southsider2k5

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2010 -> 12:12 PM) So basically, you're arguing that the people who the xenophobes already support can do just about anything, like have their private news network owned by a Saudi Prince, but if there were another party, they'd get tons of crap if the same thing happened. Because we all know that Muslims don't get people excited at all... Or are the instances of Muslims being targeted that are trumpeted all of the time in this very thread not true or relevant?

QUOTE (ChWRoCk2 @ Jan 23, 2010 -> 11:48 AM) Reds signed Jose Arredondo to a minor league deal. How was this guy not picked up faster? Loads of talent, wish we would've gotten him especially for that price. Nice to see Tejada back with the O's. I think someone said he either just had, or is having, Tommy John Surgery.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2010 -> 10:19 AM) So, in other words, you now agree that no one will have any problem with ads sponsored indirectly by foreign governments. Honestly it is much easier to manipulate peoples xenophobia's and racism than anything. If you start screaming about non-white, non-American's being behind something, there will be enough of the population who will be upset by it. Besides, it is not like foreign powers trying to manipulate our politics would even be new.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2010 -> 10:16 AM) So, if someone were to point out that Prince Bin-Talal owns 8% of newscorp, you think that'd make people stop watching, or question why that network's official policy is that there's no such thing as climate change? Somehow, I doubt it. Not any different than the leaders of the green movement is getting f***ing rich off of it...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2010 -> 10:14 AM) No, we scream that Walmart is anti-competitive because they achieve many of those gains by pushing the law so far that everyone loses. They push labor laws so far that they keep getting fines that are just small enough to not matter, they push their employees onto the public dime for Health Care because their pay is so low, they skirt environmental laws and labor laws by manufacturing everything in China, and they're more than happy to use their lobbyists to protect those arrangements. And the federal government is exempt from being sued from much of that stuff. We all know they never push the line when it comes to the general public...

BTW, the Sun-Times sucks. It is the Chicago version of the National Enquirer.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2010 -> 10:10 AM) It's always different. © And it gives all of the more reason for one side to exploit those donors...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2010 -> 09:54 AM) So you're saying that private companies like Wal-mart are anti-competitive but semi-public institutions like say, the Swiss Health Care model, are not? I am saying you can't have it both ways. Everyone screams that Wal-Mart is anti-competitive because they come in and undercut the current set up, but that the Federal Government is just doing us a favor by lowering prices.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2010 -> 10:04 AM) Betcha can't guess who the largest shareholder in Newscorp is outside of the Murdoch family. There is a difference there.

Talk about a super utility guy. If he can catch at all, he makes our bench a lot more flexible if he can make it.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Jan 23, 2010 -> 05:39 AM) Basically I just use the Internet for free porn sites and SoxTalk I am not surprised.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 23, 2010 -> 08:43 AM) Amazingly, that doesn't happen in every other country where it's been implemented. Two words. Wal-Mart.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 23, 2010 -> 06:36 AM) The timing of the "screw you banks, you suck ass" speech was interesting, and it was right at the same time that Bennie was told he was losing support. Hmmm. Its also a scary sign considering it was the financials that led this rally back from the bottom in the first place. The only other sector that was close was commodities companies, and they have been getting hit with the comeback of the dollar lately.

QUOTE (Real @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 03:00 PM) Cowley reporting that Jenks looks "at least" 25 pounds lighter as of today. If anyone here is at Soxfest, post about how Jenks looks physically compared to last year please, I'd be interested in hearing about it If Mariotti Jr isn't making fat jokes about him, it is probably true.

QUOTE (Real @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 03:33 PM) KW: "MBINAA." I can think of one "columnist" that will probably run that tomorrow...

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 04:31 PM) Yeah aren't you like a half a foot taller than me? lol. I would get KTFO. I would try though. I don't know how hard he punches, but he has a NASTY bat toss.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 03:03 PM) Don't really know, I trade futures. But I will say the high may be in for a while....10700 area was a good area to short..And we turned the monthly chart down today on a weekly closing basis(Very Bearish)..We should test the 9858 level in the coming week or so.. 5% down move in three days off of the highs.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 05:05 PM) The problem with the internet is that its so easy to wall yourself off. You only experience what you know you like, by and large. The fragmentation of audience has made providers more and more desperate to build an audience so it seems like any fad gets latched onto these days. And when it comes to newsworthy events, its more about outrage than anything else, followed by overreaction. We didn't act like this before. Case in point? Aviation. Yesterday, a flight from LGA to Louisville was diverted to Philly because an orthodox jewish teenager was wearing wearing tefillin and saying his morning prayers. Because a stewardess got hebrew and arabic concerned and decided that terrorists now bomb airplanes with leather webbing wrapped around their arms and small black boxes on their forehead. Do you realize that we actually were much more likely to experience terror in the air during the 1980s than now? In fact, US airliners experienced six such attacks and hijackings in a five year period during the 1980s. What do you think would happen if that happened now? Great piece on Salon by Ask The Pilot about this today. http://salon.com/news/air_travel/index.htm...erican_hysteria Well at least they are harassing white judeo-christians now...

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 01:33 PM) Don't forget Sergio Santos and his lack of option years. Unless Santos is mediocre this spring, I think he is the favorite to be the Carrasco this year. If he is awful they should be able to slip him through waivers.

All Thome threads have now been united as one.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 01:39 PM) Only for a few. More Republicans were talking about it, creating that straw man, than even liberals. They were going to create a governmental insurance agency that was going to cost less than everything else, and expect everyone to stay in business and not to switch over to it, by instituting fines which were cheaper than the cost of providing regular insurance. That is so completely logical for protecting private business...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 11:52 AM) The answer to that is quite simple; it becomes a giant subsidy to the insurance companies and will wind up costing enormous sums of government money. The insurers have already been doing everything they can to dump their high-cost customers off of their rolls...now you've got the government expressing a willingness to take on basically anyone who isn't a profitable insurance purchaser if they meet the standard by which the insurance company can dump them. Over a ten year period, that's a hell of a lot more costly than the subsidy plan the Dems put together, because you've kept the advantage for people to dump them, but done nothing to require the insurers spend any money to cover them. Furthermore, you've basically come up with a brief outline of the exact subsidy plan the Dems were using to help people buy insurance, but you've stated that somehow it will cost less, without a reason, and you've also neglected to provide any funding mechanism to pay for it. The cost of your plan would be multiple trillions of dollars over 10 years. BTW, it's 2000 pages because each page contains less text than this post. Again, that is pretty much what was being proposed here. The government was going to pay tons of money to the insurance companies essentially to take on a bunch of people.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 12:14 PM) Because now you've destroyed the private insurance market. Now you've made it a sound financial decision for me to stay 100% uninsured until I get sick. If I get sick, then either the government will have to take me or the private market will have to take me because companies can no longer reject applications for coverage where they have pre-existing conditions. The whole intent of the "public option" was to destroy private insurance and move everyone on to the government roles.

And it won't take about 15 seconds to figure out who exactly that is, and exploit the hell out of it by the other side?

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 11:33 AM) Mets To Acquire Gary Matthews Jr. By Ben Nicholson-Smith [January 22 at 11:20am CST] 11:20am: Heyman tweets that the Angels will pick up all but $2MM of the $23.5MM remaining on Matthews Jr.'s deal. Wow. They paid $21.5 million to get rid of him! That is worse than Bradley.