southsider2k5

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 11:37 AM) The Sec Treas supports dumping the US dollar within the US in favor of a "US Euro", or a new global standard currency? Those are very different things. Its not a big leap from a global currency outside of the US to one inside of the US if you stop and think about it. Using something different internally would mean there would be an extra step/expense for businesses who trade internationally to change to another currency for trade in other countries. This is all because either Geithner is an idiot who was speaking completely out of his ass, or he was tipping his bosses cards when they weren't ready to do so yet. Either way this man has done a terrible, terrible job so far. I don't ever recall a SecTres saying so many stupid things over a period of years, let along in about 2 months on the job. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economi...ns-markets.html

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 11:00 AM) So you're saying there's some 535 people we shouldn't discuss it with? Awesome.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 10:29 AM) That's the point. It's not supposed to be easy. So when you do it, successfully, don't throw it away because you like taking stupid risks, etc. Like I said, I sympathize with those who were forced into this, but you know what, f*** them, too...they knew what they were doing and they lost in the end, and they cost a lot of people a lot of money while getting (and staying) very rich. They exposed themselves and their entire industry and the people won't soon forget. So out of curiousity, I take it you have no credit cards, no loans, and no mortgage, along with a job that you can never lose? If not, you are taking many of the same risks as an individual that these companies took as corporations. Most people live 1-2 paychecks away from being destitute in this country, because they have no savings, and they have leveraged themselves in much the same fashion by over extending themselves with credit. If they lose their jobs, much like these banks lost their income flows when people quit paying their mortgages, they are in the exact same situation as these corporations going to the government with their hats in their hand.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 11:31 AM) Ok, so after China suggested the world move of the US Dollar for international transactions, Michele Bachmann absolutely flipped her f'in lid and somehow translated that into this crazy theory that Obama wants to move the US of the Dollar and onto some sort of an imaginary world wide currency. So, she has now pushed forward with an amendment to the US constitution to stop the Obama administration from replacing the dollar with a global currency: The bill now has 30 co-sponsors... every single one republican. This woman must be stopped at all costs. She's ape-s*** crazy. They couldn't have gotten that idea from the Sec Treas publicly supporting the idea?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 10:24 AM) Because, the crime rate, massive traffic issues, total lack of funding (which WILL be tossed to the taxpayer no matter what they say), etc. will make Chicago even more unbearable than it already is. There are so many reasons to avoid this that the few reasons to get it are so far outweighed I won't bother going further into this. Not that it matters, there is no way we get the Olympics here, and anyone who thinks we have an actual chance -- LOL. Chicago's infrastructure is literally falling apart in front of our eyes. The best chance they have at getting that fixed is by getting the olympics here. That will mean the surface streets will get fixed, the El will get fixed, the interstates will get fixed, etc. World wide attention and free publicity will be showered on Chicago and will portray it as one of the most incredible places in the world, and serve as a reminder to the entire planet what Chicago has to offer the world. It will also force a critical eye to all of the negatives that happen here, such as corruption, because it will be the national and world medias and not the subserviant Chicago media who will want answers. If you can't suck up 2-3 weeks worth of pain to recognize how much better off in the long run the City of Chicago would be for having the olympics, you are right, it isn't worth talking about.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 09:42 AM) I'm fairly impressed at the AG's office doing this very much against the political winds. It makes me upset because Stevens is a slimeball by all accounts, but, I'm happy that the AG's office is doing the right thing from their perspective. That sums it up for me. Stevens should be thrown under the bus, but you can't break the law to do it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 11:12 AM) Hehe. Yeah, I am a natural disaster nut. They just awe me. [insert Balta GOP joke reply here]

I competely disagree with all of the agreeing.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,2064015.story

QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 07:00 AM) Id much prefer there just to be a limit on how much these kids can get paid like in the nba. That would be my first choice, but there is no way that the players association would agree to limit compenstation like that. Trading picks is a much more realistic scenario.

QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ Apr 1, 2009 -> 07:00 AM) Id much prefer there just to be a limit on how much these kids can get paid like in the nba. That would be my first choice, but there is no way that the players association would agree to limit compenstation like that. Trading picks is a much more realistic scenario.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 03:10 PM) No it wasn't. We released Sisco because he blew out his arm, Tommy John IIRC, and wound up still on the DL when he ran out of options. You could also blame the lack of innings for a guy who has a funky motion, with a ton of moving parts. He really was a guy who needed to learn his release point and be able to repeat his motion, and that wasn't going to happen buried as a rule 5 guy in the back of a bullpen. The Tommy John surgery was just the last straw for the Sox. They needed the spots for guys who could help them soon.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 01:16 PM) It would be miraculous for MacDougal if he wasn't non-tendered at the end of this season. He's either going to be non-tendered if he pitches even OK this year, or if he pitches like he can, we will trade him. There is zero chance that MacD is a White Sox in 2010.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 12:54 PM) off-topic (which was off-topic to begin with), but Jim Thome really looks like he belongs in that 83 Sox jersey He and Greg Luzinski were separated at birth.

Hopefully the kid can make it. He'll always have fans here on Soxtalk.

http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03...8e547489394.txt

QUOTE (rangercal @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 12:21 PM) I'm not going to spend my afternoon debating with 5 posters on why we should keep VDN. I made my points on the last page. Most of the arguments here are not backed by fact. A couple of you make good points. Some of the arguments are along the lines of, "I hope we miss the playoffs so he get's fired." WTF is that? I am not responding to these posts with no substance. Another point I haven't seen mentioned is the huge leap that the games of Tyrus and Noah have taken upwards this year. If VDN gets slammed for the bad, he should get equal credit for the good.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 11:52 AM) Maybe, but if i'm the Nats or any other team with a high pick and Boras makes some statement prior to the draft I wouldnt even bother. No point in making a pick you know you wont sign. Yes you'd get a comp pick the next year but that just gives you one less prospect in your system for the time being You also prevent your competition from getting that kind of a player for at least a year, plus you still keep the #1 pick in 2010. Like I said in the other thread when this was brought up, this case makes the perfect arguement for why draft picks should be able to be traded. Instead of Washington either having to pass on SS or pick him knowing that they can't sign him, they could put the pick on the auction block and see who comes calling. Could the Yankees or Red Sox be willing to clean out there farm system for this kid? It could very well have meant that Washington would have gotten on its way to recovery quicker with the multiple players someone would potentially pay for the pick, than picking Stausbourg and spending $50,000,000 on him.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 12:00 PM) Rose is definitely bad on defense, but EVERYBODY on this team is bad on defense, so that's no excuse to keep him out late in the game. This team simply does not try or care on defense, which to me is a serious indictment of the coach. Looking at the plus minus stats for the Bulls, Hinrich is +181, Gordon is +59, and Rose is -96. The only guy who has a lower number than Rose on the Bulls is Tyrus who comes in at a horrible -132.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 11:49 AM) I couldn't disagree more. I haven't seen a single thing out of Derrick Rose all year that tells me "he's coached well", and if anything, I've see many cases where he was mysteriously not in the game in critical spots. And if the Bulls make the playoffs as a below .500 7th or 8th seed, that isn't any sort of proof that the coach has any idea what he's doing at all. If missing the playoffs means Del Negro is gone, I'd almost rather they miss them, but hopefully the front office is smart enough to realize Del Negro has no idea what he's doing, regardless of where the team ends up at the end of the regular season. The big problem with Rose down the stretch is that he is terrible defensively. What ever he creates on the offensive end, he gets exploited for on the defensive end. I shutter to say this, but I would rather have Ben Gordon's defense on the floor right now versus Rose.

I wonder if it will be a screaming headline in the Sun Times like it was when the Trib filed a while back?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 10:17 AM) It's not that I support them, it's that I don't support these companies who request government/public help to survive and then whine about having to follow new rules. If you don't want to deal with these rules, run a successful profitable business and you'll never have too. Its that easy? Where do I sign up!?

Its easy to say that the execs don't deserve their paychecks, but now Barney Frank might be saying you don't get yours either... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics...y-42158597.html

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 31, 2009 -> 09:34 AM) They had to pay it regardless. Maybe they want to keep the jerk from polluting their other players, and considering he isn't hitting this spring, he's always hurt and he's 40, he's probably done anyway. Some team will probably grab him, but stuck on 499 would be justice. They could have sat on him, waiting to see if he hit at all, and still have the chance at turning him into tradebait. They could have saved something out of that salary potentially, even if it was on July 31st. By cutting him now, they lose even a small chance at that completely. For a team that lost a million seats worth of season ticketholders, it makes sense to even try to save a million or two out of that debacle.