southsider2k5

And looking back, you edit a lot StrangeSox! Get your whole thought out, then hit the post button!

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:47 AM) Fair enough. What do you see in Colbert, then? Since his act is obviously making fun of right-wing talk show hosts. Not much. But then again, when people start taking as bible what Colbert saids, it might matter. Since no one is running around posting links to the Colbert report as some kind of political statement truism, I don't really care too much.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:42 AM) Who is he? In my opinion, he's someone with obvious liberal leanings but still finds plenty of things wrong with both rep's and dem's. His biggest target, however has always been the media and he openly criticizes their shoddy work. What is he hiding there? Who is he hiding behind? Should South Park not satirize anyone since they don't openly advance a political ideology, formulate bills and parties or do in-depth journalism? Or do they also lack sack? I don't really feel like getting into a silly semantic arguement, so I will repeat what I keep saying.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:40 AM) I just can't get down with this logic. If I was to accept it at face value, I'd find anybody who did political humor a pathetic hypocrite. I'm a political junkie so good political humor is hilarious to me, I don't even care about the lean. That's where we all disagree. Stewart isn't attempting satire. Its hit and run journalism of the lowest degree. I don't see him as a comedian, not for a second.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:34 AM) Rush Limbaugh wants to be the face of the GOP/ conservatism. That's the difference, imo. TDS has a left-lean, but they make fun of everyone. Is South Park or SNL on the same level as Rush in your mind? Exactly. Jon Stewart doesn't even have the sack to be who he is instead of hiding.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:35 AM) SS, Keith Olbermann fits the description of what you're talking about much better than Stewart does. While I can't stand the guy, I have more respect for KO, than JS. He at least is who he is.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:32 AM) But why would he take those actions? He's not a journalist and he doesn't want to be. He's a comedian, a pretty smart and hilarious one I might add. Of course that is what he says. Why would he want to do all of the work of having integrity, when he gets to make his point and not be held responsible for his body of work like any other journalists? That's exactly why he hides as a "comedian".

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:29 AM) To me, that's the bulls*** line. That no one can be a critic unless they themselves have done the job. That's absurd. Stewart is not a journalist, so it is ridiculous to expect him to do things journalists should be doing. It is not ridiculous to expect journalists to be doing things journalists should do, and you don't need to be a journalist to call them out on it. That's like saying you can't be an art critic without being a better artist or a film critic without making a better movie. He is as much of a journalist as any of the right wingers who gets lit up on a daily basis. If people want to make Rush Limbaugh out to be the face of the party, they shouldn't have a problem holding Stewart to the same standards. What is bulls*** is that the only reason he isn't held to any standards is because he is too big of a coward to admit to what his purpose is.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:21 AM) I'd like for you to point out where he's said "well, I don't have to defend my ideas, I'm a comedian." He still puts his opinions out there and defends them. He doesn't use the fact that he's a comedian to make his ideas immune from criticism. He uses the comedy shield to stop his targets' deflections of "well, you don't do pulitzer-prize winning journalism on your satirical comedy show, so why should we?!" Again, he's just pointing out that its his job to satirize things and its their job to be journalists. Declaring that the satirist doesn't do deep, investigative journalism or hard-hitting interviews doesn't defend against the journalists not doing journalism. Journalism sucks in this country anymore, there is no two ways around that. Stewart getting on his highhorse to criticize people in retrospect for the actions they should have taken to maintain integrity in their field, according to him, while not being willing to do the same thing tells me what kind of person he is. He gets a free-ride to tear down whatever he wants, and if anyone calls him on it, he is a "comedian". He's not a comedian. Limbaugh uses satire and exagerations to push his agenda, does that stop anyone from attacking what he does? Does it make him immune from critisism? No, because he is at least honest enough not to pretend to be something he is not.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:20 AM) So would you say the same thing about any comedian that does political comedy? You really should. Al Franken WAS a comedian, now he's a comedian who ran for office and now he's a Senator. For comedians who bring people onto their show to criticize them for actions they should have taken, when they, themselves, haven't take respective actions, I will say the samething about them.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:04 AM) Stewart's biggest target for criticism has always been the media. Their response is always "well, you don't do it!" He then correctly points out that he does a satirical comedy show while they're supposed to be a news organization with journalistic integrity. Yeah, he gets to hide behind the comedy shield because that is what he is -- a comedian. Comedians can be and often are political, but that doesn't make them journalists or reporters. It's not Jon Stewart's job to expose AIG's CDS mess or to do investigations of CEO's claims. It's his job to take clips out-of-context and poke fun at people. It's like the court jesters in Shakespeare's plays. Sometimes the only ones willing or able to speak the truth are those under the protection of a comedy shield. I don't take much comfort in Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. being "up front" about how much they're trying to influence opinion if they still lie and distort the truth. And before you say it, Stewart and Colbert are guilty of hyperbole and distortions, too. Kinda like Al Franken is a comedian? Sorry, I don't buy the company line on Rush Stewart for a second. He gets the best of both worlds because he hides behind his little "comedy" badge anytime he gets questioned. Its a straight up b**** move if you ask me.

QUOTE (shipps @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 08:41 AM) Damn you guys really threw the hammer down on alot of people. I wanna throw the hammer down (stomping feet). hahaha, jk no I am not Many of them were the same few people re-registering over and over again. I think Brando alone registered something like a dozen times.

QUOTE (whitesoxbrian @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 10:31 PM) The whole Brodeur thing was cool. But the Hawks need to wake the f*** up. The Canucks are right on their ass. They are tied now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 07:48 AM) Beck? It sounds funny to defend guys like Limbaugh, Hannity, and the whole lot of them, but at least they are honest enough to say up front that they are trying to influence people's opinion. Guys like Stewart are the lowest form, because they scream about accountability towards others, then hide behind the comedy genre when someone wants to do the same to them. Get some testicular fortitude and at least be willing to stand up for yourself.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 11:55 PM) You are defending these bonuses on a bogus legal precedent. Maybe SS2K5. But let me tell you how outrageous it sounds to me, (after the labor unions of the car companies you demanded renegotiate your contracts) that a company like AIG hands out bonuses by contracts in spite of the fact that the company and its contracts would not exist without the federal government. You want to talk about a lack of patriotism. The thought of spitting in the face of our citizenry who donated their money to protect themselves from the consequences of the IDIOTS who took 30% profit over logic that it could all could fail and all those connected could fail, and have US bail them out and then STILL maintain profit because of their contracts only relevant because of our money is dispicable. And earmarks I'm not against it's just politics of politically minded people hoping to gain some points in the polls. It's not that big of a deal, I benefit from it, you do too. It may not be the role of the fed. gov't but I don't give a f***. Some things need funding that people don't realize. It's easy to throw out funny names and snark and act above everything, but Alaska and Lousiana, you are disproportionately gaining from these projects you hold your noses at. So without parsing of words. f*** YOU YOU f***ING HYPOCRITES I don't like the bonuses, anymore than I like the labor contracts or earmarks. I just think it is funny that people are willing to rush to the defense of something that is costing them a trillion dollars, or even nine billion dollar, but are all up in arms about $165 million. Also, we didn't "donate" a damned thing. The general populace didn't have a choice. It was our elected officials that decided it for us. I believe in most of these situations, public opinion has been decided to let all of these groups go at it on their own, just like the individuals in the general public have to.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 06:56 PM) At least one of them realizes he's running a comedy show. One of them is a fraud who says he runs a comedy show, but gets to push his political beliefs without accountability.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 02:52 PM) One of Burnham's Yeah, that was mentioned in the news clip above. I interviewed with IB a couple of years back, and got to see the insides of it. There is a beautiful courtyard/atrium in the middle, and all of the innerwindows look in on it. It also has a stairwell that goes through it.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 05:36 PM) Glenn Beck is the tv host right wing version of the New York Times I was going to go with John Stewart, but potato, potAto.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 12:24 PM) Time for another T party. Anywho, there's a bit of reason that can be applied to focusing on these bonuses, just as there's a bit of reason about why earmarks get a particular focus...in both cases, as currently structured they're an invitation to a much larger corruption problem. In Congress, the ability of Congressmen to earmark funds directly to companies in exchange for "gifts" has now brought down what, 3, 4 Congressmen over the past couple years? Stevens in the Senate, Murtha's going down, Cunningham went down for that, the whole Abramoff clan, etc. In business, the bonus system is set up to provide these guys maximum rewards for short-term performance. These guys get richest if they make the largest possible bets on the market. If their bets succeed, they become ridiculously wealthy. If their bets fail though, especially if they fail really, really big, they lose nothing and still are making a fairly large amount. The only one who loses in that case is the taxpayer. The compensation structure is a key factor in driving Wall Street to ignore its long term risks at the expense of short term gains during positive market movements. Both cases suggest substantial need for reform. The big difference is that earmark corruption is still pretty far from destroying civilization as we know it. Wall Street corruption is not. And mark to market accounting is at the front of the line for destroying Wall Street.

Let me put it this way. When my dad had neck surgery in the mid 80's they let my less than 10 year old brother help pull them out. It was painless.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 12:06 PM) Frankly, with AIG, I don't think they had a clue what they were doing, they just realized that they needed to do something. Let's review the schedule here: Friday, September 12th: Markets close with Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch teetering on the edge. Over the weekend, Lehman and Merrill have their books opened to the world to try to find a buyer, similar to what happened to Bear a few months beforehand. The Fed is able to convince BofA to take on Merrill's debacle, but Lehman is in worse shape and no one will take them on without a guarantee from the Fed similar to what they gave when Bear went down. Sunday night, Paulson says no. Monday, September 15th: Markets re-open. Merrill is in BofA's hands, but Lehman files bankruptcy for the largest in corporate history. DJIA drops 504 points. AIG is hammered. Its stock drops 60% in 1 day. Tuesday September 16th: The calamity of the Credit Default swap contracts AIG had put out covering Lehman bros has become clear to the Fed and to Paulson. They've realized their mistake. At 10:00 in the morning, the Fed rushes in with an $85 billion loan and takes an 80% stake in AIG to prevent the complete collapse of the financial system. A few days later the $700 billion bailout plan was announced. Just think through that. People had an inkling the week before that if Lehman went down, AIG would have problems, but the Fed and the Treasury had no idea how deep of a hole there was. Otherwise they never, ever would have let Lehman fall, they would have given it the same deal they gave Bear. Less than 36 hours pass from Paulson making the final call that they weren't going to bail out Lehman Brothers to the huge money infusion in to AIG. 1 business day. They went from basically knowing nothing about AIG's financial products to realizing the company was going down hard in less than 24 hours. I doubt they had a clue about 95% of AIG's business when they nationalized it. There just wasn't anywhere close to enough time. They just knew there was a hole on the scale of hundreds of billions of dollars in AIG's books after Lehman went down, and that if they didn't do something then Barclay's, Goldman Sachs (conveniently enough Paulson's former employer), Societe Generale of France, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Citigroup, BofA, and a dozen others would have holes ranging from $5 to $10 billion suddenly appearing in their balance sheets as all of Lehman's bonds that they thought they had insured would go worthless...and God only knows how big those holes would be if all of AIG's debt went worthless as well. Which has nothing to do with the rest of the bailouts that they have handed out since. They disclosed all of their expenses up front.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 12:07 PM) Back up the bus. I've seen you two agree with me that earmarks are a major problem, even though they are only 2% or whatever of the porkulus bill (tip of cap to Kap). And yet, you are saying we should ignore this $160M because of some other amount spent elsewhere being $9B? I call foul. Which is it? IMO, they are both bogus and should be dealt with. Personally I don't like the bonuses, but I don't buy the outrage for a second. I think Rick Santelli said it best this morning. He talked about the M's, the B's and the T's. We are more worried about the M's than we are the B's. We are also worried more about the B's than the T's. M's are millions, B's are billions, and T's are trillions.

That is a beautiful building. Interactive Brokers HQ is in there, along with a few other companies.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 17, 2009 -> 11:12 AM) http://www.mercurynews.com/economic-crisis...?nclick_check=1 HMMMMMMMMM! OUTRAGE! This has been known for over a year... and OH THE OUTRAGE! And, why is it the porkulus bill, Dodd threw in the executive compensation clause, while exempting bonuses? We are being duped, people. These people all knew this was coming. And now, they are screaming to make it an example. I was just about to get on here and say a couple of things, and this was actually one of them. There is zero chance that a government bails out a multibillion dollar aid package without knowing every single detail of their business, especially 9 figures worth of an expense. This outrage timing is pretty interesting, because this is what I have gleened over the last two weeks. Wasting $9 billion in taxpayer money=part of doing business. Wasting $165 or 450 million, outrageous and we aren't going to take it. Seriously? Nine billion dollars get tacked on to our budget for earmarks, and we get told that despite the flaws in the bill, Obama isn't going to stand in its way, when he actually has the legal authority to try to stop it. Even though he doesn't like it, he will fix it in the future. $165 million gets paid out in contractual obligations that we knew about, and Larry Summers goes on CBNC to tell the nation that they are going to get "creative" to figure out a way to get that money back. This is a joke, and everyone who is all upset about this is just going the lemming parade right off of the cliff. Realize that the government just did the exact same thing to us on a magnitude of about a thousand times, and politicians were falling all over themselves to make excuses for it. Please forgive me if this seems like a cute little campaign to distract people away from the negatives towards the Congress and the President's job performance so far.

How was Colon's velocity? How about the tilt on his off-speed stuff?