southsider2k5

QUOTE (shipps @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 11:16 AM) Why do you keep on getting banned?Furthermore, why do they keep taking you back? He's not the same person that used to get into trouble all of the time. He has grown up a lot since those days. On the last thing, we are a pretty easy going bunch. We don't have a bunch of silly rules that we get off in enforcing. If people ask to come back here, and actually indicate that they want to change whatever got them banned in the first place, usually we give people the chance to try posting here again. Beastly isn't the first or last person in that situation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 10:55 AM) You know, I really do consider this argument fascinating. Take a look where we are now. We're in a gigantic mess triggered by lax regulation of the mortgage industry. We're about to have to pump probably hundreds of billions of public dollars in to these organizations to bail them out because of the fact that we didn't regulate this process well enough. And we're really still in the first part of the bursting of this bubble...it's probably going to take years to fully recover if it ever actually does. And yet...you're more scared of government bureaucracy, this scary thing that gets unpacked off in the distance as something that's worse than what we already have in every single case...than you are of the mess that's already been created. That's just a point of view I can't subscribe to...I just can't point at the implosion of a huge swath of the economy leading to gigantic government bailouts and think...."Well, at least it doesn't take twice as long to close on a house because the government isn't involved". If it would have prevented the mortgage bubble from growing and bursting...I don't see how doubling the average closing time is that much worse than the economic chaos we're seeing now. The problem with Fannie and Freddy now is that the government is psuedo-involved in the first place. Its literally the worst of both worlds. The government already oversees the banks, and how did that work out? We don't regulate this stuff well enough because we let a bunch of guys who are literally taking money from these very same companies decide what their rules should be. Tell me how giving these guys more power to decide what to do with things is going to make it better. Hell there are government agencies right now that are in funding crisis's. I fail to see how making this fully governmentally controlled would make things better anyway. We have let the social security, medicare/cade bubbles go on for how long and we STILL haven't fixed them, but they are going to be on top of the housing bubble? I don't see this as accurate at all. I can't think of one agency that is so well run by the government that it would inspire confidence in me that they could do any better than the private sector has done with the governments "help". Thinking just of the housing sector, do you think people would be rushing to buy bigger houses if they knew that the closing was going to be the nightmare process of say citizenship? Do you really think that will help the housing sector rebound?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/d-s-hube/2008...ll-media-notice

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 10:32 AM) Hmmmm.... Extra couple forms to fill out complete meltdown of our banking and financial system leading to global recession. A couple of extra forms? HA! Now that is funny. We are talking about the federal government here. The same groups who brings you things like passports, social security, welfare, medicade, and all of those "couple of extra forms" offices that are so effecient and clean. I'd be willing to bet that a government run agency for this stuff would double the average time required to close on a house.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/17/175641/206

That is just depressing. Can you imagine having to go through government red tape to buy a house? The process already sucks enough, this would be horrible.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 09:18 AM) Obama is a progressive candidate. And what a silly thing to ask of an article. It's frame was to show how silly and dumb those rankings are, misleading and shallow. They have no even pseudo-scientific way of qualifying what their rankings are. They can choose any number of ways to decide whether a bill is liberal or not. It doesn't have to take on the fight over whether Obama is a liberal, which he is, but the most liberal senator, which he's not, because, they are two different topics - and articles have this thing called 'framing'. I'm saying it would be much easier had Obama been in office in 2000-04, when Bush actually used COngress, for his multiple major bills he passed. As it stands, there is no major GOP issue that has been in pushed since 2004 to test your method on, therefore it's a stupid rank anyways. Most of those bills, as the author said, are questionable whether of not either party can claim them exclusively. As I said, most bills pass overwhelmingly, considering they've gone through multiple committees of both Democrats and Republicans. And per the fuel economy thing, so reaching across party lines to get Republicans to sponsor the bill as well, is somehow not a good example. And maybe an example of how fuel efficiency shouldn't be a party issue, but a necessity. My point is the label, as they handed to Kerry (and his they admit was misleading), is damaging. And if they are going to give a rank that is, one, unprovable, and two, as they even have it grossly unscientific. (I'm thinking of ways to this, and think of Schlesinger's popular presidential rankings), then it should be qualified as such if people are to claim it. Especially today as McCain calls Obama an extremist and an "I don't know? wink" socialist, with these rankings as the qualifiers, it is good to debunk this 'most liberal myth'. He isn't the most liberal, many of his plans were less liberal than Clinton's, yet these arbitrary rankings justify it how? Because a journal competing for recognition says so? In the truest sense, every poll, ranking, statistic, and almost every figure quoted is arbitrary to one extent or another. They all have their biases and methodologies behind them. Everytime you see McCain labeled as Bush III, it is based on a nice narrow and well picked set of time frame, issues, and votes that frame it up as the worst thing possible, yet Obama is out there campaigning on those very things. I'd personally call that just as misleading. I personally put about as much care into that crap as I do this journal article. I need a journal to tell me that Barack is liberal about as much as I need one to tell that Reagan was a conservative.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 08:54 AM) but you have to ask yourself since 2004 how many big GOP bills did Bush try and get through? Social Security reform never left committee after he went public right away. Bush's entire second term has been him on foreign policy and little else. So what you have is a large amount of bills that can be owned up to either party. And most bills actually pass with overwhelming #'s. But as for whether Obama has reached across party lines, he's worked with Tom Cobourn (R-OK) to increase government transparency.(link: http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/s3077.html ). And he's worked with bills across both party lines with fuel efficiency: Obama, Biden Sponsor Bill With Tax Breaks for Auto Fuel Gains Monday, March 5, 2007 Printable Format By Gopal Ratnam March 5 (Bloomberg) -- Automakers in the U.S. would get tax breaks for raising fuel economy 4 percent a year under a bill whose sponsors include Senators Barack Obama and Joseph Biden, who are seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. The proposal includes ``generous tax incentives'' to retool parts and U.S. plants to meet the tougher standards, Obama, an Illinois Democrat, said in a statement today. The legislation would allow different standards for different types of vehicles, rather than an average for an automaker's entire fleet of models. The bill proposes ``a better system that combines protection for U.S. automobile manufacturing jobs with predictable increases in fuel efficiency standards for cars, SUVs and light trucks,'' Biden, a Delaware Democrat, said in the statement. The proposal joins others in Congress to boost auto fuel efficiency. President George W. Bush, a Republican, called for a similar 4 percent increase in his State of the Union speech in January. A bill similar to what Obama and Biden proposed failed to get through Congress last year. Senator Diane Feinstein, a California Democrat, and 10 other lawmakers are seeking to raise the standard for cars to 29.5 miles per gallon by 2010, from 27.5 mpg now. U.S. Representative John Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is considering a climate-change bill that would also address fuel economy. The other sponsors of the bill backed by Obama and Biden are Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican; Gordon Smith, an Oregon Republican; Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican; Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican; and Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat. Changes adopted last year for light trucks, which include pickups, minivans and sport-utility vehicles, will boost their required fuel economy to an average 24 miles a gallon starting with 2011 models. The current standard is 21.6 mpg. To contact the reporter on this story: Gopal Ratnam in Washington at gratnam1@bloomberg.net So what's the big GOP issue he should stand with them on? The War? Making the tax breaks permanent? If he did I wouldn't vote for him. The fuel economy thing has been a big democratic issue forever. The GOP is just now jumping on it with them needing look like they are doing something about gas prices. You set up my next question, if he isn't working with the GOP on anything of importance, how can you argue when someone calls him a liberal? That would be like me arguing GW Bush hasn't been a conservative. Heck if he is such a leader, why isn't he getting an issue out there that he agrees with the GOP on? God knows he has the whole worlds attention. Reading back the article you posted the thing that really stands out to me the most is that is really doesn't argue the point of how liberal Obama is too much, it just argues that the methodology used to determine it in this one instance was wrong, so therefore it can't be true. Those two things aren't mutally exclusive. The system could be flawed, and Barack is still a left-winger regardless.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 18, 2008 -> 08:35 AM) 62.6% for McCain should be a little more alarming. That includes important votes that even Ted Kennedy showed up for. And is 12% more than Sen. Johnson who suffered a brain hemorrhage on Dec. 13, 2006. I am glad he is a whole 3.4 percentage points better. Those are both just sad. They both should be embarassed with those kind of numbers, I don't care about campaigning, they do have a job to do. They both seem to have forgotten that. Besides the main point of the article is a joke. Before he started his Presidential run, what was the biggest issue Obama has ever taken a predominantly GOP stance on?

QUOTE (letsgoarow @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 07:49 PM) Well...interesting start from Zesty. 2 ip no hits, no runs, 2 k's but, He was sitting 74-75 on his fastball lol. Fastest hit threw was 78 on the gun. So take it however you would like. I can hear the clock ticking on him as we speak...

Maybe we can get Bush to be in the next "signs" commerical now? I could see it now. Alexei digging into the batters box and looks down to 3B for the sign. GW Bush is there holding a sign that says "strategery". Lex shrugs confusedly and holds up a sign that says "Que?" He looks down to Bush again who is now holding a sign that says "Evil Empire" Lex shrugs again and looks out at the pitcher. The pitch comes and Lex cranks a homer. As he is rounding first he holds up a sign that says "Muy Bueno", to which Bush's sign reply is "Mission Accomplished"

That is reassuring...

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 02:49 PM) What's with all the pitching projects we keep acquiring all the time? How about a solid pitcher that doesn't need Coop's magic? I can give you about $100 million reasons why we don't get one of those kind of pitchers.

Southsider=my favorite team and family origin in Chicago a couple of generations ago. 2k? used to be the current year, but was retired at 2k5 after winning the World Series.

The Brandon Allen Machine keeps rolling along, as he has been promoted to AA Birmingham!

On the bright side, we might actually see a little relief. Gasoline futures are down nearly 40 cents in the last three days. We'll see if this downturn is long enough to actually show up at the pump.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 06:00 PM) :headbang Har-old! Har-old! Har-old!! :headbang All of you in attendance will have to chant for me. Ah misty eyed memories.

I am glad the Sox are sticking with Adam. The release and arm slot are really tough to pick up for righties. He could be a closer type with a little experience.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) The President has picked various different places to throw out the first pitch over the years. He threw out the first pitch in Cincinnati a few years ago and the owner in Cinci is a big supporter of his campaigns. In other words...you might well get an opening day first pitch from the President at the Cell if the person I'm voting for wins. Cincy was also the traditional opening day in MLB until this stupid Sunday nite baseball opening came along.

Force a trade

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 01:00 PM) Crude Oil settle below $130 for the first time since June 9th. Down 11%, this was the biggest 3 day percentage drop in crude since 2003.

Crude Oil settle below $130 for the first time since June 9th.

I guess Spiderman grossed $151 million in its first weekend, any guesses as to how the Bat does?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 11:17 AM) Ah-Ha, found the ol' energy thread. Bumpage. Businessweek says they got their hands on some documents from the Kingdom, which they're claiming show projections for the Kingdom's production over the next few years. Basically, they have their own number showing their production going up slightly, but then sort of stagnating after about 1 more year, with their total gasoline production declining because their production of light crude will be dropping compared to the heavier, more energy intensive refining crude, starting within about 2 years. Basically...the math here is pretty simple. If Saudi Arabia can't sustain their current production levels...then any drilling around the U.S. is going to be a fly on the wall compared to what the world's production loses if they start declining. So in other words we had better start drilling now before the price gets to $10 a gallon and we don't have an economy left anyway. We really should have started drilling a decade ago. Those million barrels per day would be nice right now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 17, 2008 -> 10:45 AM) Here's a big difference: Al Gore has literally made millions of dollars off of this movement, yet he doesn't seem to follow it himself. ^^^ You want another good example try the Catholic Church with the sex scandals. Saving people's souls for eternity is a pretty good cause, but it doesn't make them immune from critizisms.