southsider2k5

QUOTE(YASNY @ Apr 7, 2008 -> 10:23 AM) I've been listening to the doom and gloom guys all winter. I'll enjoy the moment for what it is. GO YOU WHITE SOX! exactly!

Besides if people want to throw Anderson out as a proof of hating white people, all you have to do is throw Mackowiak, Erstad, and Pods right back at them.

I am glad to see Ozzie finally say publically that Brian Anderson is not in the doghouse. It was even more interesting to see the Toby Hall stuff, especially combined with the closed-door meeting at the end of the spring.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Apr 7, 2008 -> 08:15 AM) Really been in the news worldwide over the past few weeks. The torch was in London yesterday, and they had security and police surrounding each torch holder, and yet protestors still got through. And now Jacques Rogge has come out and said this; So are people in support of boycotts for the upcoming Olympics? No. If we really want to depoliticize sports, we need to do it.

Enviornmentalism right wing style.... It was from an email forward, and I didn't believe it, but I snopes'd it, and included the link. http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

Sounds good NSS. I am in.

Sweet, the easier it is to get to the park for people, the better!

How about the sixth inning yesterday? One error, and the Sox just jumped on the throats of Detroit, turning a one run game into a laugher, against one of the best young pitchers in baseball.

I just noticed in the standings that KC has lost their last two games, and with the Sox winning their last 3, they are tied with the Royals for first... It might not happen again this year, so why not enjoy it?

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Apr 6, 2008 -> 09:45 AM) However, he's already had a ton of opportunities, and he's been right where he's been needed each and everytime. He's easily as good a CF'er as the overrated Aaron Rowand out there. He also blows Jerry Owens away. The only better OF'er we have defensively is Brian Anderson, and he'll never get another shot anyway. That's the bottom line for me. Does he make the plays he needs to make? Yes. He made a couple of plays yesterday that were better than an average CF would make.

ESPN Sunday night baseball has never been very good to the Sox... I think this is going to be Tiger win #1.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Apr 5, 2008 -> 10:06 AM) I think he absolutely would have caught that ball. And his "apology" comes waaaaaaaaaaaay too late. If he hadn't thrown his glove down like a child, if he'd realized that sometimes fans reach out for foul balls, and if he'd been a professional and just gone back to his position and waited for the next pitch, who knows what would have happened? That ball was a foot out of his reach IMO.

CQ's pick off of Rentaria was awesome. I haven't seen an arm like that since Baines was young.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 5, 2008 -> 06:23 PM) You may simply know this better than me, but from my understanding, an awful lot of Al Gore's current wealth derives from having been a very early investor in The Google. A lot of the money that has come from his climate work, including his Nobel Prize money and matching funds from his family for those funds have gone in to the Alliance for Climate Protection campaign they just launched. 25-30 million came from goog from what I understand. HIs original family fortune actually came from an oil company. After his VP time, he went from worth just barely 7 figures, to well over 9. A great chunk of it came from charging 200K an appearence, but the big part was his investments in the very things that he was pushing us all to do to save the planet. Granted he donated earnings from salary, but no one has really mentioned the ownership shares he has in these companies, which is REALLY what made him ultrarich. Sort of comparable to a CEO talking about his low salary, but getting boatloads of stock options. But really the Gore fortune is relevant only to the way that they are being viewed, not from where it came from. They both got BIG TIME rich after their terms, but it seems bad only in the Clinton's case... Which doesn't make sense to me.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 4, 2008 -> 04:24 PM) http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120...4021905843.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/nyregion...artner=homepage http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home It's not good make $109 million dollars over 7 years and have ties to an offshore tax shelter when you are campaigning for the "middle and lower class worker" I'll just throw this out there for giggles... Al Gore got defended here, pretty passionately, for making a lot more money off of his causes before, and no one seemed to think it would impair his ability to be impartial in the green movement, dispite his financial interests in these projects...

I almost forgot, Nick Swisher played a very good CF today. If he is really as good as he showed today, along with Quinten being healthy, forget about Brian Anderson, we don't need him.

If Gavin Floyd and John Danks give us an average outing equiviliant to what even Floyd did today, this team will win 90 games. They don't have to put up MB numbers for this to be a good team. 6 innings and 3 runs will win each of them 12-15 games. Jon Garland made a living of it here.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Apr 5, 2008 -> 09:45 AM) to think evolution did not exist is being stupid... but that takes away nothing from Religion. Most of the stories in the old testament are just that, stories. Stories which are used to convey a bigger message or point. Adam and Eve were likely not the first man and woman on earth. However, these Darwin fish are stupid, and anyone who would actually put these on their cars and what not are probably idiots as well. Kinda like people who stereotype others based on random bits of information...

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 4, 2008 -> 07:58 PM) I'll outsource my response to Dean Baker, from the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Showing me that BearStearns needed to be bailed out is not the point I'm making. The point I'm trying to make is that this is a landmine in the economy that will detonate bigger than Bear in the future if not fixed. The issue to me is not whether or not Bear should have been bailed out, nor is it whether or not bailing out Bear saved the banking system. The issue is whether or not the taxpayer bailout of a company is setting us up for worse in the future, which I would say is the obvious end result. If you've got a 5% chance of making a big profit, but a 50% chance of taking a big loss, normally that's nto a good bet, but if Ben Bernake sits behind you and says he'll pick up the tab if you lose, suddenly that 5% chance of the big profit looks a lot better because you can't lose! So, therefore, if a homeowner makes a bad bet on a house, he or she is SOL, because we can't get rid of the penalties for making bad bets. But if a banker makes a bad set of bets, we have to bail them out because it kills the economy. So what's to stop the banker from making bad bets in the future, just like they KEEP DOING! How many times in American history has this exactly happened? From your HUGE leaps you are making it sound like every single bank in the US is decapitalized and about to under. Its not at all like that. This isn't about a 50% chance of taking a big loss, I haven't seen any quantitative analysis yet (its way too early) but I'd bet this is more like a 5 standard deviation chance of taking a big loss. I don't know if you realized this or not, but a part of this is that Bear Stearns doesn't exist anymore. The Fed took the extraordinary step of asking JP Morgan to come in and take over BSK. This means that it is no longer Bear that is standing behind these loans, but JPM. In other words, the system worked exactly how it should, and the bad company is out of business, taken over by the one that make smart business decesions. In other words, they won't be making bad picks again. They are erased from existance as a punishment. The same as Enron is no longer around. Its hard to make mistakes when you don't exist. Finally you can sleep at night by knowing Congress is already well on the road to over-reaction to this situtation by reading the laws they are wanting to pass. Nevermind they already screwed up everything after the Accounting Crisis's of the early 2000's with Sarbines Oxley. All of those things that were supposed to be fixed, such as "skyrocketing" CEO compensation have gotten way worse, while the cost of compliance has gone up astronomically. Its to the point where companies are fleeing the US, and not offering IPOs here, because the cost of business is way cheaper in traditionally more expensive and higher regulative places such as London. Why isn't anyone applying the same standards about Congress making mistakes in the past, and not allowing them to screw up things they know nothing about in the future? I'd be willing to bet that they have a greater chance of making things worse in the long run with new laws, than the banking sector taking care of itself in the future.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 4, 2008 -> 02:42 PM) Oh, but it's ok for the Federal Reserve to step in and tell all of those banks that made hundreds of billions of dollars worth of bad loans and purchases that they don't have to worry because the Federal Reserve will bail them out? Isn't that EXACTLY the same thing, and can't the exact argument be made about that? If bailing out people who took out bad loans is bad policy because it's putting trust in people who have already engaged in risky behavior, why should we put so much faith in bankers? Because we didn't have a choice. If you don't believe me, try some really important people's opinions on for size, including a nice liberal just for you. This is the head of a fed bank, the President of the fed bank, and the head of the senate banking committee. This wasn't anything close to the exact samething. http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articl...37_FORTUNE5.htm http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hUAnlkw...rgp_pQD8VQE8FG2

How about that pen?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...he_economy.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...,5893988.column

How come you guys use the same boring titles all of the time? Why can't we be more creative, you know pizzazz it up a bit?

I don' think Ozzie is under any delusions that Jerry is some kind of god... I think he likes him because of the balance he brings to the line up.