southsider2k5

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 10, 2008 -> 06:30 AM) I wasn't following the game thread but did anyone else laugh when Hawk mentioned that minor league ball girl scaled the wall and catch a foul ball? Hilarious. Too bad DJ called him out on it and let him know it was a hoax. He would have been telling that story for years. I was laughing so hard, I couldn't explain to my wife why it was so funny for a couple of minutes. You have to got to love Mark Buehrle.

QUOTE (TLAK @ Jul 10, 2008 -> 06:47 AM) Just what did Cabrera do wrong? Leads off the inning with a walk. Swisher flies out. Cabrera's the tying run and steals second on the first pitch to Quentin who later walks. Then he steals third while Dye swings through the second pitch. Dye had taken a called strike on the first pitch, then K'd on the third pitch --with the tying run on 3B with 1 out, nobody was dancing at 2B as Quentin was still on 1B. On the night Dye was 0-4 with 2 K's. And JD yells at Cabrera? For what, trying to win the game? If I had to guess... JD is probably a guy who hates movement on the basepaths while he is trying to hit. Listening to broadcasters talk for years, it sounds like those kind of things are well known within the clubhouse. Thinking back to Frank, our basestealers used to be very careful when they went because it distracted the big man. (which Hawk used to mention all of the time in running counts) With Cabrera already on second and posessing great speed, he probably felt there was no need for him to run, especially because with a right-hander on the mound, the pitch is coming out of the pitchers hand with Cabrera moving in the backround right behind the flight of the ball, which distracted Dye and gave away the best pitch to hit in his AB.

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 05:48 PM) Took this from the blues forum. Apparently was on XM Home Ice. Let me say if this is true its a terrible deal for the Hawks. We would be losing Havlat with Habby for a 2nd and 7th?? Appearently we have no need for offense anymore eh? Either that or DT has something up his sleeve because it would free up some pretty good cash. "The Blues are rumored to be interested in McCabe, Pressing, and the Blues maybe involved in a 3 team trade with Chicago and LA. Chicago is over the salary cap and LA is 14-16 million under the Salary floor. Which means they need to add 14 million in salary before the season begins. In a scenerio they laid out tonight on Powerplay: LA would receive Khabibulan and Mckee Chicago would receive StL 2009 2nd round pick, LA 2009 7th round pick St. Louis would receive M Havlat (6mil 2008/09) and Tom Pressing" http://forums.stlblues.com/index.php?showtopic=5753 With his injury history and being owed $6 million, does Havlat really have any trade value?

53-37 +3.5 games 4 wins in a row

Just a feeling, but if he can piss off JD enough to say something, Cowley might be onto something.

Paid for most of my second child...

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jul 10, 2008 -> 06:10 AM) I've been in bars that would get quiet while Frank was batting. Basically everyone stopped and watched. He was amazing in the mid 90s. Barry Bonds was the same way, and he isn't a favorite of mine either. It just means I respect his ability more than just about anyone else.

Anyone else every read Freakonomics? The chapter on the movement of names through socioeconomic classes was very interesting.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 02:27 PM) The flip side to that - aside from symbolic or purely strategic reasons (as with Obama spending money in TX) - under the current system, why would a Republican waste any time campaigning in places like NYC, Chicago, Boston, the Bay Area, etc.? There are significant amounts of Republicans living in those places, but they more or less get ignored and left to the Democrats, and they become perpetual liberal strongholds (before I left Chicago I could count the number of Republicans I knew on one hand, thinking of the people I know in Chicago, still can). The same goes for the Democrats in places like TX, and much of the South. Why bother? You won't win the state. Basically, by shifting to population centers, it means a different group of people gets ignored. So it's the same thing either way. It is not the samething, and all you really have to do is look at the population per electoral vote in each state to understand how things would change. Right now there is a protection of the small states built into the system that gives them more value than if they were strictly based on population. This was not an accident. The founders of the electoral college wanted those same small state protections built into the Presidential process to protect their rights and interests against the disproportion of population. We have never been a 50% +1 democracy. The founders realized that complete mob rule wouldn't always work on its own. There needed to be some built in protections of everyone's interests.

Its pretty sad when even Jesse Jackson is whispering essentially that Barack Obama is full of it. I hate to be on the same side as one of the countries biggest enforcers of the nations racial divide, but I will go one step further and say that Obama has been talking down to the entire nation, especially since Hillary dropped out, and it was refreshing to see someone who has a vested interest in seeing him win call him out on it. (even if he didn't want anyone else to know about it)

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 12:50 PM) But those 250,000 votes are nothing compared to what you can get by concentrating on a place like LA where you can get that amount in 1 city. Exactly, the population centers take on an even heavier weight than they do now. You could totally minimize your travel activity by consentrating on just the main big cities. You would never ever visit a rural anything. Think about it you could get more votes in New York City versus the entire state of Indiana.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 12:46 PM) that's basically my stance too. If Obama had not decided to run a 50 state campaign, the people of Texas and Illinois would really see or hear from the candidates. There's no point. McCain should win TX easily and Obama IL. But with a national system, they have to visit. what about the small states? Same thing. 50,000 votes in Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming is 250,000 more votes. A national election also means that EVERY vote counts and i really believe voter turn out would go up. In 2004, i would have voted for Kerry, but i never registered. what was the point? He was going to win IL anyways. At the time I wasn't really vested in local politics to make an educated vote. Out of curiousity Obama is going to win IL pretty easily in 2008, then what is the point this year?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 12:47 PM) Semantics aside, the underlying theme in all of this from opponents of free trade (and I use the term "opponents" loosely, because being in that category doesn't make someone against all types of free trade) is the trade deficit and loss of U.S. jobs to overseas manufacturers, usually to India and China. But it is an election year and the economy is stagnant, so the rhetoric gets turned up, making the BS meters register more than they would normally. The trade deficit is a function of US consumers buying stuff from the rest of the world, and not the actions of some free trade agreement. If we as a nation were willing to pay more for American items instead of their cheaper foreign counterparts they would still have jobs here. We aren't, and off to overseas the jobs go. Like I mentioned in my last post, look at the auto industry. Toyota is about to overtake GM as the biggest seller of cars in the world, and because of it 10s of thousands of American workers are losing their jobs. Its not just $10 an hour manufacturing jobs we are talking about, these are $100k plus jobs with health care, pensions, and every other fringe benefit we can imagine. How many people would be willing to pay an extra $5 or $10 thousand dollars per Honda/Kia/Lexus/Toyota etc to protect American jobs, because this is exactly what the real life cost of not having free trade would be. The other side of the coin is that it allows our industries to export to places that can use the products we do make. America exports food like nobodies business, and it was what kept farmers in business for a long time. Before free trade to certian parts of the world, the US government had to pay farmers NOT to grow food to keep prices artificially high so that they wouldn't go bankrupt. Artificially high prices in other countries hurt our exporting industries. Hell exporters are what has kept this economy out of a true recession as I type. Turn the places they export into protected markets, and we are looking at double digit inflation on top of double digit unemployment. The opponents of free trade are the unions in this country looking to stay relevant in a time when they are disappearing at a pace never before seen in American history, and for a large part, they have themselves to thank for that.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 12:03 PM) helps if you read the quote: "...plants shipped overseas as a consequence of bad trade deals like NAFTA" Really it goes back to the class warfare and scare tactics that have been totally previlant during this election cycle. He has to throw out all of the scary things like NAFTA and China, even when they aren't related, and make no sense together anyway. The fact Obama is conviently missing is that we have no free trade agreement with China, but that doesn't fit his rhetoric, so he has to bring in NAFTA to scare people with. He also likes to leave out that all of those cheap imports are what keep consumers spending ability in check with the small wage growth over the years. I would love to hear the howls from people if they made Toyotas cost $40,000 each to protect American automotive workers and simliar types of actions. Free trade is a two way street, and not the demon that the unions are paying him to say that it is. Remember that the next time you log onto your cheap foreign made computer. In other words, he is lying at best, and clueless at worst.

Apparently China is in NAFTA now? http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...TRmZjUyZTdjYzc=

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...nal_performance

Thinking outside of the box here, who is the one guy on the roster who has actually spent time as a closer this year? Adam Russell. Why mess with the 7th and 8th innings? Leave Dotel and Linebrink where they have been comfortable, and try something outside of the box.

The two best expected win totals in MLB this year? AL is the Sox at 54, NL is the Cubs at 55.

I think it is ironic that we are all on here telling Jose how he should act at his job, when half of us are at work surfing the net...

QUOTE (Felix @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 09:34 AM) What he said. ^^^ that bridge has been burnt, scraped, melted, and sold to a tourist.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 08:48 AM) I have an unusual name--but I'm told it's a very popular name in Greece. I really hated having an unusual name when I was younger--but I think it's something you grow into. There is nothing wrong with Sparticus.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 08:40 AM) Fresh and new for your pleasure. This is a great place to talk about how great McCain is, don't you think? You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 09:01 AM) If we abolish the Electoral College, we'll need to establish a federal set of rules that offer a universal set of guidelines for voting and voting eligibility. In my opinion, you can't have one without the other. We elect nationally through fifty statewide elections. Its a very good point, and one that bears debating. I really do believe that the original intent was for the states to maintain much more identity than they have in 21st century America. The federal government has progressed way past what was originally intended, and I think changing the election process gets into the federalization of elections, when it was clearly intended to be a state based process, even when the electoral college was institituded. There was supposed to be some protection of the smalls states, against the big states, just like there was in the Great Compromise. The other thing I see quickly happening if we did something like this is impinging on the rights of the parties, by standardizing the way that they pick their candidates.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Jul 9, 2008 -> 07:22 AM) What I like about favorites is stats and stuff are not as important. Unlike FlaSoxxJim, I never saw Shoeless Joe play, so he will not be on my list, same with Ed Walsh, and a host of others. I'll probably go back as far as Wilbur Wood, some Southside Hitmen, etc. Basically my list would be between 1972 and today. If our final list is heavy with players from 2005, that's cool for a favorites list. I grabbed one guy from the 70's, as I was just a little tyke then, but I have a bunch of guys from the 83 team on my list, along with a couple of the recent guys who were my favorites because they were really cool guys. Yes I actually have Bajenaru on my list because he went out of his way to be a great player to the fans. That means a lot to me when talking about favorite players. Ozzie rated highly for the same reason.

Favorites is way different than best. Neither Maggs nor Frank was on my list.