NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 02:13 PM) In Chicago it makes you a five term Mayor. There is a key difference there... Daley = corrupt but effective Blago = corrupt and ineffective That's the Chicago way, nowadays. You can be crooked, if things get done. Daley did a ton to put Chicago where it is today, as a world class city. That said, now that the city is seeing such major problems with infrastructure, the Block 37 debacle again, etc., I think Daley starts to become less invincible.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 12:45 PM) Its totally personal. It has nothing to do with party. I think that's true to an extent. But look at what has been going on. This governor has refused to work with the legislature at all, and has numerous times asked them to pass expensive legislation but not raise taxes. That leaves one option - deficits - which the legislature, wisely, refuses to do. Plus Blago's obvious corruption in the office, and the fact that his entire approach to governance is to pout like a baby when his useless ideas don't go anywhere. If I had been running the legislature for 20-something years and done well with it, and a governor came in and pissed all over the government, I'd be pissed too.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 12:32 PM) Why not consider Freddie Garcia if he is healthy? He is a real battler out there and could help-IF HEALTHY This team has the best pitching staff in all of baseball right now. The starters have been flat out amazing, except for MB, who appears to be coming around. We have a guy in the pen who was originally a starter (Masset), and another starter we just added for mop-up and spot starts (Loaiza). Then there is Lance Broadway in AAA, waiting in the wings, like B-Mac was in 2005. What could Freddie Garcia, long removed from playing, possibly do for this club?

Madigan, a democrat, managed to work quite well with multiple Republican governors. Heck, under Thompson and Edgar, it used to be noted how incredibly well the governor and the legislature worked together, despite being from different parties. The fact that Madigan wants to impeach a governor from his own party should tell you just how awful Blago is. If you didn't know already. This has always been Madigan's state anyway.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 01:25 PM) Its broken. And needs to be fixed with multiple posts. Awesome. Hitters are just starting to hit? Get Fields in there! Pitchers are the best in baseball? Stick Freddy Mary Jane Garcia in there! Bizarre.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 11:48 AM) The first game he pitched in, this is what the TV radar gun readings were showing. 88mph that is... He pitched another game at the Cell I was at, his second appearance I think, and he was at 87 on the gun there. Comcast is usually 1 or 2 mph higher, which would be that 88. So while he certainly isn't blowing anyone away, he's also not pitching in the 70's as was stated earlier.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 12:24 PM) Kanakoa Texiera (or however its spelled) is a legit relief prospect. I wouldn't call him a lock or anything crazy like that, but I definitely consider him a guy with the ability to be an above average major league reliever. In terms of Link, IIRC, he has a power arm. Can't say much anything else about him though as I usually pay little attention to minor league relievers (unless they are top picks or have legit power arms). I'd say both Matt Long and Omogrosso would rank as better relief prospects (both have been doing there fair share of starting, but they both are projected as relievers (not starters). Have you learned anything about Mabee? His core numbers, his strikeouts, and his high GO/AO are all encouraging, but I don't know about his stuff.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 08:54 AM) If I remember correctly, he went to a public school that also taught islam as part of it's curriculum. It's kinda like sending your kid to a private christian school if you are hindo because you like the education better. what's a hindo?

I think the guy who needs a day off right now is Quentin.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 08:39 AM) Correct me if I'm wrong but don't most candidates for President propose a slew of big initiatives when they run and once they get elected only institute a small percentage of them, regardless of who controls Congress? Of course they do. I think I even hinted at that. But, with what appears to be a large Dem majority in Congress come 2009, I'd be afraid that Obama might actually implement a LOT of those things. And that could lead to one of two things - higher taxes (which could take a huge toll on the economy, depending on what they were), and/or more spend-and-spend BushCo policy. Neither of those are ideas I like.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 08:31 AM) I would add that I am concerned about the never-ending war in Iraq and the trillions it will cost us if McCain were to be elected. Sure, and I agree with that too. Its yet another reason that I am unsure on who to vote for. I was just pointing out that Obama seems to want to go spend that war money, and then some. But I will also be waiting for Obama to show how he plans to pay for it, as I am sure that Senator Allard may have not been completely accurate in his estimations of things.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 11, 2008 -> 06:42 AM) http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25496 Obama Spend-O-Rama by Ross Kaminsky Posted: 03/14/2008 Late Wednesday afternoon, Sen.Wayne Allard (R-Co.) introduced Amendment 4246 into the Senate budget debate. The amendment, which Allard calls “The Obama Spend-o-Rama” proposes funding 111 of the 188 spending proposals put out so far during Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) presidential campaign. (These were the proposals which Allard’s staff had time to analyze before the GOP leadership asked him to offer the amendment on the floor.) According to Allard, “There are another 77 proposals with unknown cost estimates that will add billions to this number.” (Click here to read Senator Allard’s Fiscal Responsibility Floor Statement.) Allard freely admits that he will oppose his own amendment and urges other Senators to do the same. But, as a senior Senate staffer pointed out to HUMAN EVENTS, “Let’s see how many Senators who have endorsed Obama will actually vote for his budget.” Some of the numbers around the federal budget are incomprehensibly large. How do you wrap your mind around a 5-year cost of $1.4 trillion? • This new spending, if enacted, would represent an almost 10% increase over the President’s FY 2009 budget. • This $300 billion spending proposal would cost more than 42 states’ budgets combined (general fund expenditures). • It is more than the United States spent last year on imported oil ($294 billion net). • It is more than 60% larger than any one-year federal spending increase, ever. An initial draft of the Amendment which was obtained by HUMAN EVENTS shows its purpose of “raisi(ng) taxes by an unprecedented $1.4 trillion for the purpose of fully funding 111 new or expanded federal spending programs” and, referencing S. Con. Res. 70, the Fiscal Year 2009 budget proposal, lists 111 items in the format of “On page 11, line 4, increase the amount by $5,120,000,000.” According to Senator Allard’s communications director, Steve Wymer, “This amendment is obviously somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But if leaders in the Democratic Party are going to propose billions…or trillions…of dollars of new spending, at least let’s be honest about it.” Of course, the problem with government spending is that government only has the money it takes from taxpayers. Senator Allard therefore laid out the tax consequences of Obama’s budget-busting proposals: “According to CBO, President Clinton’s 1993 tax increase raised taxes $240.6 billion over five years. The late Senator Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) called it the ‘largest tax increase in the history of public finance in the United States or anywhere else in the world.’ But this proposal will increase spending $300 billion in a single-year.” Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), who spoke immediately after Allard, re-emphasized the point: One year of Obama’s proposed spending increase “is bigger than the 5-year increase (in federal income tax collections) that President Clinton imposed on the American taxpayer.” Burr argued that Obama’s promise to raise taxes just on the Democrats’ “attractive target” of people earning over $250,000, will only generate $225 billion over 5 years, far short of the $1.4 trillion which Obama’s proposed programs (actually only 60% of them) would saddle taxpayers with during that same time frame. If Obama wanted to raise taxes on only the top 1% (earning over $365,000) to fund his plans, those citizens’ tax bills would have to rise by over $40,000 annually, an increase of 57%. Given the impossibility of that scenario, even under complete Democratic control of government, the tax hikes would have to trickle down to the American middle class. “So if Congress decides to widen the pool of taxpayers footing the bill, it would have to raise taxes on the top 5% by 38%; or the top 10% by 32%; or the top 25% by 26%; or the top 50% of taxpayers by 23%. The top 50% of American taxpayers, who already pay 96.9% of all federal income taxes, are those who earn $31,000 (AGI) or more. “To translate this point into language everyone can understand: if you have an income of $104,000 or more, the plan will cause your tax bill to go up at least an additional $5,300 a year; if you have an income of $62,000 or more, the plan will cause your tax bill to go up at least $2,300 a year. This is on top of the $2,300 increase already assumed by the failure to extend current tax policy.” (emphasis added) Obama claims to want to “balance the budget and stop spending the Social Security Surplus.” Combining that laudable goal with Obama’s massive new spending would cause the tax bills of the average taxpayer earning $62,000 to rise $5,300, or 61%. For taxpayers earning $104,000, the increase would be over $12,000, or 74%, and for the top 1%, earning over $365,000, “their income tax bill rise by an astounding $93,500 (132%)!” It is not only individuals would suffer under the Obama Spend-o-rama: “If you want economic growth in this country, it comes out of the small business sector. And when you raise their taxes markedly, it’s going to markedly have an adverse effect on the economy.” This is on top of the $4,100 tax increase which small businesses will face when the Democratic congress refuses to renew the Bush tax cuts. In his closing, Senator Allard noted that this is not simply a hypothetical discussion; the current debate is about the 2009 budget, the first year of the next president’s administration. It is therefore important (and good politics) to show the American public the ugly details of Obama’s pretty talk. As Senator Burr pointedly warned, Congress must not “fictitiously propose that the federal government can increase spending and in fact balance it on the backs of a select few. It will be like every other tax increase — we will balance it on the backs of every American who can’t afford any more taxes.” Even John McCain, who admits not to be an expert on economics, should be able to tear apart Obama’s proposed spending spree. He could take Obama to task gently, saying “If I can see that my opponent’s plans are a recipe for national bankruptcy, any American can.” That leaves Obama either having to defend the indefensible, or backing away from the “progressive” agenda which is much of the basis of his support from naïve liberals, primarily young or rich. Senator Allard has put Barack Obama in an uncomfortable position. As Allard staffer Steve Wymer put it, the Obama Spend-o-Rama Amendment is “just one step in trying to bring some truth to the budgeting process.” The Allard amendment went down to a 97-0 defeat late Thursday afternoon, to nobody’s surprise. Although the measure was hastily prepared, simply getting into the public record the scale of Obama’s spending proposals and the tax hikes required to fund them was a worthwhile endeavor. Reached for comment after the vote, Senator Allard’s communications director Steve Wymer noted that "(Allard) voted against it with everyone else. But still, the point was made.” Obama's overambitious spending plans are starting to scare me as well. All candidates promise the world, but, with a large Dem majority in Congress likely in November, I'm afraid that Obama may (ironically) end up continuing the same spend-and-spend policies we have seen under Bush. Some his ideas are good, but others are not, and things need to be brought under control.

Spooky - I actually watched that movie last night, it was on some obscure cable channel and I stopped while channel surfing. Sad.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 08:04 PM) Not really As I am sure you and your brother know, its never black and white. There is no such thing as a can't-miss prospect, because some do. And for players who perform well, even if they weren't drafted high, some will end up making it (Buehrle, for example). They are all percentages, in my view. So, depending on your definition of "prospect", where is that line? Is a guy with a 20% chance a prospect? 40%? 60%? I wouldn't call any of these three guys high-level prospects, from what I have seen and read (which is admitedly limited). But I think all three have been successful and have good peripherals, and at least in Texeira's case, has been noted to have some plus stuff. That to me means that they are 0% guys. They are worth watching, because they may be valuable at a higher level. To me, that is the definition of a prospect - someone who MIGHT make it to the big leagues.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 09:03 PM) Are any of these guys legitimate prospects? I'm going to have to disagree with my esteemed colleague, fathom, based on what I know... Texeira has the right stuff, from what I have read and seen, and others who know more than I do put him as a legitimate relief pitching prospect. I know Jas is a big fan, he might be able to speak more on him than I could. Mabee is a guy who I don't know about his stuff, all I see is his results - and he's kicked ass in GF after being drafted (skipped Bristol), and is kicking ass in A ball. He's what I'd call a wait-and-see guy. If he gets promoted to A+ or AA and still kicks ass, then I think its time to call him a prospect. I would like to know more about his stuff though, so, if anyone knows, please pipe up. Link is interesting. His first couple years in the minors, 2005-2006, his numbers (core and peripheral) were less than stellar at A- and A+. Then in 2007, his numbers started improving. His H/9 went from 10-ish to 7-ish, his K/9 jumped from mid-6's in 2005 to near 10 in 2007. His BB/9 dropped from near 3.5 in 2006 to the mid-2's in 2007. Now this year, those numbers are just as good or better, as he continues to apparently improve. His walks are up a bit this year, but otherwise, he seems to be "figuring it out". At 24 he's not exactly ancient for AA, but he's not young either. If he can do this stuff in more of a hitters' park like Charlotte, I'd say he might have a future bullpen role somewhere.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 07:53 PM) Is Obama really a US citizen? http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...jY4Mjg2OWRmNzI= This again? Seriously? I thought we went through this with McCain AND Obama. They are both citizens, its been proven out. Move on.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 03:40 PM) in no particular order... Net Neutrality Universal Health Care Ending the War in Iraq Energy Independence / Wind and Solar Fixing the Economy Net neutrality? That's a top 5 Presidential issue for you? I don't know if either candidate has even given that any thought. Just curious, what makes you feel it is so important?

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 04:23 PM) Maybe, but I think there's a reason that guys like Phil Jackson, Pat Riley, and Jerry Sloan have had major success (and multiple titles in the first two cases) with completely different teams. A note on that... one thing that is also true about coaching in basketball and baseball alike, is that the manager has more effect on psychology and personalities, than they do on actual in-game events. This is especially pronounced in basketball. Its in large part glorified day care. Football would be an example on the other end, where its much more about strategy and design.

QUOTE (Shadows @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 04:22 PM) I didn't say basketball because at least there is actually set offensive plays and defenses/presses/etc that need to be incorporated. Baseball? Hey this guy is a left handed pull hitter, you guys move over a little bit.. there you go. And were set. Basketball has a few set plays, but they are rarely stuck to, except in game breaking situations. There are a few routine moves used of course. But the game is just so player-dynamic, the coach (IMO) is very limited in effect, especially at the pro level. They have much less effect than baseball managers, in-game. And out of game, I'd say that's even more so. All sports can be expressed on a continuum of skils ----- athleticism. Basketball is much closer to athleticism than other major sports, except maybe soccer, so coaching off the field is the least important.

CNN has posted a fun map, showing (in their opinions) what states are safely to one candidate, leaning to one, or a toss up. Here is the map. I personally have to disagree with some of these. My disagreements: ID, KS, NE, TN, AK: I'd call these leaning McCain, not safely McCain WV, AR, LA: I'd call these safely McCain, unless Clinton runs with Obama (then AR is maybe in play) VA: This should be leaning McCain, not toss-up Anyone else have opinions? This all changes of course based on VP choices, debate performance, and other factors that will come up as time goes on. I'm just saying, where they are at right now.

QUOTE (Shadows @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 04:04 PM) Yeah, war is slightly different than a game All im saying is, baseball is prolly the least important sport when talking about a manager/coach I'd have to say basketball takes that title, over baseball.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 04:06 PM) It's not a horribly bad idea in and of itself, but where in the hell is the money going to come from? That's just it. I think that direct rebates like that should be for pretty dire circumstances, and only if the government is in a good financial position to do so. When Bush did his first one just after 9/11, that was perfect - there was a budget surplus, a single staggering event had rocked the economy, and something needed to be done. This most recent one, I think was a bad idea - the government is too far in deficit, and we are fighting two wars, not to mention that I don't think the economy is in as much need for it. The slide has been gradual. A new round of rebate checks is just as bad an idea, IMO.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 05:02 PM) You're talking about civil liberties methinks. I don't think the 1st amendment is worthy of inclusion on this list because nobody seems to disagree about it, ever. Besides the occasional baseless and nonsensical "libs/cons respect their right to free speech as long as they agree with you." Yes, civil liberties, but also and somewhat overlapped, individual rights. Someone asked about 1st amendment, and I was saying that plus other RELATED stuff (related in my mind, anyway) could have been a good entry.

Anyone want to fess up to voting for "they are both worse than Bush"? I am surprised someone voted that way.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 10, 2008 -> 04:23 PM) How much has this administration really stomped all over the 1st amendment? I'd say speech/assembly has suffered a bit from the "Free speech zones" that appeared at there events where they hid protesters out of the way, religion has had the whole ID bit but honestly they've simply failed in the courts (Deservedly) regardless of what Bush thinks, so out of but out of Speech, Assembly, Press, Religion, I'd say the 1st amendment isn't in terrible shape. #4, #5, #6, and #8 however... Note that I said individual rights. Not just 1st amendment.