NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 08:07 AM) Also, you have to keep in mind that since humans have been added to the mix as part of the food chain we can't just mindlessly meddle in natural affairs without thinking things through, no matter how hard the decision is to make. For example, I forget the years it occurred, but deer hunting was banned in IL...and it resulted in deer starving to death because suddenly there wasn't enough food to go around. Wolves were once their main predator, but wolves were gone due to hunting, expansion of urban areas, etc...and humans were their last predator...when humans were removed from the equation "out of love for the poor defenseless animals", they wen't from dying from a gunshot wound to starving to death slowly over a sub zero freezing winter. Good job. Wolves have suddenly flourished, BTW, and are re-emerging as far south as southern Wisconsin and northern IL. An even more profound example - its been illustrated scientifically that the extinction of large predators in Colorado due to overhunting probably caused the Big Thompson flood that killed dozens of people, sometime in maybe the 60's (I don't recall the date off hand). Wolves are doing quite well, but in some areas, people are freaking the f*** out about it. They seem convinced that wolves will carry away their children in the night. Nevermind that the total number of wolf attacks on humans in recorded history on this continent is either zero or maybe one (a questionable case). You are more likely to be killed by a meteor than a wolf.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 07:34 AM) The high-level dems only campaigned for Lieberman in the primary, after that everyone was kind of mum, but Clinton, for instance, helped the Lemont campaign. They weren't mum, they tacitly supported him. Do you think its because they liked him? No, they didn't campaign against him for the only logical reason - they knew it was highly likely that Lieberman would win. Clinton was respositioning and trying to make waves ahead of a Prez bid.

1. People here are missing the point when they comment on the looks of this girl. Guys who do this sort of thing habitually, especially celebrities, are doing it because they love to be worshipped. They were probably beat up a lot in school as kids, or otherwise had fragile egos, and now that they are making it in the world, they want everyone to bow at their feet. It really doesn't matter to them if the girl is a supermodel or not - they are just unable to resist the urge to spend time with someone who looks at them as if they were a god. 2. Aside from missing the point, its also a little insulting to attack this girl's appearence, no? Did she piss in your cheerios or something? I don't feel particularly bad for HER per se, because she chose to be stupid just like he did. Just wanted to point out the lack of class in making those comments, and also to say I doubt that everyone posting in this thread is a stunning adonis themselves.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 07:21 AM) it's not true that Lemont had no chance in the GE. If he hadn't stayed mum for 3 weeks in october when Lieberman started to backtrack on war rhetoric it would have prevented a lot of the 20% migration from democrats. I guess that is your opinion, but obviously the high level Dems decided otherwise, and I tend to agree with their assessment. Lamont wasn't going to win, unles Lieberman self-destructed somehow.

For all of you having a contest about what college head coach is the biggest tool, just be happy you didn't have to live through Jim Walden telling you the team is losing because they are wearing do-rags under their helmets. Jim Walden >>>>>>>>>>> ALL on the college football head coach tool scale.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Oct 28, 2009 -> 01:26 AM) All this talk about Retherford and Jo. Danks is the one putting up .436/.542/.667/1.208 numbers so far. Really good to see. Expectations are higher for Danks, CJ is an NDFA who came seemingly out of nowhere. Still though, I agree that its great to see Danks come out strong and show that the problems during the season were likely his injury.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 06:08 PM) Disagree. QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 06:38 PM) that's not true. lol wut? Its not true I disagree? How strange.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 05:57 PM) If that income is used to support the church when it otherwise wouldn't be or is turned around and spent on charity or the community, eh. But thinking out loud there's already tax deductions for that sort of stuff. I actually agree with that idea in principle, however, two problems. One, that move would bankrupt the US Catholic Church instantly, and might do the same to the Mormons. Two, you will have a hard time defining what is really used for "worship" or church business, and what is not.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 04:23 PM) yes he would have. Disagree.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 03:55 PM) Somone remind me why so many Dems backed the Independent Joe Liebermann vs the Democratic Challenger Ned Lamont. Because Lamont wasn't going to be able to win, and half a senator is better than no senator.

This list is invalid without Ehren Wassermann.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 03:06 PM) We'll take a lot of other species down with us, though, and the billions of years of evolution it took to produce those particular lines. Conservationism is, again, the solution here. Which by the way is not necessarily the same as environmentalism.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 01:16 PM) I believe we do have an effect on the environment, I just think it's far less than we'd like to believe. After all, that'd be a blow to our huge egos as a people. Regardless, I think the effect that we have yet to feel will be even worse on our egos... When we realize that despite all of our knowledge, power, and money...to put this into slang for proper effect, "There ain't dick we're gonna be able to do about it...at the hands of mother nature, we're gonna bow down and pray, cuz there ain't no stopping this now." I think the ironic part of all of this is that mother earth herself gave us the ingredients we'd use to destroy ourselves. Not only that, but we'd LOVE using these ingredients along the way, and after learning they're really bad...we will continue to use them because it's convenient to do so. Look, f*** rice...we need 1 minute instant rice...5 minutes is too f***ing long!#@$ I mean, Earth HAS to find this funny...I do...and I kinda feel like my sense of humor is in line with that of some external force of awesome like the Earth itself. Yeah, I always thought it was silly when people used phrases like "we are destrying the earth!". No, the earth will be fine. We, however, won't be, because the earth (mother nature or ecosystems or whatever) is waaaaaaay stronger and smarter than we are. This is why conservationism is so important - reducing our impact on our environment means reducing the equal and opposite negative reaction.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 01:05 PM) Wow, someone actually noticed that! Honestly, the fact that democrats and liberal leaning folks keep leaning on this Fox "NEWS" thing is as ridiculous as republicans asking for Obama's birth certificate over and over. It's not a big surprise the "news" is biased one way or the other, and that goes for all news organizations, not just Fox...so please, let's stop pretending it's just Fox. It's ignorance personified to do so. News is reported by people, and therefore, will always have various levels of bias. Which I think is what you are getting at. However, two important notes here. One, Fox is far more biased in their coverage than the other major networks. Two, regardless of that, the major problem with ALL these news outlets is that they are shallow and trashy, doing very little actual reporting on actual news. Its all opinion and flash-and-dash garbage. That is actually a much larger problem here, than any inherent bias. Real journalism is expensive, sometimes boring to most people, and usually presents the true complexity of things. People don't like that - they want simple, black and white, someone to blame.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 12:00 PM) Well, I can take it one step further and note that it's a symptom of the problem that is a private, for-profit health care system; if something's not extremely profitable (i.e. e.d. drugs) then there's no money going in to it, which is exactly the system we've decided so far that we want in this country. That is a public policy decision, and it was the explicit policy of the last administration. Anyway, yeah I'm stretching, but this is one of those things I think is actually really important in the health care debate so I do like to highlight it. The Pharmaceutical companies waste enormous sums on finding ways around patent protections, on commercials trying to sell people drugs they don't really need, etc., and meanwhile research funds for things that might legitimately help people, cut costs, or save lives has for the most part dried up because doing those things isn't as profitable. This is a key flaw in the private system. I don't disagree that the profit motivation and the public health motivations don't always work well together, and that should be addressed. I jsut disagree that this is "Obama's fault" or "Bush's fault".

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 11:48 AM) So basically you've accepted my premise that the only way to fix the system is to make health care public. Yay. Don't play dumb Balta, it doesn't suit you. I stated in great detail what I'd do, in this forum, and I am sure you read it. Making health care entirely public is not a viable solution.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 11:46 AM) Actually I can come up with a totally valid reason for doing so. The flu vaccine production system has been desperately in need of modernization for years, decades probably. There are new technologies that could be applied that would likely produce vaccine faster or cheaper. But because the flu vaccine isn't hugely profitable like, you know, drugs that help you have sex, there's no money going from the private sector into developing new production methods. At some point, the government either ought to step in and pay to upgrade the system or the government ought to mandate that someone else should pay for it. But instead, we get viagra. Lots and lots of viagra. And commercials for it. Anyway, that's a different rant. That isn't a valid reason for blaming the President. That's a valid reason for blaming the drug companies.

QUOTE (docsox24 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 11:35 AM) yes, yes and i have seen how these over hyped prospects, especially pitchers, have turned out and they arent worth the ridiculous financial risk. do you think the red sox wish they paid dice k still? LOL, you have lost all credibility. You just claimed you have his birth certificate. It is possible to state why you think its a bad idea without making absurd, unfounded claims, and labeling them as if they were fact. You cannot possibly know for a fact what his age is.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 09:03 AM) Meh. I don't see the point of this thread other than religion bashing. "My make-believe mythology is better than yours!" This from the guy who recently posted "Religion... Bahaha".

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 11:43 AM) it's also not a secret that the 60 vote supermajority required for everything passing the Senate is also a new development over the last 10 years or so, and especially the last 3. And regardless of what party is in charge, I despise this fact.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 10:54 AM) The Republicans had 8 years to craft a health insurer friendly, market based solution to health care, and all they did was pretend there wasn't a problem. It's our turn to try to fix it. I didn't say I like the GOP approach either. Their approach is basically no approach at all. The Dem approach has been 100 different approaches. Either model in the world of private business would result in running said business into the ground.

It is patently absurd to blame Obama or Bush for slowness of getting out flu vaccines.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 27, 2009 -> 08:57 AM) You know, just saying this for a thought. The surface of the earth is probably much like a frying pan. Think about it. It will retain heat even if the air temprature cools. When you turn off the stove or the oven, the temprature of what's on it or in it stays the same or actually goes up until it can catch up to the surroundings. And as to the "causes" that's obviously open for debate, so let's not go down that path when I make the point above. It's just a thought meant to discuss, not throw Kaperbole ™ at this. Certainly, the surface of the earth effects temperature that way. I got the impression that when they were talking about ground sources versus satellite, they didn't mean temps on the ground versus in space, because obviously they would be wildly different. I think it was satellite data of "surface" temperatures, meaning "near" the surface. The causes are up for debate, most specifically, the extent of human effect. I don't see how anyone could doubt that human activity and industry must have at least some effect - just look around you. But the extent of it is certainly up for debate.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 26, 2009 -> 05:24 PM) No, I am glad you added a few guys you enjoy. I share your opinion on a few of them. Just wanted to make it clear that I was not sticking up for Morgan here. I would love to hear some of the other commentators that are well-liked. Personally, I enjoy McCarver, Phillips, Hershiser, Tom Grieve (Rangers color commentator), Bob Brenly, Steve Stone, of course Vin Scully, and as you mentioned, Dave Campbell and Rob Dibble. I think the two worst I have heard are Morgan and Dick Stockton. I pretty much agree on all the above. But, to really put me in the minority, I also don't think Buck is as bad as people make him out to be. He isn't an analyst in baseball, but he's a decent PBP guy, IMO. Some of the best baseball announcers I've heard are the radio guys for the Twins. I am not even sure who they are off hand, but, I've listend a few times, and came away impressed.

QUOTE (greasywheels121 @ Oct 26, 2009 -> 07:41 PM) I would say anything in a 5 mile radius would be ideal, since I'm running in between the driving. If you want public transit from the NW suburbs, you can always drive to Cumberland and park-and-ride the CTA Blue Line in from there. You then have two options. One, get off the blue line at whatever stop is nearest Montrose, and take the Montrose bus east. Two, take the Blue downtown and the red back out, to Montrose (will take longer).