NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 07:18 PM) I see his point. He's trying to say that you labeled the "Tea Party" folks right with Tancredo, and that's a pretty far stretch. QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 07:26 PM) I WILL QUOTE YOU EXACTLY too hateful even for that crowd? talk about no middle ground. nice try to bulls*** your way out of it though. Honestly, I don't see what you guys are saying. He's too hateful even for that crowd. I think that says clearly that A) Tancredo is crazier than the tea party crowd generally (which is the OPPOSITE of saying what Kap is saying above, as noted in the article I linked, where they disliked his speech), and B) That yes, indeed, the Tea Party has a hateful, ignorant element to it, much like the religious right does - just not as bad as Tancredo. And somehow that means that I am only OK with Obamatons? Seriously? I'm not bulls***ting anyone here, I'm being railroaded into being an extremist, which I am not.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2010 -> 12:37 PM) According to the remnants of Editor & Publisher (who now blog), the Reuters employee who wrote this article is no longer with that company (not sure if it was a firing or not) Fox News probably gave him a big offer as soon as they saw his piece.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 6, 2010 -> 09:54 AM) Really? Government intervention in almost everything is protecting individual liberty? Um, sure, I'm making s*** up, again. Right now, I'd say the Dems have a slight edge over the GOP in terms of protecting individual liberties. Which is sad, since that had previously been one of the cornerstones of the Republican Party.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 06:05 PM) i know you're not trying to bait me and i don't care about the 'tea party' convention. but this absurd notion that anyone that isn't an Obama fanatic is just a hater is blindly stupid. if you don't want to be associated with such nonsense, perhaps you could re-read your post and modify. So... since I find Tom Tacredo to be a hate-mongering asshole (which I do), that means I only think Obama fanatics are not haters? Is there no middle ground between Tom Tancredo and Barack Obama? WTF?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 04:59 PM) give it a rest already. jeez um... give what a rest? Honestly, not trying to bait you, I don't get it.

Obama conceding that the latest health care bill may not make it alive. Seems to me that, at this point, his best course of action is to say he's tabling the discussion until after the economy is a bit better, and focus on other things.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 01:55 PM) I love the fact that this selloff started the MINUTE Barackus the Great gave his wonderful speech about how f***ing retarded (to coin a phrase) the banks are and he "will make them pay". Let's all remember that. Means nothing. Even if his plans are a bad idea (which they may be), remember too that the financial community was his target, and that's who TRADES. So no surprise there.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 11:36 AM) And my response to that is...Mauer and Morneau are not their only 2 good hitters. Kubel and Cuddyer still put up OPS numbers of >.800 on the road. Span still was a .300 hitter on the road last year. Minnesota was the #5 offense in the AL at home last year, and the # 6 offense in the AL on the road last year. Minnesota pitchers had a 4.49 ERA at the dome last season and a 4.51 ERA on the road last season (their pitchers went on the road better than most pitchers in the league actually, their ERA was #4 in the AL on the road and #12 in the AL at home). It's entirely possible that moving out of the dome could make them better, not worse, depending on how the park plays. Did I not JUST SAY they weren't the only two good hitters? Christ, I give up.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 10:01 AM) I've enjoyed every one of their on-air meetings, be it on O'Reilly's show or The Daily Show. Here's my thing with Stewart. Years ago he was giving some sort of speech where he basically blasted cable news, and specifically fox news, and his reasoning wasn't just that they were backing a particular party, it was that they were dumbing down their audience with inappropriate/irrelevant issues/debates, and that really they were just wasting a great opportunity to be a mouthpiece for constructive good. Which made me laugh, because he's basically calling himself out. He's got a great gig. He can make politicians and famous people look like flip flopping morons. Yet in the same 20 min segment he can instantly become serious and make poignant points about any given issue, and thus is deemed a credible source of political conversation. To me that's completely unfair. I find it telling that during his interviews with O'Reilly, when O'Reilly questions why Stewart thinks the way he does, Stewart just starts joking around "man you have a reach like Ali! Screw the good point you just made, I'm gonna make a joke, cuz I'm just a comedian after all!" The bolded can describe any network news.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 10:52 AM) I'd like to know why I was nominated as a "GOP Poster" on this site...I'm not a republican. I hate them as much as I hate democrats. :/ That's not nearly as strange as Kap being a Dem in that poll. He and I are in both. Last I looked, I had equal votes in each, which makes me happy.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 10:32 AM) Glenn Beck breaks down the president's un-American, African name Hey look - an idiot being an idiot!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 08:54 AM) (Raises hand)...um, sir, I believe I disagree with your definition of the number "2". Still missing the point. I wasn't saying that have ONLY two good hitters - I was pointing out how ridiculous it is to compare apples to oranges. I was saying, moving out of a very unusual stadium like the roller dome, to a regular outside field in the upper midwest, is a major transition that will effect everyone on the team. A team, which as a whole, was tooled around that old stadium. The response I got was, but look at Mauer and Morneau! Well, what about them? Are they immune to changes? And is every person on the team a Mauer or a Morneau? Of course not. The change in stadium will undoubtedly effect their play. That is what I am saying.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 10:06 AM) It's really not OK. But the manufactured outrage over something that has been going on a while now is a bit trite. The whole health bill got held up by a few Democrats looking for some goodies, and yet it turned into the Republicans killed the bill. Then one idiot takes it to the next level to get what he wants. Really, both things are true, not one or the other.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 09:12 AM) As we've shown you time and again, clearly, no? Seriously? Taking over of health care by our government is pretty radical (left). Taking over automotive industries is pretty radical (left). Taking over bank industry is pretty radical (left). Taking over pay for businesses in general is pretty radical (left). Taking over the tax structure because there's so much debt that no one will EVER be able to pay it is pretty radical (left). I'm sensing a pattern here........ Meanwhile, the MAJORITY of Americans don't like this s***. I'd say that makes them right of center. I'm not talking bat s*** crazy right like Pat Buchannan, but I'm saying that people don't want government intervention in their lives, regarding social or fiscal issues. The current clan of Democrats want the government to define nearly everything we do, including how much water we flush when we take a s***. I simply can't understand why that concept doesn't resonate with you big liberals. Of all the "radical" things you mentioned, only the Health Care bill didn't pass. Which sort of proves my point. Also, look at the bolded in your post - you just basically said that people are centrist - they don't like too much spending (which tends them to the right), but also don't want social or personal freedoms taken away (which takes them left).

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 08:59 AM) Yea, ok. Where's that ostrich smilie? On a continuum, this country is more conservative in their values then liberal. It's ok, though. You all explaining that the (especially top) Democrat party hasn't moved left at all explains volumes. Yet, leadership can't quite seem to get their s*** passed through. I wonder why that is? It couldn't be that voters don't want the bulls*** that they are trying to force us down, could it? As we've shown you time and again, clearly, no - that is not the issue. I don't know why this isn't obvious, because it seems to much so to me... The Dems are disorganized, and generally corrupt (not necessarily LEGALLY so, I'm talking about earmarks and other budget fattening B.S.), and can't get a policy mandate within their own party. They choose to have a bigger tent, and they clearly do, but the disadvantage is that its difficult to build concensus. The GOP on the other hand, is much more organized and lock-step, but they have in the last 15 years chosen to be lock step with values far to the right of center. So, this is why the Dems can't get s*** done, and further, why the GOP congress couldn't get s*** done in their last few terms either. One party is disorganized, politcally diverse, and corrupt. The other is organized, too marginal politically for broad support, and corrupt.

Not sure where to put this, since we don't have a "Tea Party" thread... Apparently, the Tea Party Nation is currently having its first "official" convention. The keynote speaker is Tom Tancredo. Here are some of this comments: And, the reaction from the party organizers: Tancredo is too hateful even for that crowd. How did that guy ever get elected to anything? And is this Tea Party movement, overall, going to be good or bad for the GOP?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 11:08 PM) Yeah they still have Morneau and Mauer so argument fail. LOL, OK. They have two very good hitters, therefore the entire team will be immune to the transition? Whose argument is a "fail"?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 08:48 AM) I'm struggling to see how the issues you cite, particularly "Water tech of all kinds" is going to drive the price of water up and not down. I can see how emerging markets will drive demand upwards, but a lot of water tech is now devoted to producing reasonable supplies of clean drinking water at low cost, since the lack of that kills a couple million people per year. OH jeez, sorry, that's not what I meant. I meant investing in water BUSINESS - technology and systems for refining, filtering, cleaning, desalinating, and conserving water. There are ETFs that specifically trade companies that do that sort of thing, which I think are very good long term bets.

LOL @ Center Right country. That makes no sense - the center of the country is the center of the country. Being center-right means, by nature, you are right of the center for the country. And I don't think the politcal center of the country has moved at all. For that matter, I don't think the Dems have moved either - but I am quite sure that a substantial piece of the GOP leadership has moved decidedly right in the past 15 years or so.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 08:19 PM) http://247wallst.com/2010/02/04/us-recessi...nted-by-824000/ Holy crap. What does that mean for April until now? We could EASILY see 12% UE #'s and 20%+ on the U6. Oh but wait... no we won't. Why? Because the 824,000+ have already given up. Oddly enough, when the numbers came out today, the U6 (underemployed and worker discouraged included) went DOWN about a full point. It was an odd set of data today - UE down to 9.7% from 10.1%, U6 down by a point from 17+ to 16+, and December jobs revised up by 60,000 added. But on the other hand, January lost 20,000 (consenses was for a gain of 5,000), and new fillings was slightly higher than expected. Also interesting, temp employment unexpectedly jumped in January when it was expected to fall, and average work week went up by .1 hours. Then there was the 800k revision for last year overall. So, it looks like 2009 was worse than we originally thought jobs-wise, but so far, 2010 is looking decent. Still probably not enough to get good momentum going, though.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 08:09 AM) Water is really a complicated bet though, because there's more government interference in that market than almost any other, and governments are willing to do stupid economic things to make sure that their citizens don't have to pay higher water bills directly (case in point, San Diego building desal plants). Emerging markets. Water tech of all kinds. I'll stake myself on this one - pretty sure that water is the next big world resource problem, after the current wave of alt energy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 07:50 AM) And over the last 10 years, how many times would I have been right in calling "Bubble"? If I'd had the money to invest, I could have made an absolute fortune betting against the housing market from 2005-on, if I was a little bit patient. Right now, I'd be betting against China and betting against the U.S. stock market. Most of the folks I talk to see the broader equity markets more or less flat in 2010 (but higher vols for short periods adding some erratic moves). By the way, you want a long term bet that will beat the market? Water.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 11:18 PM) I don't like to comment much on these awards, but I can't help but comment on this one. Kalapse + qwerty pessimist?! They aren't pessimist, they are just right about every damn thing pro or con. Guys like fathom (the best still) DA, jphat, etc.. are pessimist. Greg is an optimist. Probably the best optimist on soxtalk. (Melissa/kyyle is also right up there and Ranger needs to be around alittle longer to claim that title) Greg is an optimist? Seriously?

LOL, Kap and I appear on both the righty and lefty lists.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 4, 2010 -> 06:03 PM) "the bubble is coming, the bubble is coming"... (Balta)... Bubble Boy Balta? I guess when your career is spent waiting for earthquakes, you just assume that all manners of life are on the brink of catastrophe.