NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 02:52 PM) Self defense. ABSOLUTELY. You think its self-defense to shoot 13 million people who crossed the border illegally? WTF? In this specific case, it seems to be self-defense, and that's all fine. But you said 13 million.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 02:13 PM) Yes. keep investing in the technologies, but dont drop what you have until you DO get someting that works, without costing and arm and 2 legs. Drill, baby! And invest in new! Fair enough.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 02:22 PM) 13 million more of these and we clean up our problem. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/201...hooting-ON.html This is beyond crude. You want to shoot all of them?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 02:20 PM) How about he was arrested for a terrorist act and should not be inthe criminal system at all? By the way, had you intended to reply to my fossil fuels question with blanks?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 02:20 PM) How about he was arrested for a terrorist act and should not be inthe criminal system at all? How about it? I disagree. I don't see the stuff-him-in-a-crack option as legally or morally tenable. Use the options you have. You can enforce the law, or you can treat him like an enemy combatant. In this case, he's one dude trying to kill many - I see that as falling into enforcement of the law. May not be the popular opinion, but I think its the best way to go in this case.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 02:11 PM) I'm glad to know that this is all "law enforcement". The guy needs to have more then his pecker blown up after reading him his rights. On a personal level, I agree. But legally, I do not. The guy was arrested here, for a criminal act, and an attempt at a worse criminal act.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 02:02 PM) Until he lawyered up. Welcome to law enforcement. The fact that they got anything from this loser is a gift.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 02:01 PM) Hell, why lock your car, if someone wants to steal it or what's in it bad enough, they gonna do it anyway. Save the money for the alarm and locks and spend it on something else. Why lock your front door either. If theives want your big screen, they gonna get it anyway. The point is to spend enough to stop the casual assholes, and hopefully most of the committed ones, without breaking the bank. Somewhere there is a 'it costs too much' point, but I don't know where that is. New technology is always gonna cost more at first. So should we stop looking for new ways to stop terrorism? Do you feel the same way about investing in technology to get us off fossil fuels?

Adding yet another point to the "we got very lucky" column about this incident... the bomber apparently provided "actionable intelligence" in the hours after his arrest.

OK, so the CNNFN article is (as would be expected) a little more balanced and circumspect. Some excerpts of use: 51% to first-timers is a good indicator to me - that makes me feel like the tax credits may have some real use. That's another consideration - interest rates are so damn low, and won't stay that way all next year.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Dec 22, 2009 -> 10:36 AM) http://finance.yahoo.com/news/November-hom...set=&ccode= WASHINGTON (AP) -- Home resales surged last month to the highest level in nearly three years, reflecting an extraordinary level of federal support that has pulled the housing market back from the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Buyers were racing to complete their sales before the original expiration date of a tax credit for first-time buyers that was scheduled to expire Nov. 30. Last month, Congress decided to extend and expand the credit to ensure the housing market could sustain its recovery. The Realtors estimated that about 2 million homebuyers have taken advantage of the credit so far and forecasts that another 2.4 million will use it by the middle of next year. First-time buyers made up about half of all transactions last month, driving sales up 44 percent above last year's levels, a record jump. Sales are now up 46 percent from the bottom in January, but down 10 percent from the peak more than four years ago. The median sales price was $172,600, down 4.3 percent from a year earlier, and up 0.2 percent from October. "Things are stabilizing," said Pete Flint, chief executive of real estate Web site Trulia.com. "There is a significant amount of buyer interest out there." November sales rose 7.4 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 6.54 million, from a downwardly revised pace of 6.09 million in October. Sales had been expected to rise to an annual pace of 6.25 million, according to economists surveyed by Thomson Reuters. The inventory of unsold homes on the market fell about 1 percent to 3.5 million. That's a healthy 6.5 month supply at the current sales pace, the lowest level in three years. Besides the existing tax credit of up to $8,000 for first-time buyers, homeowners who have lived in their current properties for at least five years can now claim a tax credit of up to $6,500 if they relocate. To qualify, buyers must sign a purchase agreement by April 30. Postponing the deadline could mean sales will drop during the winter months and recover in the spring. "Buyers have no sense of urgency now," said Gary DeRosa, an agent with ZipRealty Inc. in Seattle. So, the pending sales reports (indicator of future sales) showed a drop of 16% month-to-month, October to November. As expected, there is likely to be a dip after the spike. What's funny to me though, is that the tone of this article is so gloomy, and fails to take the broader picture into consideration. Sales are up 44% from where they were at their bottom, but they appear to be ready to drop 16%. That means we are still 28% above the bottom we hit about a year ago. So, its a drop, which I think we all expected, but the housing market is still much healthier than it was. The article does mention that there is likely to be another spike in the spring, when approaching the next tax credit deadline (April). Which brings up an important point for discussion: how much do the tax incentives actually help? In other words, do the tax credits ONLY add spikes to what would be a more gradual increase? Or does it actually bring buyers to the market that would not otherwise be? Because I am beginning to think it doesn't bring a whole lot new to the market, and that the money would have been better spent trying to help stabilize existing mortgage markets and holders, than these tax credits. Anyone else agree? Has anyone here seen any data that actually tells us how many of the credit takers may not have bought at all in the next couple years?

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 10:23 AM) It is funny, my gf is GRITS (girl raised in the south) and we joke about "the war of northern aggression" every so often. Also, the south Texas area, especially the border region, was key to some of the Confederate's strategy. There are a couple battlegrounds near here. Including the last battle, which the south won. However it was months after the Rebs surrendered (someone forgot to check their email). So I will wind up teaching some of this from a Reb point of view, which is so foreign to me after being educated in the north. Some Texas companies lauched out during the Civil War to try to take New Mexico and Colorado for the Confederates. With them were a lot of people from the southeast, not used to the dry climate and real mountains. It didn't go terribly well. But there are some fascinating stories about that campaign and its battles. I hated history when I was growing up, because all they taught was dry, surface level stuff. Who was the XXth President? That kind of stuff. Its not useful. I'd rather they covered less topics, but with more depth, to give people the real feel of why things were important, and what it was like to be there. When I read historical books published now (Blood and Thunder is a fave, speaking of Texas and the Civil War), they are just so much more interesting. I really wish they'd teach from books like that in high school, instead of the nearly useless textbooks.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 09:23 AM) The voters didn't/don't want this bill, but they were trying to play the tightrope of how do we get this through with a chance to keep our seats. It's not going to work... and really, I shouldn't have said voters, I should have said special interests. I think the reality with the health care bill is that no solution will make any 50%+1 happy - that applies to voters, to Congressmen, and to special interests. And we are talking about a huge bill with so many moving parts, and expenses that are immense (even though some of them would create savings). For all those reasons, a bill that put in place a good long term plan was not possible. What we got instead was the inevitable result - a huge, lumbering bill that sends a lot of money to various places, does a few good things, a few bad things, and leaves a lot on the table. Is that progress? Probably. But I think these guys see it as just a step, to be re-addressed later.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 5, 2010 -> 09:21 AM) Ultimately they did. The whole thing was a game of charades to figure out how to ram it through without pissing off VOTERS, not each other. Interesting - you just made the case for Congress being in it for the voters, not themselves. Which I am surprised to hear from you.

So I was reading this article about the new security measures, and was surprised to see this: Cuba? State sponsor of terrorism?

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 4, 2010 -> 01:13 PM) I think for many staff members in Washington, it's a job. Well sure, but I think a party change for a Congress person is probably similar to an administration change, though maybe not quite as dramatic. There would be a shift.

Looks like Rogers is taking questions in Chat right now.

NVM, I found the free article. Linky.

QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Jan 4, 2010 -> 01:11 PM) I don't think Mitchell should be ranked ahead of Hudson/Flowers but I have no problems with him at 3rd. Morel's upside is questionable and Danks still has a long way to go himself. The Gonzalez writeup was very promising. Basically Rogers says that they have him on the fast track (whether righty or wrongly), he's good both offensively and defensively, with a plus arm and he should add more power as he fills out. That's great to hear on Gonzalez. Is the actual article linked somewhere, or is it behind a subscription wall?

QUOTE (Ozzie Ball @ Jan 4, 2010 -> 12:01 PM) Well here's the list: 1. Jared Mitchell, of 2. Tyler Flowers, c 3. Dan Hudson, rhp 4. Brent Morel, 3b 5. Jordan Danks, of 6. Trayce Thompson, of 7. Dayan Viciedo, 3b 8. David Holmberg, lhp 9. Clevelan Santeliz, rhp 10. Miguel Gonzalez, c Mitchell has great tools, and has advanced some of them to actual skills, but he's still got a ways to go to prove he's a ballplayer. He's got to be after the 2 through 5 on that list, IMO. And while I like Gonzalez, I think putting him in the top 10 might be a stretch at this point.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 4, 2010 -> 10:35 AM) So remember a couple weeks ago, when that Alabama Democrat defected to the GOP in Congress? This little drama is quickly becoming a comedy. I think if the show was on Fox, it would be "Parker Griffith Can't Win." First, his campaign consultants dropped him. Then, the teabaggers decided to primary him. Now, his entire staff quit. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/04/p...s_n_410280.html I always find party defectors to be fascinating, but Griffith's "reading of the tea leaves" last year has been an unmitigated disaster. Usually a party switch can be a boon to the party that is able to make it happen - but in the GOP's case, its becoming a farce, and definitely will make any unhappy Democrat think twice about bolting. The cash strapped RNC is going to have to pay to protect an incumbent in a primary that they had a real shot of picking off in the general. I'd have to think that major staff changes would occur when these guys flip anyway. Did it happen with Alexander? Or to look at the other direction, what about Ben Nighthorse Campbell?

QUOTE (heirdog @ Jan 4, 2010 -> 11:29 AM) I think Hudson, Viciedo, Torres and Mitchell will be traded for AGonz. The hold-up is likely that SD wants Flowers and Mitchell and we are offering Viciedo and Danks 2...KW will give in on Mitchell. PK is your DH as Kenny convinces JR to take on more payroll due to the sponsorship monies brought in by the Marketing dept (we keep hearing about "sponsorships" and "marketing dept" from KW so it must play a role in this plot). There is plenty of playing time for Guillen's boy Andruw Jones as he rotates around the OF giving guys days off. Kotsay will be the best PH in baseball and will spell AGonz/PK at 1B/DH. This will make us serious contenders next year and we can replace Konerko's contract with AGonz's extension in 2011. By doing well in 2010, we can keep our payroll higher since AGonz will cost more than Kong's current deal. We can sign a stopgap DH in 2011 or use an in-house option depending on how 2010 went. LF: Pierre C: Pierzynski RF: Quentin 1B: AGonz DH: Konerko 2B: Beckham CF: Rios 3B: Teahen SS: Ramirez 2011 LF: Pierre RF: Danks 2 DH: Quentin 1B: AGonz 2B: Beckham CF: Rios 3B: Teahen C: Flowers SS: Ramirez Mitchell cannot be traded before June, and I am not sure you can do a PTBNL with him either, given that protection.

Iowa State plays Duke in Chicago this Wednesday night, at the Horizon (or whatever its called now). Not sure they have ever played each other in the regular season. Probably going to be ugly for the Clones, but at least they will have a friendly crowd, more than likely.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2010 -> 09:33 AM) Yeah it wasn't Ozzie for sure at the game I was at. It must have been 1984, because it was Bryan Little who hit the other one. I can't find anyone on-line who lists them looking really quickly on google. Well hell, Guillen only hit like, what, 20 HR in his whole career? I'll see if I can find a list of those.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2010 -> 09:11 AM) If it was Dave Steib of Toronto pitching, in something like 84 or 85, yes I was. It was Rudy Law, Bryan Little, and Harold Baines with the homers. Then they were followed up with back to back doubles by Kittle and Fisk to make it 6-4. Then they went to the pen and closed us out. It was crazy. This may have been different then. I am 99% sure about Guillen being one of the HR's, because it was such a strange event. And Baines was another. So it had to be a season where Guillen was in the 2-slot, and he was a rookie in 1985.