd go down that road. if he had donated and followed the rule, if MSNBC tried to take any action as a result whatsoever, I think that would be terrible.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 01:18 PM) Frankly, that's the way it should be. I disagree, I think people should be able to contribute to anyone they'd like (within the legal limits), and their employer should have no say in it whatsoever.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 5, 2010 -> 12:57 PM) A number of folks on the left are noting that the claims of widespread, organized voter fraud have seemingly vanished since Tuesday. Think that means the correct side won? What does that even mean?