NorthSideSox72

If we can gain 1 more to be at 4.5 back at the end of this series (and road trip), I'll feel like we have a real chance at this thing. Because even though KC is hot, we're playing them at home, while DET has to play in the Twinkie Dome. That makes me feel good about gaining some ground over the weekend too, in which case we could go into the first DET series at maybe 3.5 back. Eh, I'm probably just dreaming.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 03:12 PM) I think Obama kind of has to go. If he doesn't go and Rio wins the bid, regardless of whether they would have anyways, he'll catch a lot of undeserved slack for it. Agreed. It shouldn't have to be a kowtowing, throw money and fame at it sort of spectacle, but that is what the IOC is. Their level of corruption and sloth puts the City of Chicago to shame. So if he doesn't go, there is a serious chance they say no because of that (since its apparently a close race), and then people will say that Obama failed us. Well, that's sort of true, and sort of not. I hope he goes, and I'd guess he goes.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 16, 2009 -> 07:43 AM) I am guessing it was more like Bush had the sense to say no comment. LOL, Bush having more sense about what to say or not to say? Both these guys are human, both make gaffes, but come on.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 09:37 PM) Jimmy Carter = Pat Buchanan. Yes, I said it. Except Carter is electing to go out there in the world and try to do some good, while Buchanan sits on his ass and gets paid to spout crap. Carter spouts crap for free. I would tend to agree though, that just looking at what they both say, they are of a similar ilk - people who I wish I didn't have to keep listening to.

OK so, Hank Johnson is a racist ass. Noted.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 03:38 PM) Right. I'm just saying, if people had real problems with it, that could be a reason. If they were paranoid about profiling or whatever. We could be much more effective at law enforcement, investigations, crime prevention and national security, if we didn't have boundaries to those agencies. But as it happens, I tend to be a strict adherance guy when it comes to keeping the government's ability to enter private lives in check. Even if it means some people go free who should not.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 03:36 PM) There is divisional rotation. You will just always be playing at least some Central teams. So, we play two East teams then? That's not really a rotation, in my view. But I guess its semantics. I'd just rather see something like: play the Cubs once a year (alternate parks), and play 4 other series interleague each year, rotating divisions.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 03:34 PM) Not that I agree, but I could see how some people could be concerned if they had books on Arabic, Jihad, Al-Qaeda, bomb-making etc...checked out under their names. Or they could be doing research. I'd like to know more about the exact wording and span of these provisions, but in general, I tend to dislike a lot of the Patriot Act. I really, really didn't like that Obama flip-flopped and supported retro immunity to the telecoms, which I think set an awful precedent.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 03:28 PM) So, if we are playing the NL East next year...what's PIT doing on the schedule? I don't necessarily WANT to play the Phils or Mets, but it seems weird that we have the other three teams then Pittsburgh out of the Central. Clues? This isn't the NFL, there is no divisional rotation (though I wish that is exactly how it was done - one rivalry series, the others on a divisional rotation).

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 03:15 PM) I think I make a valid, and perhaps broader, point. that is why your valid, perhaps broader post was not deleted. The flippant, useless one is in the trash.

If you have nothing better to say than "this thread sucks" or the like, then go away. Seriously.

Daley now saying he thinks Obama may show up, and Daley is headed for DC anyway, probably will try to talk him into it. I still think Obama ends up going. 70/30.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 02:43 PM) AJ and Beckham are best buddies. Is Beckham the new Crede to AJ?

QUOTE (qwerty @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 01:45 PM) Here you go. Thank you, sir. So, we've played the Mets just 1 series, that's the least we've played anyone (no one we haven't played yet, except WAS as WAS, who we played as MON). And far and away the highest number is PIT, 23 times, including 4 years straight (5 next year). I might have to visit the in-laws in DC to go see a game there. Anyone been there to see a game?

Steve Lyons and his pants.

I tried Googling this, no luck... anyone know where I could find a list of what NL teams the Sox have played, and how many times? Are there any NL teams we haven't played yet?

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 01:16 PM) I feel like we're going in circles. Yeah, I keep thinking there is something worthwhile to discuss on the matter, but it seems like we've been over everything already. I'll stick with the NSS Plantm.

Good to see a few new interleague teams, but the PIT thing is irritating as hell. Also, it seems like we have played CLE on Opening Day all but one of the past 5 or 6 years. That is also getting old.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 12:30 PM) Private contractors definitely don't work for cheaper. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...a/mercenary.htm The reason former soldiers become PMCs is because they can earn up to 400% of what they made in the military. http://www.bushleagueofnations.com/chapter...Nations-Ch7.pdf The increased use of PMCs is because they can get away with a lot more legally, they provide plausible deniability, and the further merging of the MIC into the goverment and the corruption that comes with it. You are making a false assumption. You are thinking that because the individual contractor makes more money than they do as a soldier, that means they cost more. The opposite is true. Soldiers are paid very little, but the expense TO GOVERNMENT is much higher because of all the various overhead associated with the military generally. The contractors don't have that burden, so the companies can pay their folks more, but pay a metric f***ton less for the overall delivery of service, and thereby charge the government less.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 12:03 PM) We use Xe to do our fighting because that provides plausible deniability when they commit war crimes and atrocities. The increased privatization also is largely because of people like Cheney and his connections with Halliburton. Partially true on the second, but the first sentence has very little basis in reality. And I've done some reading on Blackwater and other companies of that ilk, as well as talked to people who have been around them on the ground in Iraq. The primary reasons for using them, in order of importance, in my experience, are: 1. Simple personnel math - without a draft or a much larger armed forces, as we are engaged in two major conflicts, we needed to take on more boots to make it work, and the answer was was these guys. 2. The political implications of having fewer actual military forces on the ground are better. 3. Contractors are a lot easier to take on and let go. 4. These private contractors could do things that fell between the legal cracks (this is sort of like your first sentence, but not exactly). 5. These private contractors could do the work for cheaper.

You guys are hilarious, with the lobbing of hyperbole and absolutes from either side of the aisle. Its like being in Congress without the suits and parliamentary procedures.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 11:04 AM) LMAO. There is no "leader" but you sure as hell want a strawman to hang, don't you? Well he's not a strawman, because he exists. What bothers me about posting crap like this is that AHB is accidentally encouraging the behavior by propogating it. Best policy is to ignore it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 10:55 AM) Because our system is designed in a way such that everyone makes more money the more they do. The more procedures a doctor orders, the more money they make. You guys like capitalism, you ought to understand that concept; if you make more money by ordering more care, you're going to order more care for people. The British, IIRC, do something different. If you pay doctors on salary, even if they're making really, really good salaries, then you remove the economic incentive where it benefits a doctor to overtreat. This points back directly to that test-case in El Paso TX we talked about a few times, where in McAllen TX, the doctors were ordering vastly more care for the same amount of tests as the city next door and were getting worse health care outcomes. You know, I don't agree with a lot of what you say on this topic, but I am intrigued by the idea of somehow creating a model where Doctor's salaries are flat regardless of procedures ordered or performed. I'm not sure how you'd do it, but, if you can find a way to make it work, I'd be all ears.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 14, 2009 -> 04:41 PM) If those are our representatives, hello, Rio. Yeah, I tend to agree. But I also think there is a significant chance that Barack actually shows up at the last minute to join Michelle in Copenhagen and make a pitch.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 09:07 AM) Havent had any problems so far, and it loads faster than XP did. Its entirely possible that the newer versions that are OEM on newer machines are much better than when Vista first hit the market.