southsider2k5

25-20 +2.5 games

Scrubs

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 21, 2008 -> 12:56 PM) Vetoed by Bush, unfortunately it will likely get overridden as it's nearly veto invulnerable. That said, Bush still got this one right. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j6fCPxb...e6IN9gD90Q5FQ00 Its too bad he took 7 years to find his small budget roots.

The anger is strong in this one...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 21, 2008 -> 11:45 AM) <!--quoteo(post=1643243:date=May 21, 2008 -> 06:05 AM:name=StrangeSox)-->QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 21, 2008 -> 06:05 AM) <!--quotec-->Over $130 this morning. Hooray! $131 $132 $133

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 21, 2008 -> 06:05 AM) Over $130 this morning. Hooray! $131 $132

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 21, 2008 -> 09:28 AM) As do I but these are the rules both campaigns agreed to. You can't change the rules mid-stream. Then why does everyone assume the popular vote would have gone to Gore in 2000 if those had been the rules instead of the electoral college? Isn't that changing the rules in the middle of the game?

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 21, 2008 -> 10:32 AM) I wasn't clear based on the report if these were temporary workers fulfilling an urgent need, or they are being hired as permanent employees. If they are temps, segregating like NSS suggests would seem a better solution. At the minimum, how many words are really necessary to know? They probably do not need to be 100% fluent, but should know specific commands concerning firefighting. And that challenge would face native speakers as well. Every job has specific jargon and terms that a lay person would not know. Does it work both ways?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 21, 2008 -> 10:01 AM) Well that's just idiotic. I mean, I understand the rule - that the crew boss needs to speak the same language as the rest of the crew. But since English is far and away the dominant language in this country, the requirement should be for the firefighters COMING IN to speak English. Clearly. And besides, as a temporary fix, wouldn't it be better to divide the fire companies by language capabilities, then to lay people off? I can see the segregation and discrimination lawsuits pouring in from here...

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 21, 2008 -> 10:09 AM) On ESPN 1000 Pax just said he "doesn't care where a player is from." Good for Pax. Get the best player be he Beasley or Rose. With the #1 pick in the draft, from Bombay India, the Chicago Bulls select...

QUOTE (SpringfieldFan @ May 21, 2008 -> 07:27 AM) Being from downstate, I am suprised nobody has mentioned the proposed Waldorf-Astoria, which will be 1200+ feet if built. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf-Astor...Residence_Tower SFF Wow, that is right in my neck of the woods, and I hadn't even heard of it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 21, 2008 -> 08:01 AM) *raises hand* I'm in that category, and it isn't because of policy differences. Its about tactics, personality and management style, where those two are polar opposites. As are Bush and McCain. McCain has a history of working bipartisianly, much more so than Bush, or even Clinton and Obama. He has bucked his party on issues where he feels they are wrong, again, have you heard that from either of those three?

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 21, 2008 -> 07:54 AM) There are two distinct populations of farmers in this country. One are the mega-corporations who farm and ranch for their own needs. (What-a-burger and their giant herd for burgers) Two are the smaller entrepreneurs who have a very tough time of it. As we buy more and more farm goods from outside the US, we raise our dependence on an extremely important commodity, our food. A good friend of mine, Member of Bush's Farm-Ranch Team, and a staunch Rush believing GOPerhead, is getting paid not to plant grain, specifically sorghum. His justification regarding the payments is multifaceted. He'd make more money "planting" houses and removing the land from potential agriculture, should we need it in an emergency. The lower prices from over planting would hurt everyone, and put more farmers out of business. The open land is better for the environment. That logic could be applied to the oil industry too... By keeping prices higher, they are assuring that more oil will be in the ground, because people can't afford. (should we need it in an emergency) Lower prices would put all of the people who work in the energy industry out of jobs (like they did in the 80's and 90's in Texas for example) The open land is better for the enviornment Should we be shutting down more refinaries and oil wells?

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 21, 2008 -> 07:50 AM) she doesnt hold the ultimate power though Neither does the President.

It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, “This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,” and that’s something they’re hopeful about. "The radical Islamists, the al-Qaida … would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they would declare victory in this war on terror," "His middle name does matter, it matters because they read a meaning into that." Interesting couple of statements huh?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 21, 2008 -> 07:12 AM) It's because 95% of this country vote these people into office not knowing anything about them, but because they belong to their "party". And I'm not even sure how they feel as if they became part of this party, it's as if political affiliation is something you're born with in this country. And THAT is what is depressing. Maybe if people knew half the stuff these people do/did or how they think as people they wouldn't be so quick to vote them in just because it says : Democrat or Republican next to their names on the ballots. For once that doesn't matter. This bill was a bipartisian clusterf*** of the American people.

Fight on Hillary, fight on! http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...GYxYWIxMjA1MWI=

Mike D'antoni has to be kicking himself hardcore right about now...

early runs off of Sabathia- check Great pitching preformance from Contreras-check Key pitches from the pen-check Grinder type baserunning-check Adding runs late-check Hawk not need viagra after that-check

24-20 + 1.5 games 6 wins in a row

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 20, 2008 -> 02:47 PM) Hmm. Maybe it doesn't. What time is the softball game? Our party was planning to tailgate before the Sox game. I don't believe we have decided yet, but last year it was at noon. I think that might have been a bit early... I am guessing sometime between one and three this year.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 21, 2008 -> 06:23 AM) To add to my long post from before, which may be confusing to read at times (and went off course a bit), I have an example of what I mean by widespread speculation -- the guy in the cubicle next to me has been actively trading oil contracts all month long -- and he's just a regular guy dabbling in the market with less than two total years of market experience. All I'm saying is there are more people like that today than ever before because of how easy the Internet has made trading, and they are adding to the problem. Oil is out of hand as it is, and not because of shortages (as shown in the article above), but because of greed, wars, over usage and the price people are willing to pay to attain it, regardless of being able to afford it or not. I think I'm just annoyed by the entire issue since I hear people complain about the price *ALL* *THE* *TIME*, yet none of them have stopped driving their 13MPG SUV's. I bike to work 3-4 days a week now. So at least I walk the walk. All are demand based push and the exact reasons why crude oil is as high as it is. That is the arguement I have been making all along! Trading has nothing to do with it. This is all demand based. The only way crude falls is if we succeed in pushing the Chinese economy into a large recession, like Japan did in the late 80's early 90's.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ May 20, 2008 -> 08:17 PM) My last name has been read by thousands of people. But it doesn't mean he wants it connected to him. Exactly. I am just trying to protect the kids privacy. If he wants to post it, that is fine.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 20, 2008 -> 03:45 PM) According to MSNBC, Obama has picked up 10 of Edwards' 18 pledged delegates. TOTAL: Obama 1,916.5 to 1,724.5 They also project Obama will pick up 2 more of Edwards's IA delegates, but it is not official so it is not included in the count. Edit: Reddy, I am assuming your dad is the mentioned "David *****"? Update: Based on those numbers, if Obama gets 30% of the delegates in KY, he crosses the 50% barrier. No need for OR to even come in to "officially" declare victory under the current rules. I don't know that he would want his families name out there....

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 20, 2008 -> 03:08 PM) Yes, it does drive up the cost. If these speculators weren't turning profits, ie buying something like an oil contract for less then they sell it for, then they wouldn't be doing it. You don't have to take actual delivery on said contract to inflate its value, eventually whoever does take delivery paid the asking price on that contrat. Im not sure where you got that idea from, but it simply doesn't make sense to say speculators don't drive up prices. If thry aren't driving up prices, please tell me what they're doing? One way or another they affect to final outcome. I got that idea from microeconomics 101. You might be able to get a temporary pump from speculative buying, but then you get the same dump from speculative selling. It takes real demand to provide real price increases. That demand is coming from the US, China, and India. It doesn't take much demand to cause a price shock. The 1973 oil shock was caused by a 15% reduction in supply coming from the middle east which back then was about 35% of our total supply. The elasticity of energy is near zero. It takes barely any change in supply or demand to affect prices. Speculation has nothing to do with supply or demand. And finally just because speculators make a profit, doesn't mean that they create supply or demand. I don't think you understand the fundementally your theory doesn't work. For each crude oil contract that some buys, someone else has to sell them. If someone makes money, someone else loses money. In other words the total profits of the trading sector are a big fat zero, in fact they are a loss once things like exchange costs and the like are factored in. Now do you have any actual economic basis for any of your theories?