southsider2k5

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Feb 6, 2009 -> 01:21 PM) The problem with Amare is, if you don't run enough plays for him offensively on the pick and roll, he's going to quit on rebounding and defense which is basically what he's done this season. And he's not a real low post threat, albeit he'd be a huge upgrade on what the Bulls have had. I still think it's worth it for the Bulls to pull the trigger. If Amare bolts in 2010 to say the Knicks, just go after Chris Bosh instead. With a point man like Rose on the floor, I don't think that will be a problem.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 6, 2009 -> 09:27 AM) Milwaukee looked at Sheets' medical crap and thought he was fine so they offered arbitration. The Blue Jays initially signed off on Sirotka after a physical. Gord Ash needs to find better doctors. I won't argue with that. He needs to find someone who can read a f***ing MRI!

QUOTE (RibbieRubarb @ Feb 6, 2009 -> 09:09 AM) I can see Denzel as Kenny yelling at reporters: KennyWilliams: Aww, you motherf***ers. Okay. Alright. I'm putting cases on all you b****es. Huh. You think you can do this s***.... You think you can do this to me? You motherf***ers will be covering baseball in Pelican Bay when I get finished with you. I'm the man up in this piece. You'll never see the light of... who the f*** do you think you're f***ing with? I'm the GM, I run s*** around here. You just live here. Yeah, that's right, you better walk away. Go on and walk away... 'cause I'm gonna' burn this motherf***er down. King Kong ain't got s*** on me. And... end scene.

QUOTE (retro1983hat @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 09:37 PM) Milwaukee has put Opening Day, Cubs series and the Sox series in a lottery. I feel like I have been waiting forever for them to get back to Milwaukee. Stupid uneven leagues. We play in Pittsburgh every damn year. Thanks for that. I got into the lottery for Milwaukee!

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 6, 2009 -> 08:51 AM) GOP Opposes Pay Limits On Bailed-Out Bankers So, if it's bad to tell a company what to pay its employee's.... shouldnt it be bad to enforce minimum wage? Isnt that "anti-capitalism? If a car manufacturer wants to pay children $1 an hour to build cars... why cant it? It's wrong to enforce pay requirements. There is a pretty significant number of people who believe that minimum wage actually does more harm to low income workers than good by artificially limiting the number of people who work.

QUOTE (shipps @ Feb 6, 2009 -> 08:26 AM) Nathan Lane to play Beane and Dave Chappelle to play KW(just for entertainment purposes) I'll take your Nathan Lane, and add Denzel Washington. I can see that Kenny type edge in Denz.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 03:02 PM) Hmmm, will be interesting to see if they try to deal him in the off-season. Depending on the cost (would the Sixers do Larry Hughes (expiring contract) plus something for Brand maybe) the Bulls should at least make an inquiry. Also the Magic traded Keith Bogans for Tyronn Lue, so there's our PG backup. Also, apparently Steve Kerr has put Amare Stoudemire on the trade market. Toronto and New Jersey are both interested apparently, and Kerr wants to trade him to an Eastern Conference team. I would back the truck up for Amare. Pretty much anyone except Rose would be fair game. Draft picks, players, etc. I don't care. Him and Rose playing together would put the Bulls into the top half of the Eastern Confrence.

Gord Ash had better man up and pay for the surgery for Ben Sheets. After the s***fit he through in the Sirotka/Wells deal, he would be a two face not to do so.

QUOTE (MurcieOne @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 11:49 PM) This kid put up some serious numbers down in the minors... if he can play, I hope that Ozzie gives him a shot. The Sox have shown that they are not afraid to turn to career minor leaguers if they see something in them. Just ask DeWayne Wise and Pablo Ozuna.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Feb 6, 2009 -> 01:08 AM) You could say smug and self-righteous, or you could say self-assured and confident. I'd prefer to have an aggresive, confident GM as opposed to a guy who's afraid to pull the trigger on a deal, ala Ron Schuler. Or with a more modern spin... John Paxson.

QUOTE (BobDylan @ Feb 6, 2009 -> 03:25 AM) Chris Widger does not approve. But he understands. Thankfully, it's only one game.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 6, 2009 -> 07:33 AM) Yep. Democrats want to actually pay for what services the government provides. Republicans want to borrow the money today in hopes that down the road we will pay back the deficit (and the interest). I got $900 billion that saids that isn't true.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 03:17 PM) Senator DeMint's website I love this. You guys spend a week going crazy about the CBO report that says that only 79% of the stimulus will be out the door by 2011. Such ineffective stimulus...it won't be nearly fast enough! Senator Demint proposes huge tax breaks that won't hit until 2011 and after. You guys cheer. I'm not cheering at all. I saying this is BS politics. I thought that was pretty clear from my post.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 03:05 PM) The banks aren't going to recover until the housing market and the credit markets finally bottom out and some semblance of order returns where people actually have some idea of what they own and how much it is worth. The government bailouts have to be viewed in that light; they're bridge loans, to get through the point either a year from now if the market reacts normally and a stimulus plan is passed or 3 years from now if no plan is passed or if the Senate's "Reinflate the bubble" provision stays in the stimulus plan. If a company is in good enough financial shape that they can weather the storm on their own, then it is a waste of bailout funds to force them to accept additional money. That money would be far better spent as loans that actually keep the banks that aren't in good enough shape to weather the storm out of bankruptcy. I think you missed the whole idea of the TARP funds. They were supposed to take bad assets off of the books of banks. Somewhere in the process that got corrupted. Originally it wasn't supposed to be an aid package to banks per se, it was to free up capital to be able to lend again. There is a very distinct difference there. In reality getting the banks who are still strong out of the plan and having more of their capital tied up is a pretty dumb idea. That just means less money in the system, and more contraction of the economy. The housing market is just the reason why the banks are bleeding now. If you take those loans off of their books, they don't have that exposure anymore, and they now have the ability to lend again. Being able to lend again is what will give people the ability to buy houses again, and business property, which is what will start the recovery. The multiplier works in reverse as well Every dollar you take out of the system, contracts dollars not spent down the line.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 03:00 PM) I think that it's probably impossible to better illustrate how far off beyond Pesky's pole the Republicans are on this matter than a vote last night did. Senator DeMint introduced a bill that would remove every bit of spending from the Obama plan and replace it with a series of permanent (not temporary) tax cuts, including several things that wouldn't hit for years (i.e. until the Bush tax plans start expiring - 2011 and beyond) This got the support of 36/40 Senate Republicans. Essentially, 90% of the Republican caucus in the Senate is opposed to the concept of a stimulus package. Or they are just in favor of the Democrats new definition of a "stimulus" plan, because they can get some of their pet projects through as well.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 02:46 PM) Quite frankly, that's the way it should be. There should be no profit in taking a gigantic loan from the federal government to cover a decade of disastrous decision making on the part of your company. And the government isn't going to be able to force them to lend anymore. There is lies the problem. The government can throw a trillion dollars into a hole like it is planning, but the economy isn't going to recover in a real way until the banks recover. We can put blips on the radar, but that isn't going to work long term. Go back and look at the Great Depression. There wasn't a real, meaningful recovery until the banking system got healthy.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 01:35 PM) SS, I'm puzzled. You generally believe the government should stay out, now your saying that the government can solve the problem. I have a difficult time believing that GS would hurt themselves to spite the government. Much like Chrysler paying back their loan early in the 1980s, it seems this is a positive sign of a rebound. And if GS is harming themselves to save them from some government oversight, what does that tell you? Chrysler isn't a bank. Its hard to compare a company that doesn't have the extra set of GOVERNMENT requirements that a bank does. Not to mention is yet another set of GOVERNMENT requirements that is causing the GOVERNMENT program to potentially fall apart. As for the last sentence, that tells me that it is probably more profitable to not have to deal with the federal governments interference in GS, than to deal with them.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) I swear wondering the samething myself. I kept thinking that I could never see his second foot being down. No one else mentioned it, so I thought it was my mind playing tricks on me.

QUOTE (DBAHO @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 10:56 AM) Maybe he doesn't know who everyone else's constant is? Sawyer - Kate (would explain why he didn't have the nosebleed) Juliet - Jack Locke - The Island or Richard? Charlotte - Annie? Miles - His father? Don't they have to ID a constant and stick to it? If they don't know, how could it work?

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/stephen-g...a-companys-gift

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 11:14 AM) Exactly. Weird, on financial matters, I usually agree with SS and disagree with you, but here its reversed. I do not think this is the end of lending. See my responses, and add in the fact that this added money wasn't resulting in bigger lending anyway, from what I have read (at least not in large enough scale). By itself, no it isn't enough to change the system. If this starts happening across the board, yes it could do unfixable harm to the TARP. GS isn't a follower, it is a leader. If they are looking at their acturial The original idea wasn't to rescue just the bad banks, it was to take bad assets away from banks, to free up money for lending again. There is a big difference there. If GS has $10b in bad assets, it can't lend that money out again, no matter what their capital ratios look like. That money is stuck in limbo, and because of Sarbane's Oxley, is actually causing a detriment to their lending, because not only can they not lend it again, but if there are taking a loss, that takes away from the other moneys they can lend out because the bank as a whole still has to be under their capital rations, with mark to market accounting factored in.

QUOTE (RibbieRubarb @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 10:18 AM) Do you think JJ Abrams has a giant book in which the enitre story is laid out? If so, I hope they publish it when the series ends. I would buy a book series of this in a heartbeat. It would be incredible.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 10:10 AM) Fallout? I call that a good result. First of all, GS isn't lending out much money anyway, that itsn't their gig. They are an investment firm. The borrow a lot more than they lend, and they lend to other investment firms anyway, not mortgage holders. Second, if more banks can pay that back with the pegged return, that is a good thing. Third, for banks that actually lend to consumers and businesses for development and real estate, if they can raise enough cash to pay back right now, then they are stable enough to work their way out of this situation anyway. So no need to give them this money. Also a good result. Fourth, for banks that can't pay it back right now, the restrictions are good anyway. More return for investors, more cash to do something useful with. Really, I see no downside here. The bottom line is that it takes $10 billion out of circulation, without even factoring in the multiplier. If this starts to happen in scale, this is exactly what caused the depresssion to go from a panic, to a depression. This would be the end of lending. The only companies that would comply would be the ones who would go under without the extra funds, and those groups won't be able to lend regardless because the funds are what is going to keep their capital ratios in check.

QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 09:16 AM) Desmond is his constant. Which makes me ask the next question, why wouldn't Dan teach others to have a constant?