NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 21, 2008 -> 07:40 AM) I remember reading a story about a player who was the ptbnl in three deals. It was hilarious. I wish I had saved it. Or the guy who was traded for a PTBNL, then after the season, he went back to the original team AS the PTBNL. He was traded for himself.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 21, 2008 -> 06:04 AM) Hillary Clinton stumping in Nebraska. Obama trying to peel off that one extra electoral vote in the Omaha area. That would be interesting.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 20, 2008 -> 09:41 PM) By the way, let's just ABSOLUTELY cut to the chase here. Colin Powell has NEVER really been a Republican, from a social standpoint. So, him endorseing Obama is not race, it's issues, and reality is, he never really stood for anything the GOP ever did anyway, except the military. Period. Bottom line, his endorsment shouldn't mean a damn thing, nor should it be a surprise to anyone who listens to him speak. I've read his autobio, I've seen him speak, I've read other books that talk at length about him. He is a social liberal, mostly (though not entirely). But he's also a strict federalist and tends to agree with the GOP on small government, the military, and finance. So to say he's never really stood for anything GOP isn't really accurate, IMO. That all said, he is a moderate, so his endorsement of Obama isn't a HUGE surprise. It may be helpful for Obama among moderates, to some very small extent.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 20, 2008 -> 05:23 PM) Guiliani's florida. And it makes no sense to do a "last stand" anyway, because you end up looking bad EVERYWHERE. People see that, and think, well, he's done. Why should I vote for him? even if you are putting most of your resources into PA, you don't SAY that to the press. That's just stupid. It means that, if you did have even a small chance of winning CO, NM or IA, that your announcement just made sure that's gone too. People in those states will say, screw him!

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 20, 2008 -> 03:30 PM) A CNN corespondent is reporting that McCain officials are saying off the record they are planning on pulling out of Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa to concentrate on fighting for Pennsylvania. Yeah, its up on cnn.com now. I find that very odd. Looks to me like PA is a solid double digit lead for Obama right now, whereas CO and NM are closer. I'm trying to figure out why they are giving up on them. IA is a lost cause, I get that. Maybe McCain sees the larger PA electoral total as his only way to win. Thing is, if he leaves CO and NM and IA, and can't win PA either, its over (even if McCain can get FL, OH and VA). So really, its like McCain's campaign is saying that PA is it. That's the last stand. Wow.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 20, 2008 -> 03:04 PM) you could look at it this way. BUt this is another example of dissonance in the McCain campaign of people acting and then having to qualify. In this narrative, who is in control of the McCain campaign? That is a different, but also interesting, discussion.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 20, 2008 -> 02:16 PM) Extends an olive branch after spending a full week telling America how he "pals around with terrorists". I'm amazed at how civil his reactions have been given the circumstances. Yes. This, to me, is a key piece for a President to understand - you cannot ONLY penalize bad behavior. You also have to embrace desired behavior. This is how you move forward. In general, Obama has been decent at this. But in this case, he lost an opportunity. Probably, it was done because his leads in the polls are waning a bit, and his handlers are telling him to get a little tougher. And tough is fine. Tough doesn't preclude you from being tough but fair.

Amazing though it may seem to some, I am going to contribute an item to this topic. See these 2 grafs from a CNN article: This is a B.S. move by Obama, IMO. Disappointing, and will only serve to amplify the negativity. Now, if he wants to rail against the dirty robo-calls, fine - I think that is a smart thing to do. You want to rail on Palin for talking about accountability when she's just been found to have violated state ethics guidelines, also fine. She's being hypocritical - call her on it. But when your opponent extends an olive branch, you don't take it, then stomp it into the ground. This was a piss poor move by Barack.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 20, 2008 -> 02:44 PM) Well, there was tons of panic, so the bailout didn't really help with that. The bailout didn't generate liquidity by giving billions to failure, giving billions to banks that did not belly up would have generated more liquidity. As far as the jobs, when your corporation goes bankrupt you lose your job, it's a hard reality but a reality. Tossing trillions into failed corporations to save jobs hurts the long term stability of the economy. Rewarding failure will encourage more failure. I am not saying the bailout was all good, or any good at all, in this case. I am just saying, I think you had a different idea than I did of what its purpose was. And it DID help with the panic - the markets had their biggest single-week gain EVER last week. And it also helped liquidity for banks, as we saw no majors fail. I know what you are saying about propping up bad businesses. And I agree, to an extent. But I think that some of the banks headed towards failure were too big to let fail. If Congress or the next President can follow up these packages with rules changes and enforcement that is meaningful, I think it works well as a group of efforts. We'll have to see if that second part happens.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 20, 2008 -> 01:38 PM) The direct reason we were given for the bailout was that money was needed to be injected immediately into credit for small businesses and such. I knew that claim was incorrect as these banks were going to use the money to stabilize their failed corporations. A very small fraction of this money will be used for loans, we would have been better off letting these banks blow up and give the billions to banks that did not fail. At least reward banks that worked well. Oh, if these same lending demands that Barney and the Dems put on the banks to give out risky loans is still enforced these banks might get out of the home loan business completely and take their bailout money and use it to generate money in different avenues. The direct reasonS (plural) included jobs protection, keeping financial order and preventing panic, generating liquidity, and yes, also, lending out the cash to open credit markets. But I never had the impression that was a single, only reason for it. I do agree however, that what is missing is the second step that needed to come after the bailout - changing the rules.

BMW will do a small scale test release of an all-electric Mini Cooper, in LA and NY. Only 500 will be leased out, and at a high cost. This is apparently sort of a combination concept and test car. it will be able to go 150 miles on a charge. No gas engine backup on this one though.

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Oct 20, 2008 -> 01:29 PM) The Pirates for Franklyn German. Thanks. Any idea when this might be completed?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 20, 2008 -> 02:22 PM) John Kerry with a zinger today: The Obama part was mildly funny. The McCain part is just dumb.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 20, 2008 -> 02:20 PM) What I thought was going to happen is. The banks are going to hoard their bailout money, not use it to give out loans any time soon. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/business...amp;oref=slogin Sort of. Its not as if they are creating cash reserves with it. They are staying afloat with some of it. That will help more people keep their jobs, and later, get lending opened up faster. I didn't think anyone was under the impression that this money was all going to go directly towards lending anyway. Only some of it.

This would probably have been in the catch-all, so it should be a short thread. I seem to recall that one of the last minute deals we made during the 2008 season, we sent a PTBNL to another team. I can't recall what deal or what team. We sent Masset for Griff, and Paolo Orlando for H Ramirez, right? Anyone else remember this?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 20, 2008 -> 01:46 PM) What a ringing endorsement. Well, its not earth-shattering or anything. Don't expect 100% reality either. But its definitely a worthwhile pick for a long flight - entertaining and fun.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 20, 2008 -> 12:39 PM) Anyone see Charlie Wilson's war? Flying to the west coast tomorrow and had it queued up. My interest level is very low though. Thinking of grabbing something else instead. I kinda liked it.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Oct 20, 2008 -> 12:29 PM) Haha Steve, that "I wouldnt put up with that" only applies to the non-married folk. That ring on your finger says you will put up with that, and much more. You know what's really funny? I was the one who started the question about this. I'm married. And I meant it the opposite of the way all the single guys here think I meant it. What I was saying was, if santo is telling his girlfriend that "she thinks she is religious", and giving her the "I told you so" line... I'm surprised she is still with him. This has been a very interesting, unintentend experiment in the difference between married and single men.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 20, 2008 -> 07:35 AM) The last six months or so are the exact reason that a balanced budget amendment would not work. There are points in time where government spending is necesary to save the economy. I agree, but I don't agree that a balanced budget amendment prevents that from happening. As I've said, raising short term debt is fine. You then adjust the rest of your spending accordingly, and you use money from reserves that should be there (because you've been balancing or running surpluses).

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 19, 2008 -> 07:00 PM) Bush is charismatic? Please. Furthermore, research, analysis, consideration, and pulling information from Democrats - woot! Corrected that for you. RSO's only saying the stuff he does now because he thinks it will get him "evengelical" votes, and if they are stupid enough to not see through that smokescreen, they deserve what we're about to see for the next 4 years. All I hope is that there's enough votes in the Senate to filibuster everything so nothing gets done. Especially nannystate health care. Mock all you'd like. I can't say how successful Obama will be as President, but I'd bet serious money that he'll do a far better job making decisions based on things like facts and logic, instead of "my gut". That was my point.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 19, 2008 -> 06:57 PM) Oh I know. I think when you stoop to the level that the other guy's playing, it becomes like playing in the mud with pigs. I just find it EXTREMELY hypocritical because everyone wants to claim RSO's clean as a whistle when in fact he's ran a very dirty campaign as well - but McCain's been worse, I will agree with that. RSO's crowd still wants to feel "clean" and it's laughable because his surrogates have been much more dirty then the hated Karl Rove, they just don't want to admit it because they want to "feel good" about their candidate. That's a lot of straw men.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 19, 2008 -> 05:52 PM) was there a scene where W is flying a jet plane drunk? i thought i read something about that. W's passenger was like "is this the first time you've flown a jet?" and W was like "this is how you learn" Hm, I don't recall a scene like that. Maybe I missed it, but, I don't remember that.

Saw it yesterday. Here is my review... W was a disappointment on multiple levels. First, the presentation of the non-Bush players - Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rove... were all charicatured and waaaaaaay over the top. Laughably so, but not as a parody - you get the impression that the filmmakers really see them this way. Its ridiculous. In particular, Thandie Newton as Condaleeza Rice was just awful. The portrayal of W was not all bad - it did show some of the key elements, good and bad. But it also put an unnecessarily strong emphasis on stupid falls. For example, they included an extended scene of him choking on a pretzel. It was disconnected from everything else. Why include that? It was just dumb. The best part, probably, was the elder Bush's and their relationship with W. That part was semi-well done, and interesting. And it was the most believable thread in the film. Overall, I give it 1 star out of 4. Mildly entertaining in places, touching in a few, but overall it was just a sad little bashfest that provided little of value to the audience.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Oct 19, 2008 -> 04:24 PM) I kind of understand his point but Obama is far from your average liberal democrat. I think competence probably has a lot to do with it for Powell. I think thats close to it, but I'd use a different word - managerially competent. We've seen in BushCo what you get when you have a charismatic leader who can't manage his way out a paper bag. You get an administration out of control. Powell is a planner, an analyzer and a thinker. Bush is a decider. Powell sees in Obama the managerial style that he feels is effective - research, analysis, consideration and pulling information from all sides. Its one of the main reasons I like Powell AND Obama.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Oct 18, 2008 -> 11:16 AM) Walked out of Religulous last night. That's the first time I've ever walked out. It wasn't bad, it was just my gf had a s***ty attitude going in (she claims she's religious) and I pretty much knew she wasn't going to like it or give it a chance. She got mad when he was making fun of the mormons and using the Michael Jackson example of going from black to white, and told me she would be outside. I waited a minute, but found her in the parking lot, not the lobby, and told her "I knew you'd do this" and that I didn't want to go back in there after she suggested it. I knew I should went by myself earlier in the week but she told me to wait until Friday because she wanted to see it too. And she's still your girlfriend?