NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Sonik22 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 02:41 PM) Basically, we left a party because my friend saw an undercover cop he knew there, so we piled into the car, 6 people for 5 spots. Cop pulls up next to us, starts laughing and pulls us over. The only person who didn't drink was the person driving the car, and we all admitted to drinking since we were gonna be breathalyzed anyway. Kinda sucks. You got ticketed for public drunkenness, while riding in a car? Either there is something missing here, or you are underage, or the cop is an idiot and you should contest it in court.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 02:58 PM) I don't think you'll like him NS, you do know him. He's of "Dick Cheney is a vampire" and "Republicans health care plan: Get sick, die quickly" fame QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 02:59 PM) You'd hate him. He's an outspoken leftist, the kind that would typically get portrayed as crazy. He's the one who was quoted on the House floor saying that the Republican Health Care plan is "Don't get sick". Thanks for the background. So, no, I don't think I like him. But he did handle Matthews quite well.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 02:56 PM) Yglesias: So 40% of people wanted less federal action on health care than they got. Not any kind of majority. But these polls also fail to take into account the undoubtedly significant % of people who wanted something DIFFERENT - not something less, or more.

QUOTE (jamesdiego @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 03:04 PM) No. All I'm saying is Oney is probably spilling the beans on the true feelings of Ozzie. I think Oney was just relying Ozzie's vents & feelings about how he really feels about. Stuff that he tells his family about the organization. Not thinking that his son would go around blabbing to the world what he really feels. I think 'ol Oz probably cringed while he listened to that interview. Thats what I took out of it at least. And again, not only is that conjecture, but I find it incredibly unlikely. This is Oney, not Ozzie.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 01:36 PM) I wonder when Chris Matthews will apologize to Representative Grayson for this interview on Hardball from this past January... I'll admit I know nothing about this Rep Grayson person... but after reading that, I think I like him. Matthews is such a wind bag.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 12:00 PM) hmmm ok. I sent an e-mail this morning and I just KNOW the person I sent it to is going to either click "Reply to all" and add in the e-mail of the person I was talking about or click Forward (and forward to the person) and reply to the important people. He's done this before and it's largely because he's tech illiterate, but it's kind of a bad practice to forward an e-mail about someone you are talking about TO that person. OK, I have to ask... if you knew this person would do this... why did you send it to him/her at all?

QUOTE (jamesdiego @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 01:17 PM) This kid is something else. Here's a wrap up: Basically he rambles on again about getting disrespected because they didn't talk to him face to face about twitter like a man. Says the three geeks comment was directed at people he thinks talk to much when they shouldn't be talking. Makes it clear Rick Hahn, Scott Reifert, Dan Fabian are the three geeks. Says that he didn't get any special favors, nothing fed to him by the organization. That Buddy Bell thought he was an asset, and that was the reason why he was hired. It's not very nice by fans and others to say he was spoiled. He EARNED the respect in the minors and thats why they loved him. And wonders why the front office couldn't give him that same respect. Complaining about the website getting shut down, insinuated it was one man's doing, KW. Said Kenny lied to the papers last week about not having anything to do with shutting down the website. Said that it was ridiculous that they flipped out over twitter, names KW, Scott again. And lands a doozie on Rick Hahn saying he doesn't admit anything to people's faces, only talks behind peoples back. Says it contradictory that they want a reality show but his family can't have a website. His family might have their own reality show. Him and Ozzie Jr will have show on 670. Says thats all his opinion. But to me it seems to me like he's saying stuff he dad can't say publicly. He's kind of revealing conversations his dad has with his family. Ozzie's vents and frustrations are becoming public knowledge. What a spoiled brat. But your last graf there is not only pure conjecture, I think its incredibly unlikely to be true. You think Ozzie is using Oney as a parrot? Your really think Ozzie is afraid to speak his mind? Seriously? This is Oney being a little brat, plain and simple. And his conduct would have gotten him fired from nearly any other organization or company.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 12:07 PM) what is their (insurance companies) profit margin on premiums? probably between 3%-5%. So ok, cut out let's say 4% of cost. That $1000 doctor visit is now only $960? and that's under the assumption that a non-profit insurance group is going to be as efficient as the for profit companies. So yea, I agree, it would seem like the larger issue of cost didn't get the focus it should have. I'm not talking about the profit margin, I'm talking about methodologies used by the insurance industry, and how they contribute to the cost problem overall. Point is still the same though, this bill seems too focused on just the insurance companies, and not even focusing on the right problems therein.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 11:51 AM) The cost of health care needs to be addressed. This is not going to work if the government starts getting charged $1,000 every time someone on the gov plan has a simple 15 minute visit to the doctor. The US cannot afford this unless there are legit cost lowering measures taken. The cost of health care itself has sky rocketed. Much faster than inflation. Even if you cut out 100% of insurance company profits, the health care itself is still at the extreme level of price. Definitely true. While there may be some cost savings in encouraging preventative care, nothing in this bill (that I can see) addresses those costs of care. The bill was far too focused on the insurance companies, which addresses only part of the problem.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 09:03 AM) On the bright side, at least the lawyer will make some money off of this... http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/sta...-000603/332103/ While I am disgusted by the absurdist over the top messages being spewed by the right on this, I actually agree that mandating people have health insurance is a bad idea. I brought up car insurance as an anaology, just for discussion - but driving is a privilege, not a right. Can anyone else think of a situation where the federal government required the purchase of a product or service from everyone in this way?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 08:01 AM) Chicago is a city. That doesn't count, it isn't real America. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 08:01 AM) It's been $3.09 in Woodridge since last Thursday or Friday. Woo. Is Woodridge real America? Or do we have to find some podunk town in Kansas to fit that bill?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 07:43 AM) Frankly, it's up to Lindsay Graham. Which is just bat sh*t insane. Anyway, what's likely to happen to get an energy bill moving this summer is $3+/gallon gas again. We're already over $3 in Chicago - I think I paid $3.25 last night. And its near $3 in the burbs.

Wow, you're almost as old as I am. Sorry for the belated, but... hope you had a good one!

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 21, 2010 -> 11:03 PM) Yeah... oh my god I still remember when President Bush tried pushing what was actually a pretty reasonable compromise. What a clusterf*** That was one area where I was pretty OK with Bush's take on things, and yeah, he got stomped into the ground on it. To say its a contentious debate is an understatement. I am hoping that they use the wave of political capital that will follow this health care thing, to pass a decent energy bill. Somehow I doubt that happens. Probably they'll do immigration reform next, as you said, and wait for energy until summer when gas prices are far higher.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Mar 22, 2010 -> 12:20 AM) Don't want to come in here acting ignorant, but can you guys point me somewhere that will explain what this reform does for average folks like myself? If anyone gives you any one-line answers to this, ignore them. Its too complicated for that. I'd suggest you try to find a news source that is relatively objective, and read about it. Then find some more, and read some more.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 20, 2010 -> 08:49 PM) Just for the point, not that it matters much, but they are still using reconciliation to pass this. Just for lost, the majority of people in this country still don't want this bill. So they use reconciliation to pass it, which at least is not unconstitutional. It's slimey because it's being used for something that is 20% of the American economy, but it's just as slimey as they other side so the side in power gets what they want. You keep saying this... and still can't prove it. All the polls I've seen show something like 50/50 or slightly in favor. You seem to have some magic source of information that no one else here does. Care to share?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 19, 2010 -> 10:54 PM) http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...Ra_UqAD9EFOA2O0 This is one area where ObamaCo has really pissed me off. They have failed miserably at this, something that they claimed was a major emphasis for them.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 19, 2010 -> 04:07 PM) I'm sure that there were a few people who voted against this on that purpose alone. But I'm willing to wager that when the majority of a caucus votes against a nonbinding resolution of congratulations, it has nothing to do with wasting time on s*** like that. OK... then why else vote no on that?

QUOTE (SnB @ Mar 19, 2010 -> 03:36 PM) Hey guys, So I recently got a new gig in Rolling meadows and I live in the city (bucktownish). I don't really know if I could stand sitting on the kennedy for an hour/hour and a half every day so I would much rather take the train to work. I live within walking distance of the metra clybourn station. I really don't use my car in the city and really would only need it to get from the train station to work and back. So my question is: do any of you use those metra stations over there? Do you know if they allow overnight parking? There really isn't much information online. A friend of mine said the palatine station allows overnight parking and that they don't even ticket overnight, so it would be free, any experiences? Interesting - we live in Bucktown and my wife did exactly what you are planning to do. She walked to Clybourn, got a train to Palatine, and we kept a 2nd (crappy) car at the Palatine station during the week. She'd drive it up to Lake Zurich-ish for work, then back to the Palatine station. If we wanted the car on the weekend, she'd just drive home with it Friday after work. So, I know Palatine has a garage, where you can do that. If you want more info, PM me.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Mar 19, 2010 -> 02:50 PM) Game thread anyone? Go ahead.

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 19, 2010 -> 02:11 PM) Alex Rios was scratched for today's game. De Aza starts. por qua?

Game Threads are indeed first in, but there are some guidelines. For one, you can't create it until day of game. For another, if the Sox win, whomever started the winning thread gets to start the next game, and so on, until the team loses.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Mar 19, 2010 -> 01:23 PM) Not sure it's really a good thing b/c minor league relievers usually don't become great major league relievers, usually it's the failed starters, but our system has some great relievers. Maybe they are just great minor league relievers, but still they post ridiculous numbers. Keep in mind too, sometimes it works the other way around. Minor league relievers may turn into starters. They did that last season with Sauer, and there may be other guys who go the same route.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 19, 2010 -> 11:58 AM) Actually, yes. The house bill contained different language than the Senate bill. So technically there are two completely different bills that were combined and signed into law. In fact, in this case, IMO, it was very clear that two separate bills were passed because the language was completely different. In this case, the House passes a sidecar measure that attaches itself to a Senate bill that the House deems passed with approval to the sidecar measure. Since the sidecar measure, by extension, modifies the bill before it comes to the President's desk, and the Senate then has to vote on a reconciliation measure that matches the House sidecar nearly word for word that it isn't actually two separate bills. It's actually just a conference committee vote done a different way. It isn't an optimal solution, but it is a solution, and the Senate parliamentarian has determined that this is a constitutional way to get this bill to the President's desk. Given that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 showed that the court's basis for its decision was ample clear evidence that the bill was passed by both Houses, I suspect that this current procedure would also pass constitutional muster, even if unorthodox and not optimal. Of course none of this would be needed if the Senate Republicans weren't forcing the use of reconciliation on the bill rather than the use of conference committee because they are making virtually every piece of business clear the Senate with a 60 vote supermajority. But, please, keep ignoring that obstructionism. I don't like that the Democrats have to find a way to end run around the Republicans to get business to the President's desk for a signature, but the rampant obstructionism has proved that the Republicans are not negotiating in good faith, especially when they go to pretty extraordinary measures to oppose initiatives that they, themselves, proposed years earlier. We all know that politics plays a role in doing the people's business. However, politics needs to, at some point, give way to common sense and a dedication to actually achieving something for the people they represent. I would love to say that I think that the GOP caucus has that intent at heart, and I do think there are some individual representatives who do have that intent at their core. But by and large, the caucus seems to have decided that doing the business of the American people isn't as important as winning votes by constantly saying NO. Case in point, the majority of the Republican caucus has voted against such controversial things as rape victims who work for the government being able to confront their attacker in a court of law, and most recently against symbolic resolutions of congratulations. Great post, but... I'd have voted NO on that congratulatory motion as well, because I find it obscene that Congress is wasting time on s*** like that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 19, 2010 -> 08:07 AM) Step 1: Kill all the lobbyists Step 2: Re-build a competent regulatory apparatus that is not completely designed by the telecom lobby Lobbyists aren't the problem. There should be lobbyists, they are an integral part of the system. The problem is the rules and laws that allow them to control everything.