southsider2k5

Rios is going to be a huge plus whenever he is on the field. There will be a lot less balls falling in the OF, and a lot less guys trying to run on our arms. The infield is what is scary. I don't know if I have seen a left side of the IF with less range than ours.

QUOTE (winninguglyin83 @ Aug 13, 2009 -> 01:45 PM) kind of hard to believe because NOBODY was calling him a top defensive catcher last year. They were calling him a guy who might have to move to first base or DH. Saw him play in AAA severall weeks ago. Looks a little stiff and mechanical behind the plate. Not only that, but he was being called terrible and a future corner infielder.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 13, 2009 -> 01:09 AM) blah I must be the only person in the country who is completely sick and tired of hearing about anything regarding the 'founding' of America 250 years ago. Whether it's what the "founding father's would've wanted" or some hilariously outdated document that people still cling to, the whole idea of trying to get back to our roots is so (for lack of a better word) gullible. We dont live in 1789 America anymore folks, if you haven't noticed. Then someone needs to come up with a new constitution because until they we need to live under the one we have.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 13, 2009 -> 01:16 AM) What an attractive option! Your freedoms end when they affect other people; so when you exercise your freedom to not get healthcare and then when something goes wrong treat the emergency room as your primary care physician while everyone else pays for it it's not like you're the shining beacon of motherf***ing liberty. Only a true patriot raises the costs for everyone else while they quickly descend into bankruptcy for being an idiot. Umm... last I checked Wal-Mart is not a federally subsidized company. If anything what you posted goes to prove that our "choice" of healthcare providers is nothing but a mirage. We dont have a free market healthcare system, it's pretty much identical to a government system except that it runs for profit (which keeps a lot of people from affording it). Actually you are pretty wrong. My freedoms don't always end when they affect other people, look no further than the torture issue. Freedom of speech falls into the same venue, as does freedom of religion. As for the second part, you didn't nothing to counter the actual economics argument being made there.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 12, 2009 -> 11:31 PM) I'm not saying that I agree with it, but that's the reason you don't hear Dems talking about it. On the campaign trail, Obama said he wanted a single-payer system, at some point he saw it was obvious that it wasn't going to fly so he adjusted fire. So, logically, since he and the Dems backed off of the stronger option, they say the public option is adding another choice and keeping the free market system. Maybe I'm naive for it, but I think Obama really believes what he says, and if the public option ends up expanding to the point where it's the only game in town, that would be an unintended consequence. I fully believe it is a backdoor route to exactly what they wanted in the first place. If you can beat your enemy, you weaken him for later. They know this.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 12, 2009 -> 11:06 PM) I actually brought this up about 30 pages ago, what economic freedom do I have right now? This system is pretty opaque. Besides the premium and the list of options I have when I enroll, I don't see where any of the other money goes or have much of a choice in how much it costs. Dems aren't talking about economic freedom because a government takeover of healthcare isn't on the table. So how is being forced to have government health care, being taxed to pay for it, and being penalized if you don't particpate not losing freedoms? Right now you have the freedom to choose who you want to be covered through, whether it is a company that your employer picks, or someone you pick on your own. You also have the option of not having any insurance at all. The second line sounds great as a talking point, but is a horrible misrepresentation of what will be the reality, and I can give a great example in the modern corporate world today. Wal-Mart. If the federal government comes in, cuts the prices at which the labor pool is going to work at, and cuts the prices that can be charged for goods and services, eventually the will run out all of the other competition in the system, eventually rendering themselves the last stop for health care.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Aug 12, 2009 -> 01:59 PM) http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/20...photo-id-town-h Well you can't have fraud in a town hall meeting can you? Now in the voting booth, that is a different story...

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 05:01 PM) Not that I'm going to defend the most obvious of Dem crooks, but isn't the whole "ethics" push Pelosi's thing? These guys are senators. Different boat. Then maybe Pelosi shouldn't speak about the entire Congress's ethics then...

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Aug 12, 2009 -> 02:25 PM) Libor spreads have returned to normal (we are guaranteeing this market). Swap spreads have returned to normal (we are guaranteeing this market). Housing starts and prices have stabilized (the U.S gov't. is providing 15% tax credits, effectively paying the down payment for first time home buyers). Car sales are seeing signs of life (the U.S. gov't. is providing cash for clunkers). The U.S economy has stabilized because the U.S gov't. has effectively become almost half of the U.S economy. But stimulus has been shown to have a zero multiplier: stimulus comes from either borrowing or transferring wealth from taxpayers, so every dollar eventually is taken back. Tax increases tend to have a minus 3 multiplier: tax increases eventually reduce growth by three times the increase. Green shoots will whither away very quickly as the U.S. gov't has effectively become a very large part of the economy. That is temporary. Without the ability to generate more credit, growth will turn negative. All that means is that the government is going to continue to become more and more a part of our daily life.

The thing that no one is talking about, as usual, is individual economic freedom. That is the one thing that this country was really founded on. We keep losing more and more of our rights and freedoms "for the good of the masses", but no one seems to care about it. It amazes me that the same groups of people who could throw the Franklin quote about sacrificing liberty during the freedom of speech and privacy arguments, have no problem sacrificing their own economic liberties permanently.

Can we start some riod rumors for Youk now?

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 09:11 AM) Wow. Pretty tough to get banned within 14 posts... Read his signature.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 08:23 PM) I remember when people insisted they could hit Gavin Floyd.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 09:54 AM) No, but it's different since it is not one of the people he cheerleads for. It's funny. Everyone complains and complains about her, but she gets brought up by those same people several times a day. The Palinistas on the attack again.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 10, 2009 -> 09:46 AM) Here's irony: Yeah, maybe if more people got their asses kicked by union thugs, we'd have universal health care.

QUOTE (qwerty @ Aug 9, 2009 -> 06:11 PM) He did have a legitimate concern. Concern for what? Grass stains on his dockers?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 9, 2009 -> 05:47 PM) I've stated repeatedly the tea party guys are loud, disruptive, and annoying. But so far they've managed to refrain from attacking people. There was no violence at the Tea Party I spoke at, then again there were no healthers there either.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 9, 2009 -> 05:08 PM) the SEIU are the only ones using violence to get what they want. Hmm, maybe they need a nickname to... Healthers?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 9, 2009 -> 04:57 PM) Point being that if you don't health insurance be prepared to be punched in the face, knocked to the ground, and kicked repeatedly by SEIU goons. got it. And then get blamed for not supporting health care...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 9, 2009 -> 04:58 PM) Heck, they could let Rios go and maybe still have to trade Halladay this offseason. That wouldn't surprise me either. To be honest, they might let go Rios, and want to trade Halladay, so that they can go into full rebuilding mold with as many prospects as possible.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 9, 2009 -> 03:51 PM) Kenny's job here is to win a game of brinksmanship. All he has to do is offer up pieces that never have a shot at his big league roster. That's why I keep thinking McCulloch. Otherwise, he can let Riccardi hang himself. I'm not sure that Kenny has to offer anything. The Jays are in big monetary trouble. The alternative might be for them to hold on to Rios and have to trade Halladay in the off season.

The only way we give up prospects is if the Jays kick in cash, which defeats the whole purpose of dumping Rios for Toronto.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 9, 2009 -> 11:05 AM) They would definitely do something like that. They got busted attacking people; all recorded for everyone to see... what to do? of course, try and make your organization look like the victim. pathetic SEIU tactics. They perfected this crap over the better part of the 20th century during their strikes. Heck they were pulling the same violence and vandalism here in my hometown because the Olive Garden that was being built brought in their own union work crews instead of local union work crews.

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Aug 9, 2009 -> 11:50 AM) Yep there is finally some spending cash. Lets not forget that AJ and PK are off the books after 2010 so thats another 18 million. If KW doesnt aqcuire Rios, he could definitley go after one or even two top tier free agents this winter. And call me crazy, but I would rather of gotten Peavy and maybe Rios versus any of the left overs at the end of the free agency period last year.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Aug 9, 2009 -> 10:55 AM) Oh, you'd have been in deep trouble 10 years ago. Glory days...