southsider2k5

QUOTE (qwerty @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 01:04 PM) Which said it does favor lefties? I am very curious. DJ

For some reason I seem to remember Alexei being pretty scary in CF in the few games we saw him there last year at the beginning of the season. Am I remembering wrong? Didn't he muff a flyball out there?

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 12:50 PM) What are they fighting over? If baseball favors lefthanders or not...

LOL, DJ just challenged Farmer to a fight. My money is on the old man.

God I hate that hot dog vendor

That was some vintage Contreras right there. Nice work!

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 11:57 AM) lol you were on the Ron Paul bandwagon dude. I think we jumped off at about the same time actually, sometime in winter 2008 when the Dem primaries started heating up. (I realize this post looks extremely odd to posters here) That is hilarious.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 11:28 AM) I wouldn't call it ridiculous - every politician starts somewhere, learns, improves his approach and network. Obama was a lot greener then, and Ryan had money, smarts and connections. But the premise that Ryan somehow had it in hand is just patently false. A great example is how many elections did Abe Lincoln lose?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Apr 14, 2009 -> 07:57 PM) He's on the Yankees. He's probably back on steroids. Has anyone seen him hanging aroudn with ARods Cousin?

QUOTE (RibbieRubarb @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 08:28 AM) Come on over here 2005 team! I'll cradle the balls, stroke the shaft, work the pipe, and swallow the gravy. Get it over here, 2005. Let's do this!! No wonder the mascots are so popular, they will do whatever it takes!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 09:15 AM) Having watched these first couple weeks or so, I am starting to think the team that will cause us the most trouble may in fact be KC. The Twins will be a way better team with Baker and Mauer back.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 08:23 AM) How can one person run on a bank? Ask Chuck Schumer.

QUOTE (shipps @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 08:51 AM) Did you start wearing Kanye West sunglasses before or after your 10 million dollar contract? Money didn't change Steve, he was always a dick.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 08:39 AM) me Man there are a whole lot of zeros in that statline

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 14, 2009 -> 08:00 PM) The Times tomorrow is running an expose on the smuggling of guns across the Mexican border. One of the key "facts" was debunked long before this article was written. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/...number-claimed/

Ozzie Guillens wetdream... A true life Grinder.

There is always the obvious, they just aren't that good, explanation...

QUOTE (smalls2598 @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 07:48 AM) And luckily for the Bulls, the 76ers play the Cavs in Cleveland today. So even if the Bulls do lose, the Sixers are gonna have on hell of a time trying to be only the 2nd team to beat Cleveland at home all year It depends a lot on if Cleveland, with nothing to gain or lose, plays their stars for any amount of time during the game.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 07:51 AM) I think that generally speaking they are elected for their judgment and not on specific issues, since this is a republic, but it's a little of both. Depending on the constituency and the year, they may elect someone with Judgment Pattern A (Dem) over Judgment Pattern B (Republican) or vice versa. You're not going to expect them to do things you agree with all the time, but you're not going to vote for someone who makes decisions that are philosophically different from yours most of the time. I wasn't really going for how they are elected, but more like how they should vote on the specific issues. Put on your "If I were the legislator" shoes. For example, this thought originated out of school district realignment talks in my hometown. They want to move many of the poorer (ie black) kids into the richer (ie white) schools and all of the parents in those areas are pissed. Should a person who is voting on this respect the wishes of the majority of the school district and vote against it, or should they vote for it, knowing it is better for the kids, and for the district in the long run (poor kids get better schooling opportunities being the biggest reason)?

On one of my other boards, I brought up this question and no one bit. I know people will here, and I am really curious what people think. Should a legislator represent his district with the mentality that if my district wants it, I should vote for it, because that is really representing their collective opinions, or should they take the stance that the people elected me to and that means they trust my judgement in tough matters to make the best decision for my district in the long term?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 14, 2009 -> 09:33 PM) Also: spending is bad if you raise taxes to pay for it, but ok if you lower taxes without lowering spending and create a gaping hole in the deficit. Until a Democrat takes over, then the actual cause of the deficit is irrelevant. Both parties do it. Heck a year ago the Dems were outraged over a $400 billion deficit, now they are looking at about a two trillion dollar one this year. Things change when you are in or out of power.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 15, 2009 -> 12:35 AM) Absolutely not. The truth is, that since North Korea is a defacto nuclear state - although regime change may be a desired goal, an attempted coup runs too great a risk of serious destabilization which would put the arsenal at risk. Also, if the coup fails, North Korea may feel no degree of protection and that would bring real risk of an invasion to the South. For all the horrible things that the North has done to its people, in international relations purpose, it has acted very much like a rational actor. It takes aggressive and provocative stands when it fears the current situation. But none of these stands seems to seriously threaten the current order. They tend to be defensive in nature. So what will happen? North Korea will make the motions of putting out UN inspectors, they may even actually leave the country for a few weeks. They will make a deal for some very small token amount of aid, and the six party talks will start again. Because the US seems to be more interested in playing the role of honest broker right now, the chances are these tasks could go very well. Honestly, does anyone else think that NK, even if they wanted to, has the means to invade SK? If they are scraping by on fuel and food, how the heck would they muster up enough rations and energy to move a million man army across the DMZ? Unless they plan on fighting like Russia with the four bullet allotment and walking to the border, I am just not convinced they have the means to do it. I will also swear up and down that the biggest reason they don't want to invade is the same reason they don't let ANYTHING in from the outside in the first place. If the people of NK saw how the rest of the world around them lives, they would overthrow Il, like yesterday. The military would throw down their arms quicker than the Iraqi armies did in both gulf wars.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 14, 2009 -> 07:25 PM) Don't you think I tried before asking? Whatever you're saying they did just isn't something that has been published out there, at least not obviously. Give you an example...in 2007 they agreed to the latest framework, in 2008 things had improved enough that that terrorist-loving-communist-appeaser George W. Bush hailed their performance and had them dropped from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. So, I'd like to know what evidence you've read that they continued with their nuclear development programs from 2007 through just now. Not just supposition. How about the very first link under North Korea underground Nuclear program dated Feb 2009? http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htchem/ar...s/20090219.aspx

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 14, 2009 -> 07:22 PM) Because the only coherent interpretation of that statement or this one, frankly, is that you think war would be a better option. Do you think I'd prefer the Kims stay and the government keep its power? Do you think that I like the situation we're in, where they constantly make small military gains to extort concessions from the west, is a good one? Clearly a better option would be to have the North Korean people rise up and cast him out tomorrow, but we don't have the ability to magically make that happen. So, I'm left with your statement that we'd be better off not enabling him. This is not a solution, it's a cop-out, a catch-22...because if we stop negotiating with them, we're enabling them by allowing them to continue demonizing the west while at the same time working on their weapons programs and even selling them off to other countries, or if we do continue negotiating with them, we're enabling them by negotiating with them and providing them supplies that allow them to stay in power. The whole point I'm trying to make here is that yes, it would be nice if things were better, if we didn't have to keep stringing along this madman. But simply imagining that things were better isn't going to make it so. This has been our policy for the better part of a couple of decades now. The copout has been to keep sending him the means to stay in power instead of actually taking a stand against a murderous madman. Il is still demonizing the west, starving his people, and engaging in his WMD programs. He has already been at the center of proliferation from NK to Pakistan, and most likely from Pakistan to Iran. What exactly have we stopped? How is this better than any other scenario?