southsider2k5

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.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 09:56 AM) "Becksy?" Does that bother you, sucky?

I curse both Al Gore and Johannes Gutenberg.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 10:44 AM) Thats the closest Lance Broadway has ever been to throwing a strike Love the comments section: Damn. Beat me to the joke.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 09:59 AM) Finally! A use for the Senate! Want Congressional reform? Nothing will make it happen faster than having the Senate accidentally slow down the free money to Wall Street train. Especially after yesterday. This could be ugly for the markets.

Air America... HE GAWN!!! http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010...ng-immediately/

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 09:45 AM) interesting......... Data points provided independently to the Huffington Post show that union voters in Massachusetts were 15 percentage points more likely to vote for Attorney General Martha Coakley if they simply had been asked. The problem was, unions weren't really operating on the ground until the final days. Coakley ultimately lost the labor vote to Scott Brown by a margin of 49 percent to 46 percent, according to the AFL-CIO's data. More surprising, however, was the explanation as to why union members voted the way they did. According to the data: "Coakley won union voters who had heard from their union by 10 points, while losing those who said they had not heard from their union by 5 points." Had unions been able to reach more people, and moved the vote breakdown to 60 percent for Coakley, 40 percent for Brown, "Coakley would have won the race by 2 points," the study concludes. (Union households usually vote 65-35 in favor of the endorsed candidate, the survey also notes.) So the Dems lost because the unions weren't working hard enough to influence the election? Hmm, they ought to be applauding the supreme court in that case.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/f...king-beer_N.htm

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 09:01 AM) Technically, it depends on how the contract was specified. If the money is "damages", then yes. If it's a "severance" for wages, then he couldn't. The last time I got a severance, the unemployment office told me that I could, and I did.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 08:55 AM) But, if I read things correctly, is it to the point of a distinction without a difference? i.e. I can't give my funds directly to a candidate, but I can run ads directly for a candidate with unlimited amounts of money, actually mentioning the candidate, and coordinated with the candidate as well? That isn't true either. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=122806233

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 08:17 AM) Versteeg is in a serious slump, looks like s***. Calgary is a team I love to beat, they are f***ing assholes. He missed a wide open net by about three feet last night from in close.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 11:34 PM) I gotta admit though. Kipper kept that game from getting out of hand by himself. Madden should of had a hat trick. Neimi had just as good of a game though.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Jan 21, 2010 -> 10:40 PM) Or maybe Kenny simply loves Mark Teahen, because Kenny committed to him for 3 years when he didn't have to go beyond 1. This also seemingly pushes Brent Morel out of the picture - maybe he can't play, either? And besides, I doubt Viciedo was Wilson Betemit at third this year, plus he's 20 and was in his first American season, so it's not like he can never be expected to improve. And even more, Kenny put Fields out there last season who has never been what you'd call brilliant either, and it was Fields' bat that got him sent down, not his glove. I think it's as simple as Kenny having a hardon for Mark Teahen the same way he has had a hardon for Juan Pierre, Andruw Jones, and Omar Vizquel all these years. Now we have them all. I bet he won't even have to use his hands to drive the golf cart around camp this year. Morel just finished at high A this year. In a normal progression a year at AA and a year at AAA isn't even odd. If Morel is legit, he would be pushed back a year, at worst. Or at that point, you can either split the two of them or dump Teahen.

QUOTE (balfanman @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 07:34 AM) I was one who wanted Dotel back and would of offered him arbitration. Call me nut's I don't care, I've been called much worse. It's not my money and I would love a little more certainty in the pen. Correct me if I'm wrong but there is a lot of question marks in the Sox Bullpen. I think that the only "near" sure thing is Thornton and he's no certainty either. I just hope that we don't blow our chances this year due to a weak pen when a few extra million (sounds trite doesn't it) would of nailed things down a little better. I guess if all else fails, we can be the team that acquires Dotel in July. JMHO So we need help in the pen, and the thing to do is to waste more money than necessary to fix it... um OK.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 22, 2010 -> 07:53 AM) Is that still true after yesterday? Yes, they didn't even challenge that part of the law in the lawsuit. Unions and corporations still cannot give directly to specific candidate.

Happy Birthday B!