southsider2k5

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 05:41 PM) Read the Oney twitter from last week to see who won't be back. http://www.thecollectorsgroup.com/forums/s...ead.php?t=24456 I can't find anything on anyone else specifically. Though there were a nice back and forth with Cowley before Oney got his plug pulled.

The last one is pretty brutal, but there are some good ones in the bunch. Q: What's the main problem with Barack Obama jokes? A: His followers don't think they're funny and everyone Else doesn't think they're jokes. Q: Why does Barack Obama oppose the Second Amendment? A: It stands between him and the First. America needs Obamacare like Nancy Pelosi needs a Halloween mask. Q: What's the difference between Rahm Emanuel and a carp? A: One is a scum sucking bottom feeder and the other is a fish. Barack Obama: He has what it takes to take what you've got! Q: What's the difference between Greta Van Susteren and Barack Obama? A: Greta only talks out of one side of her mouth. Have you heard about McDonalds new Obama Value Meal? Order anything You like and the guy behind you has to pay for it. Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon? A: A fund raiser. Q: What's the difference between Obama's cabinet and a penitentiary? A: One is filled with tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society. The Other is for housing prisoners. Q: What do Vanilla Ice, Eminem and Barack Obama have in common? A: They all made careers pretending to be black men.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 06:36 PM) A free agent like Figgins is out of the question at this point, but I still think the FA that ends up on this team next year is Delgado. Kenny has already said that the middle of the order needs a LH stick(after Thome left) and Delgado fits the bill. On top of it, he has been linked to the Sox before, should come at a reduced rate, and can still play first if needed. I'm not crazy about it, I just think it will happen Didn't Delgado turn down a deal here?

QUOTE (fathom @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 05:41 PM) Read the Oney twitter from last week to see who won't be back. QUOTE (WCSox @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 06:02 PM) I've read that his account was suspended. What did he say? So who is it?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 06:05 PM) How many times on this site have I been told that Toxic assets do not have zero value? But according your market to market accounting, they are.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 03:54 PM) Was there a scene with Alex Rios bagging groceries? Nah, someone runs in and kicks Kenny Williams dog.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 05:03 PM) "breast augmentation? covered." "breast reduction? ....... not covered" Now we just need the John Edwards picture... "abortions... Covered."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 03:32 PM) The Hot Air article? Do you mean Harry Reid or Orzsag? If you actually pay any attention at all to the numbers, the projections are worse now than they were in 2007. Why? Because the CBO didn't predict the complete implosion of the U.S. economy. The projections are worse now because the economy imploded. But that still doesn't suddenly mean that there aren't easy fixes. Raise the cap a little bit and the problem goes away. Adjust the output ratio so that payments don't go up faster than inflation and the problem goes away. Have growth over the next 50 years be similar to economic growth over teh last 50 years and the problem goes away. You mean the projections that were made at the top of the economic cycle? Depending on the best numbers on an era to make your arguement is pretty much the definition of an easy fix.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 03:52 PM) Also, if you ever turn to FRC for support for your argument, I'm pretty sure you lose by default. There was another, much more liberal friendly link provided for the people who suddenly think sources matter.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 03:17 PM) Democrats never, and I mean NEVER claimed we weren't going to go negative on there for decades And it's not Democrats; its the Social Security Trustees. They've always projected 2015ish as the date to begin tapping the trust fund; it's 2010 because of the banking collapse. Of course, it's also worth noting that they predicted earlier this year we'd tap it briefly in 2010, then it would turn around, and then we'd resume tapping it in 2016. And the trustees report still gives you nearly 30 years before the fund is tapped out in the pessimistic growth scenario (High-growth still makes the fund solvent for all time with zero changes). You're really, really, really off the mark on who you're blaming here and what you're blaming them for. Except that the report mentions someone specifically in the Obama administration...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 03:07 PM) Yes, actually you did. The 50 year out date is the date for the exhaustion of the trust fund. The trust fund was always going to be tapped in the 2010's; that's what it's there for. You brought up the 50 year horizon; the only issue of concern on that horizon is the exhaustion of the trust fund if the economy doesn't return to growth and the income cap is never raised. We aren't going negative in decades like was claimed by Democrats. We will have gone negative next year, and for the forseeable futures, which is at least 10 years sooner than has been predicted by leading Democrats. I hardly call that nothing to worry about.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 02:13 PM) So, a posting on the Family Research Council's website, with no actual quote or reference to the bill in question, and I am supposed to believe this is true? I call foul. Google it. They aren't the only ones. How about that bastion of neutrality, factcheck.org? http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-...is-fabricating/

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 02:08 PM) Matt Thornton is our best relief pitcher and I think Ozzie uses him very well. He doesn't have a set inning, but instead Ozzie generally uses him in high-leverage situations. That's the best role for your best reliever in my opinion. That is why I would be afraid of Matt as our closer. We'd have to find a situational guy and/or another lefty to be able to get that outs that Thornton currently does.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 02:03 PM) And its bulls*** that he has to tiptoe around it to begin with. It's a legal medical procedure, and can be at times, medically necessary. Insurance companies should be able to cover legal medical procedures, no matter who is funding it, as long as the plan specifically covers the procedure. I'd rather that be said than the outright lies about not funding it. I mentioned Enron on purpose in my last post. Their strategy of creating shell companies to absorb losses, while being funding with Enron stock is pretty much exactly what the federal government is going to do here. They are self-admittedly creating separate entities outside of the realm of the bill that gets passed here so that they can say they aren't funding abortions, even though the same tax dollars are indeed being shuffled to another place to do exactly that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 01:57 PM) So, by that standard, the only way that this could make you happy is for the federal government to ban abortion, because otherwise there will be some insurers that cover it. Which is pretty much exactly why the Obama admin is lying when it saids that federal funds would not fund abortions. They are playing accounting tricks that would make Enron proud.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 01:56 PM) No, the difference between pulling more money out of the trust fund and having no trust fund. You are on a roll today of making up what I am saying... I never said there wasn't a trust fund. I said they were going negative.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 01:31 PM) You should know the obvious error here. Trusting the government?

And here is how abortions are getting funded... http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR09I05&f=PR09I05&t=e

So now it looks like instead of making it 50 years, SSI will go negative NEXT year. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/22/excl...its-in-2010-11/ More at link.

Sometimes I wonder where people get these crazy ideas... http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...sLILKgD9ASKCQG2

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 12:37 PM) Eh, the bigger news is that Jermaine at one point was going to take a paycut instead of the 12 million option at the end of the season (he decided this by the All-Star break) to give the Sox a hometown discount and finish his career here. Now, he considers himself gone. It was in the Sun-times as well. I wonder why no one made a post about that. Actually I would argue there is a better chance he is back next year now, as we might get him really cheap, and not many other teams are going to want to take a chance on an unknown commodity. The Sox know Jermaine as good as anyone in baseball. Unless he has been told something we don't know about, I won't agree to that assumption.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 11:52 AM) Yeah, it seems like what the Cards do in the offseason may effect the Cubs more than any move the Cubs actually can or will make. The biggest assumption is that Chris Carpender will be healthy again. That is a crapshoot.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 11:36 AM) If Iran had a nuke they might get them good one time and also kill a bunch of Palestinians and damage a major Islamic holy site in the process so that won't go over to well. Israel still has like 200 nukes and a missile defense system to boot. Iran would be obliterated if they did that. Religion is a funny thing. Achy believes that it is Iran's destiny to destroy Israel and bring about the return of the prophet. The rest is secondary.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 11:32 AM) This is of course exactly the problem. You see absolutely no negatives associated with military action. Or at least you see the negatives as so limited that it's not worth giving up our "Be a d**che" foreign policy. The negatives of any sort of military action are huge. Our media doesn't show the charred civilian corpses that come out when bombings happen, but that doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't see them. Military action should be the very, very, very last resort. It shouldn't be the default we go to every time we find someone doing something we don't like. We ignored the consequences of military action repeatedly over the last few decades, and every time we've assumed that using the military will be clean, easy, and free of consequences, we've been proven wrong. The problems with ignoring potential genocide and madmen with nukes are greater. Besides, I have never said there wouldn't be negatives. You are just making stuff up at that point.