NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 12:39 PM) There was a big temporary tax break as well. You mean the housing credit? I am talking about retail spending here.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 01:08 PM) Higher than expected are still much lower than what those numbers have been in the past. It is the game of low expectations at play for lots of this data. I think you are still missing what I am saying here. Why have the numbers increased, over time, over the last few months, even when seasonally adjusted? What has changed?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 12:23 PM) This And as I said earlier, that specific aspect, I generally agree. ObamaCo was good at first about putting more information out there, but then they closed up shop, which I did not like at all. If that is what Greenwald was even getting at. If we are talking about defense and intelligence-related secrecy, that is a different story.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 12:23 PM) The consumer spending is being artificially effected by short term stimulus money that people know isn't going to be around. I am still getting unemployment and spending money. I don't have any prospects for work, so what confidence would I have right now? Even getting past that the growth areas are all artificial. Housing prices are up, only because of a short term stimulus item. Odds are that prices drop by at least the figure of the tax credit when they are done. What stimulus money? The only real cash anyone is getting is unemployment, which is only higher than normal in length because it was extended. You think that few % of people who have extended benefits are making that difference? Also, that doesn't really answer the question. My question is not why is it not crashing further - because its not doing that anyway. My question is, why is it going UP? People who go to unemployment don't suddenly start spending more, in fact they probably spend a lot less. So that makes this bump even stranger. I am not talking about housing here, BTW, I am referring to repeated months of stronger than expected retail sales (and I am looking at the numbers that leave out autos, because that was way artificially high, then way artificially low, thanks to Cash for Clunkers).

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 12:21 PM) the use of state secrets under the bush administration was unprecedented, and now, it´s precedent is the status quo. obama, who railed against this, hides behind it. Good luck overturning anything in congress, you need super majorities now! No, turning off extraordinary renditions has no consequences. It´s supporting torture. If I order a man to murder someone, I´m as guilty as the murderer. It´s not easy, but it´s completely possible, and could be done. But it´s not going to be done, because they don´t want it to. So Obama is doing pretty much everything exactly the same. Considering Bush stopped torture in 2003, I´d say near identical. If you'd like to try to make everything seem black and white, and give the Kaperbole "they're all the same" line, go right ahead. But politics is never, ever, 100% black and white.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 12:04 PM) I'm going to outsource my reply. I think they are mischaracterizing SOME of the budget hawks. Many of them, on this topic, are concered that the bill does not at all "unambiguously" decrease the deficit by the amounts being projected.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 12:07 PM) Petraeus agrees that there are no Al Qaeda in Afghanistan as of May: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84N7Vl9wPjY He says there are affiliate groups, however. McChrystal says there are no major AL Qaeda signs in Afghanistan: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/11/m...a_n_283634.html A US official says that Al Qaeda is based on Pakistan, where there are 300 agents: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/11/...in5613564.shtml The Sec. of State says ousting Al Qaeda is our only goal in Afghanistan: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/n...sting-al-qaeda/ Pat Benatar sings Love Is a Battlefield: LOL, love the Pat Benatar. Nicely done. AQ is not the one and only thing to be concerned about, of course, and you'll not my original post said Jihadists, and I think I said extremists later - AQ is but one of many groups and individuals in that category. The Pakistan part of the issue, however, is very dicey. We cannot invade Pakistan at this point, but what we could do, and I think they are trying to do, is force the hand of the Taliban et al. Make them either fight in Afghanistan, or give it up and run to Pakistan. Then, you push to that border, and force the Pakis to try to do more (which they already are, though not enough). Basically, you squeeze them.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 11:54 AM) The Bush administration seemed to. The executive branch, through it´s judiciary, has much of the resources to solve these problems. With one declaration, yes, extraordinary rendition ends. Not use state secrets for any business the state does. that ends. Not try and shut down cases in OTHER COUNTRIES that are researching what illegal activities their intelligence agencies did. All within their power. And yes, they can move forward with prosecutions for ALL of these inmates, and the ones that didn´t do anything do not have to be indefinitely detained. All of these is fixable. But they don´t want to fix them, or else they would have. And now, let´s put american soldiers to die for a drug dealer to get his act together and help a country he´ll never have control over. Its not nearly as easy as you characterize it. Executive Orders can be overturned by Congress, the judicial system isn't ready for all of them at once, and making a blanket rule about state secret use is incredibly dangerous. The only one you mention here that could even possibly be done as quickly as you'd like is extraordinary renditions, which I think is a difficult subject, and simply turning it off has consequences as well. No, Bush did not do it, at all.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 11:48 AM) Isn't the estimate of Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan somewhere between 30 and 100? I have not seen a recent estimate of a specific number, so you tell me. Part of the issue here is that many Taliban, AQ and affiliated groups range back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 11:27 AM) EVERY relief pitcher, sans Rivera, can be frustrating. Betancourt is a good one, and would be a nice addition. I was specifically referring to watching him pitch, regardless of success rate. Have you seen him pitch? He's like an OCD buffet out there, and takes forever to deliver a pitch.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 11:14 AM) 25 and essentially no time above double a, while not being impressive in double A both times around...1.46 and 1.47 whip back to back seasons. He is a non-prospect. The sox are not fooling anyone (well maybe some) but not myself. I don't think their attempting to fool anyone - I think they see a live arm with special potential, and being toolsy types, some of them will keep trying to tweak him into making best use of those skills, regardless of his performance. In general, as other posters back here will attest to, I usually lean more on stats than some others. But that doesn't mean I think that certain players, particularly pitchers, with certain skills, can't be taught or molded, even at a later age or level.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 11:18 AM) read some of these cases before you talk out of your ass and then claim we are delusional. I have, though I certainly don't claim to be an expert. Do you? What is delusional is this idea that people seem to have, that Obama could simply "solve" all 250 cases in less than a year. Its not possible. And as for talking out of my ass, I seem to be the only one in this discussion looking at the situation as it stands in reality, not in some world I've built in my head where the US government can be turned on a dime.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 11:00 AM) We´re only being partly evil!!! go U.S.! Now Egypt and Iran can only half-laugh when we tell them to support human rights. LOL, you guys are delusional. You have 250 dangerous individuals in custody, you realize the previous President did this in a way that was despicable, so... you do what? Release all 250 back to their countries? What did you expect would happen? Your la-la land desire to have a complete 180 here is not possible in any reality.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 10:58 AM) see comments in quote The only thing there worth responding to is your extrapolation about secrecy - in that direct vein, I agree.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 10:53 AM) Based on the article I linked, I don't get that impression. Might or might not happen, I was focused on what is happening or has happened. My point is, I think its funny that some people had this bizarre idea that Obama would come in and change everything instantly. That is not possible, for any President. He's made progress in every area that was cited in your quote that I responded to. To me, that is success, for a President just one year in.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 09:56 AM) His peripherals do not suggest he will ever be a factor in the majors, unless arm, after arm, after arm... etc... go down. He is a non prospect at this point, and should never be an option for a team trying to contend for a world series. I'm not so sure. I certainly don't see him being an elite arm, but I think non-prospect is a bit harsh. He has tools that they have been trying to refine, and may or may not be successful. My larger point was, its obvious with the way the org has moved him up, that THEY see something in him.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 10:09 AM) An average of 35 saves a year is elite. He also broke the all time MLB record for consecutive outs while doing it. Tied, not broke. Also, bulk number of saves isn't a great number to look at. Look at success rate, and drill down to success rates by lead given. Jenks is a good closer, but as previously illustrated, there are probably 5 to 10 guys better.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 10:48 AM) What about these 75 guys being held? 75 of the 200-something? You make my point here quite well - they are making a lot of headway, more than half, and then they'll get to those 75. Did you think they'd just up and release all 250 of them and say "have a nice life"?

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 10:44 AM) I think we should sign the Big Hurt for 2010 I would not have been opposed to signing him just for September of last year, when the team gave up the ghost, so Frank could hit a couple more bombs and retire. If he could pass the physical. But you aren't serious about your post for 2010, are you?

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 10:44 AM) You should have said we on the right. LOL, yes, because only one party is smart.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 10:41 AM) And you know this as fact how? Charles Krauthammer told you? Well, again, they are all projections, no one knows any of this stuff for a FACT.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 10:38 AM) Come on people we are smarter than this. The bill is a fraud. They cannot show the real cost over a ten year period because it is more than 2x the reported price. That wasn't even what I was talking about - I was referring to your picture of the political calculus, which I felt was incorrect, though I may have misunderstood your point.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 10:36 AM) I only murdered her a little bit, your honor...I shouldn't be held as accountable as that guy who murdered her a lot! I don't care if it's a lesser degree or not, aren't these the very things he said he'd NEVER do? And how are most of those not true? Did I say it was OK? Pretty sure I didn't. Let's break it down... indefinite detention: not at all, in fact we are seeing people released, sent to trial, taken out of Gitmo, etc. military commissions: still there, but I don't recall anyone saying they shouldn't be. Blackwater assassination squads: Xe has lost lots and lots of contracts, their presence is decreasing rapidly, as expected, and that's a good thing. escalation in Afghanistan: This looks like it will be true, but Obama all but said it would be. extreme secrecy to shield executive lawbreaking from judicial review: Not sure precisely what he is getting at here, so might be true, kind of vague. renditions: Is this still happening? Probably occasionally, but probably less, however we don't really know. denials of habeas corpus: Again very broad statement here, I haven't seen it, all I've seen is getting more people in front of judges. So basically, as I said, mostly untrue, or partially true.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 10:31 AM) Or the .5% revision to Personal consumption. This brings up an oddity that I have noted lately, that is good for discussion here. One number the markets are sensitive to is consumer confidence. The assumption is that, when consumers are more confident, they spend more. More granular numbers are available too, like % of people who plan to spend $X in some period of time. Those numbers haven't recovered at all. And yet, the actual spending seen as reported by real sales numbers for retailers have risen, slightly, in recent months. My posit, which I think I've stated before, is that the lowering of spending by consumers shot lower than was really sustainable by the American market. Basically, Americans are so used to spending so much, that they couldn't hunker down THAT much, for THAT long. But a further point here is that, I think, the recession causes people to think, and say, they will cut down spending my X amount. But that doesn't mean they actually do it. Certainly, for those who are losing jobs or income, their cut backs will be real. But remember, even a huge jump in UE like we have seen in this recession, going from 6%-ish to 10%-ish (or 10%-ish to 17%-ish, depending on which number you want to use), is still only having that profound effect on 4 to 7% of the population. For most others, changes that effect them directly are smaller. They will continue to spend. Anyone else have a competing theory, as to why these numbers have diverged?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 24, 2009 -> 09:59 AM) Here's a tidbit from today's Greenwald that sums up my disappointment in Obama: Might be a good point if it were true, but most of those aren't, or are done at a much lesser degree than we saw before.