southsider2k5

Its also worth noting that Paul Konerko is really moving up the All-Time Sox leaders in a lot of different categories as well. With a decent season he will move from 9th to 6th in runs scored. He could pass Minnie Minoso to go into 8th all time in hits. He will probably pass Eddie Collins for 5th in total bases. He is looking to pass both Minoso and Collins for 5th in doubles. He will pass Pudge for 3rd in Ks by a batter. There is also outside chances he could pass Harold Baines for 3rd all-time in both RBIs and extra base hits.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 02:41 PM) And it's impossible that we could catch lightning in a bottle with either Floyd or Danks? Its not impossible, but I would bet on Colon before their of the other two guys.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 02:12 PM) Our president is a moron, so what else is new? It's all psychological babble anyway, to be honest. I'm sure when the USTREAS check comes in your mailbox, no matter what your situation, you'll cash the check, now won't you? Well we all know Tex won't cash the check because he doesn't believe in deficit spending Well him, and all of the people voting for Ron Paul...

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 01:26 PM) Or, it could be the implementation or expansion of these entitlement programs that bankrupt the nation. I wouldn't argue with that either. I guess you could call it spending money that you don't have.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 01:32 PM) I've never understood why our entire economy is based on speculative values of companies. First of all people want a clear and simple way of taking something incredibly complex, and boiling it down into a 2 second soundbyte. The closing Dow Jones Industrial Average is just that. Second, the health of the countries largest companies, is an accurate measure of the economy as a whole. If those companies are employing people, things are good. If they aren't making money, they fire their works, and things aren't so good anymore.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 01:35 PM) I SHOULD be a little fair here. A combination of this rebate with the freezing on foreclosures might be a kick in the seat. I dont like the foreclosures freezing solution, but it's temporary. Might just be enough. I'll say it again. Freezing foreclosures would be the worst possible thing you could do to our economy. Forcing companies to hold onto bad debt for extended amounts of time will have a huge detriment to the economy. It basically puts the multiplier on ice.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 01:19 PM) You don't think the housing bubble bursting coupled with a credit crunch finally reaching critical mass with Joe Consumer is more than a mental reason for recession? Honest answer is yes, it is mental. I already showed people that the technical measure of GDP has one components making up for the losses in housing (exports). The way the US markets work is that we write debt off, and then go back to work. The reason the Japanese never recovered is because their culture does not allow the write down of debt. Also not getting mentioned is that the money for housing is going somewhere. All of these people who are getting foreclosed on, aren't becoming homeless (for the vast majority). They are moving somewhere else, and spending money on housing. The irony of it all is that all this proves is that some people shouldn't own houses, no matter what the homeownership #s look like.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 17, 2008 -> 02:53 PM) One other little wrinkle in this plan I learned about yesterday is that it completely screws over the elderly, and the longer you've been working, the more you're screwed by it. Think of it this way...you've been working 45 years, paying your taxes at say 30% (pick a rate, whatever). You're 65. Looking forwards to a retirement. Maybe buy a yacht or something. Then suddenly, the government switches to a sales tax instead of the income taxes you've been paying for your whole life. Suddenly, all that income you've earned that was taxed at that 30% rate is going to wind up being taxed again when you go out purchasing anything. The only things that aren't taxed are whatever monies you were able to put away into tax-free accounts; any money you saved that you've already paid the taxes on will get taxed 2x, once when it's earned during your 40 years of working before the switch, and once when you spend it after the switch when the price of everything goes up 40%. Then again, it was their generations massive underfunding of medicade, social security, and all of the other entitlement programs that is going to bankrupt this country in the first place.

This is all so mental it isn't even funny. We have been being talked into a recession for six months now, and this is their way of talking us out of it. That amount of money is so small, it wouldn't really have a noticable economic effect on a 6 TRILLION dollar economy. Besides by the time this actually hits the economy and flows through, odds are we would be coming out of the slump without this help anyway. It really is pointless.

Remind me again why people listen to the Score? Geesh.

I wonder if he is having birth certificate problems? Purely speculation, but it makes sense why he can't get into the US, especially with the history Cubans have of quickly getting older.

I wonder if he is having birth certificate problems? Purely speculation, but it makes sense why he can't get into the US, especially with the history Cubans have of quickly getting older.

QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Jan 18, 2008 -> 07:53 AM) I also think its a solid move.... I could have sworn they were saying Dotel wanted to close. So thats why this is such a surprise. I am sure he did, but someone else has to want him to close as well. Would you put your closing role trust in a guy with his injury history? As a set up man, that is one thing, as a closer that is quite another.

Wow. My initial reaction to this is good. That's a pretty solid backend of the pen, even having injury considerations for Dotel. Its smart of Kenny to add bullpen arms when you are looking at the pen doing a lot more work this year versus recent years past.

5.1 million more reasons Crede gets dumped in spring training for anything that is breathing.

Damn, Romney lives to sell used cars another day...

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 03:41 PM) first off: His son, Wade, died at age 16. he's had to face and overcome enormous personal tragedy. And yes, his son's death DID set him on this path to run for the senate and really MAKE A DIFFERENCE in the world. Then with his wife's situation, it puts it in even more perspective. John Edwards has NEVER undergone a "convenient change". He's undergone the same changes that affect every American in this country. The loss of loved ones changes people. The prospect of death changes people. Can you deny this? Both of these events in his life have led him to make the decision to take his fight for people who have no voice from NC to the national scale. If he were just saying what it took to win he'd be saying the things that Obama is about hope and optimism and bringing people together. That sells well. Unfortunately none of that is actually practical in a real world situation. Edwards knows this - knows it'll take a fight - and unfortunately he banked on the American people being intelligent enough to realize it too. Unfortunately, they just fell for the good speech. So I guess in 2004, we all fell for Edwards good speech? Maybe you don't see it, but I do. That whole centrist image he build before was BS, then again, maybe the "fighting for the man" image of 2008 is crap, its hard to say.

I am going with Floyd. For whatever reason, Ozzie or Coop, they seemed to have success with a similar pitcher in Jon Garland who had zero confidence and a plus arm after he had failed under a different leadership. I think they will be able to get through to Gavin.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 12:48 PM) four years ago his wife wasn't diagnosed with breast cancer. that changes things my friend. Are you telling me he wasn't sincere because something bad had not happened to his family yet??? What about all of those millrat stories from his family history? Or the stuff about fighting lobbyists and the like? None of that changed since his wife's illness. Sorry, I know you like the guy and all, but I don't respect politicians who undergo convient changes as their needs change. I don't care what side of the aisle they are on. Its the same reason I don't like Mitt Romney either.

Romeny has to win, but that being said, I just don't see it happening. He doesn't come off as authentic. In a union state like Michigan they don't want someone they can't trust.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 01:43 PM) It doesn't matter if it is a "waste" in your eyes. In MY eyes, it is not a waste. And that is what the Constitution is about. I have a right, as do you - to not be ruled over the Federal Government when it is not their RIGHT to do so. Read again: You cannot dump into a body of water, because it violates property law. The property being Indiana, the Federal government, and eventually any shoreline it reaches. If the "dumping" reaches Illinois' property, then, yes, it is violating the property law of Illinois. The problem with your argument, iamshack, is that the Federal regulations WORSEN the environment - because MANY states want them more strict (and would have them so if left up to them). The point is, if neighboring states are okay with something that is going on - then it is not a Federal matter - as long as it is not against the law in general. But - the Federal government does not have the RIGHT to impose regulations on EVERYONE. They have the right to do a case-by-case basis. I suppose we should simply not listen to the Bill of Rights & it's 10th Amendment: Tenth Amendment ? Powers of states and people. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that tells me how much pollution I can or cannot fill the air with. Therefore - it is a STATE matter. If a neighboring state has a problem with it - it goes to the Supreme Court - which was implemented in the Constitution to deal with this exact problem. NOTHING outside of national security and state to state commerce security should be regulated by the federal government - states have the power to do as they choose. And if neighboring states are polluting the air, and neither have an issue with it - well, it is not YOUR right to tell them how to live. That is THEIR right. If two states DO have a problem - they go to the Supreme Court. Just because you, personally, feel a moral responsibility to ensure that the environment is not ruined does not give YOU the RIGHT to tell others in other places of the country who may NOT care to tell them what to do. If you DO want that, then you are a socialist & I suggest you move to a socialist country. The USA is a republic for the people BY the people. If the people of two states decide that they like THEIR laws, then that is THEIR business - not YOURS - THAT is what the Constitution is about. So since you have ignored all of my other replies, I am curious if you will answer me as to how if we eliminate federal oversight, and add to the overburdened court system, meanwhile eliminating income taxes, how do we pay for the court system to figure all of these disputes out?

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 11:30 AM) lol so one article enough fair coverage makes? please. the stats don't lie. as for his character, obviously y'all will take everything i say with a grain of salt and rightly so, but i can tell you that john edwards is THE most genuine person in this campaign. Obama and Hillary keep stealing HIS platforms and calling them his own. They use lines from HIS speaches. Clinton cried to get votes. Obama became a Christian because he wanted to be a senator/president. And i know there's no way i can prove this one, but Edwards does legitimately CARE and feel PASSIONATELY about this fight and helping those who have no voice. If you ever met him you'd be able to tell. i know that's not a convincing argument. lol So was he not sincere four years ago when pretty much all of his views and opinions were hidden from the public?

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 11:47 AM) So in your view, each State is a separate country/state that only has to answer to their laws. No matter what it is, the state should have the right to make the law. Which of course is unconstiutional. One of the many failings of the Articles of Confederation was that there was pretty much zero federal government to settle disputes between states, and protect commerce between them. The Constiution expressly charged the federal goverment to provide protections for commerce and quality of life versus each other. These laws have been upheld and upheld over the last 230 years. Its pretty clear to me that some of these things are necesary and provided for by our forefathers.

QUOTE(BureauEmployee171 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 11:11 AM) Personally, I think everyone might be missing the point of Paul's argument. I think when he brings up the fact he would have never gone to war with the Confederates, people bring up the slavery issue & he responds by saying slavery would have phased out just as it had in every other country. What he is saying - is that the Union did not have the "right" to go to war with the Confederacy. He says (and is generally cut off before finishing due to the question of slavery), that it is not in the Constitution that the USA should "war" with a state that feels a general and logical reason to secede - and the Confederacy (especially at that point in time), had one. Paul is simply saying, that this time is when the beginning of civil liberties began to be taken away by the Federal government. It "should not" have been a Federal issue about slavery. It was a state issue & that is what Paul is saying when he says that the Civil War should not have happened - because it was a state issue, not a federal issue. And, I for one, agree with that statement. The states should have the power to do as they choose & the citizens can choose to move to a state that they 'agree' with more. That is Paul's point. I am going to argue with you hear as well. Constitutionally the slavery issue was settled by the Congress, not the states. This pretty clearly was a federal, not a state, issue, according to the constitution.