southsider2k5

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 09:22 AM) NYC Public Transit was mostly private up until the mid 50's. Both private companies running their subway systems failed and got bailed out by the city. The South Shore used to be a purely private entity. If I recall, it came within 24 hours of shutting down in the 1980s. Metra was a conglomeration of commuter railroads. They all failed. The private ferry commuter system in New York City area needs bailout after bailout. And a few routes have been taken over by area governments I believe. Because these efforts fill a definite public need, there is a need for support from the governments who are supposed to provide for them. I know the South Shore is about 50% government funded. They would have to run at about 150% capacity just to break even.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 08:31 AM) Probably. I also think he's got some other things that caused problems as well. For one, the hangover effect of 2004 - he was part of a losing ticket, in an election that frustrated most Democrats and many independents. Why have him involved again? I also think that as people see more of him, they get the impression he's a lot more plastic than steel. That's been my impression. I don't know the man personally of course, but he doesn't seem genuine to me. I hadn't thought about a hangover, but with the discontent over this last Presidency, I don't think that would have been a big problem. After all would anyone have voted against Al Gore, because he lost in 2000? I'd be willing to bet he would still be the leader of this race if he jumped into the race today. To me, it is more about the person than anything else. Then again I could be completely wrong

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 15, 2008 -> 08:09 AM) Plus he's restricted by the fact that he elected to take public funds... which he had to do to survive, because he wasn't able to raise enough cash independently. He's definately restricted by that, but I believe if he had run as the same candidate from 04, he would have raised a lot more money, and not have had to elect to take public funds.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 08:40 PM) lol don't get me started. Media blackout + being outspent 6 to 1 is why he hasn't raised support. And that's what's wrong with the system. He isn't raising support because his message has changed 180 degrees since he was the Vice Presidential candidate for the Democrats. Back then he was a middle of the road guy who stood for the average guy. Now he is the angry candidate who is out to attack and tax pretty much everyone who has more than a high school education. I lost all respect for the guy the more I heard him speak, and I am sure I am not alone. And trust me, it had nothing to do with Hillary or Obama, Edwards sunk his own ship in my eyes.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 09:40 PM) I simply disagree with you here. Mexico in particular and some of the other Spanish-backed countries in North and Central America still gave the US a run for their money militarily and economically. At the time of the Louisiana Purchase, the European powers in the region were taken aback, and realized the US was going to be a player in the game, most certainly. But they weren't what I would call the superpower in the region until, give or take, just before the turn of the 20th Century. The expansion you mention did not occur because those powers were cowering before American superiority. Quite the contrary. In some cases (Oregon is a good example), it was simply a matter of "hey, its a pain in our asses - if you want it, take it". The Louisiana Purchase was more or less a way for a European power to get money for something they couldn't control. The various wars in Texas and the west with Mexico were bloody messes and in many cases, they US had plenty of struggles to get it done. Heck, even the last contiguous land deal, the Gadsden Purchase, was purely about a railroad and was a money deal to Mexico. The US didn't become a world power until the economics caught up with the capital products we had. The Industrial Revolution and the Robber Baron's really are the things that kicked the US into World Power status. Until then, they weren't any different from anyone else in this hemisphere.

QUOTE(Pants Rowland @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 07:47 PM) I am not sure the appeasement of a foreign power leading up to WWII is really an apples to apples comparison. He was merely listing alternatives to the civil war and mentioned that this did work in other countries with sanctioned slavery. His point was the war inflicted deeper wounds that are still healing this very day. I also would not consider slave states our "enemies" since he was talking about prior to the civil war, when they were still very much part of the union. Besides, let's not fool ourselves to think the slave-owning landed gentry of the south was any more or less evil in their treatment of mankind than the robber barons of the north who took control of this nation during the industrial revolution. The systematic attempts to monopolize industry and control the working population was as bad as, if not worse than the system of slavery itself. What's worse is many of these companies are still in existence today and continue to exploit the workers, if not here in the U.S., then abroad where they can obtain cheap labor without government regulation or unions to check their power. How can you not call it appeasement? You just told that it would have been better to payoff the slave owners, versus fighting the civil war. So what happened in 20 years when they had burned through that money as well? Bribing someone to NOT do something is exactly how we have been operating in foreign policy for years, and supposedly what Paul is against. Think about it, how is sending money to Eygpt to be Israel's friend, much different than sending money to the south to free slaves? In the end, we are rewarding people for doing something that they shouldn't be doing in the first place.

QUOTE(Pants Rowland @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 05:40 PM) Something to note is that in 1888, Brazil became the last nation to abolish slavery. If the U.S. allowed the south the secede and form its own country, it would only have been a matter of time before they were forced to face the reality that their system was on the decline and they were destined to become a third world nation facing the same problems of Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and countless others that exhausted a one-dimensional economy based on agriculture and slavery. I am under no illusion to believe that slavery did not exist legally throughout the world under other titles during this time (including sharecropping and the virtually enslavement of the continent of Africa through much of the 20th century). However, the trend in the civilized world has generally been in the opposite direction of institutionally sponsored slavery. Whether via a slave revolt or a gradual breakdown of the institution, slavery would have ended one way or another and the seceding states would have been forced to come to terms with reality on their own. I have heard Dr. Paul's arguments against the civil war and they are fairly compelling. His stance is it would have been cheaper for the federal government to buy the freedom of all slaves rather than fight a long protracted war. Futher, the war and reconstruction deepened southern animosity against the north while simultaneously sowing (and fertilizing) the seeds for legislated segregation and discrimination. So he wants to abolish social welfare, but it would have been OK to buy off our enemies (well the rebs anyway) who had enslaved an entire race of people? Buying off our enemies has been a part of our foreign policy failings for decades now. It usually leads to wars later, at a more expensive cost, in terms of dollars, and in lives. ( see WW II)

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 02:38 PM) What experience did she get in the White House? In specifics. How is she different than Barbara or Laura Bush? How does that experience translate to being the leader of the only remaining superpower in the world? That would be nice to know. She is the only one is the field who is referencing experience that can't be verified, and her camp is the one preventing this from taking place.

So it took Hillary 35 years to find her "voice" I wonder how long it will take for her to find her ethics? http://www.nysun.com/article/69285

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 10:58 PM) I thought that came when you got your first notice of payment due on your student loans? Nope, that is when you break down and start crying.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 9, 2008 -> 12:25 PM) Last night my cat bit the hell out of my hand while I was petting her when she saw the dog. I got blood ALL over two towels and my just washed comforter. The dog then threw up repeatedly for the next three hours and the new dog had it flying out the other end. When I went to the doctor this morning because my hand is uber swollen, the prescription he gave me (apparently cat bites get infected a lot) wouldn't get filled because eff'n CVS wouldn't recognize the new carrier of my prescription plan. After two hours fighting with them and MedCo I finally got my damn augmentum. Ugh. Worst day. Now all you needed was a two year old with the runs to finish out a perfect day!

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 01:14 PM) Yup. Its just a matter of how organized the effort is. That's just it, if it is organized enough to have someone's name attached to it, the backlash could be ugly. Think about how easy it would be to paint the leader of the effort as scared of the Republicans enough that they have to resort to sabatogueing their primaries.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 01:09 PM) Probably less so than in the Republican party... though its hard to say because there are so few non-whites among Republicans. Race is still an issue in this country, unfortunately. But I think its off-base to think its a Democrat thing. So far, Obama has managed to not get too involved in the race-baiting, but that seems to be changing a bit. Clinton's camp is nipping at the issue here and there, and Obama has felt the need to respond a few times, sometimes not well. Ultimately, I think that just hurts Clinton, as long as Obama doesn't take too big a bite on the bait. But if Barack does go in on race full throttle, he's lost. That's what the popular line of thinking is... But these numbers really make you wonder if that is the reality, or they are just doing a better marketing job? I wonder what the numbers would look like on the Repub side if someone like Colin Powell was running.

Unless there is an organized effort to screw the Republicans, crossovers have to benefit John McCain more than Mitt Romney.

Clinton leads Obama 41-27% among white voters, while Obama leads Clinton 66-16% among black voters. So is there a racial divide in the democratic party?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2008 -> 10:46 AM) 3 things. One, you replace them in the 2009 draft...and 2, you look to the guys you have remaining, like Broadway, Egbert, Sisco, and 3., you try to see if they can't work things out somehow. Here's the other question...what happens if we spend $8 mil a year or so to bring in Colon or Garcia, then both Danks and Floyd wind up pitching well enough for the first 2 months. What do you do when Garcia or Colon comes back? Demote a guy who's done well for you? Odds are one of Contreras, Danks, or Floyd won't be pitching that well, and you could justify them being replaced. If they are all three pitching well, we are probably at the top of the division, and then you can justify not making any changes.

QUOTE(rowand's rowdies @ Jan 13, 2008 -> 04:07 PM) ya, i love the patriot act, and the internet being regulated. can't wait to be arrested for talking about illegal activities (non terrorist) on my cell phone and over the internet. maybe there can be a pop up saying "you've been arrested". also, anyone who thinks we shouldn't pull out of Iraq immediatly, talk to (1) a current or recently former member of the military (who supports Ron much more than anyone else) ( ) and (2) go enlist to make sure we leave the "right way". I'm sure they will take you, no matter what age. I'm sure the never will be born children and grandchildren and so on of the US military members who will die before we finally leave thank you for your thoughts into why we should not leave right now. And my theory on who should be President, IF NOTHING ELSE, is that it should be the MOST EXPERIENCED (check) and MOST KNOWLEDGABLE (check) person who wants the job. Simply. Also, Alpha Dog is just trying to stir people up and refute everything just to make them mad. I do this, too. But not over the internet like a 9 year old. Just saying. And when I made a legitimate fact based arguement in the fair tax thread, no one would answer it... Just saying.

What is the upside of this for Toronto?

QUOTE(almagest @ Jan 12, 2008 -> 10:33 PM) I'm sure the White Sox are trying to get rid of Uribe, but Ozzie realizes that if that's not possible, he'll have to use him somehow -- besides as a super-sub or defensive sub, pushing Richar for the starting job at 2B or working in a possible platoon against LHP (where Uribe has 4 more points in OBP and slugs almost 30 points higher for his career... not much, but it's something.) might make sense. Though one of Uribe's few strengths, his arm, is wasted at 2B. Realistically, I think we have to realize there probably aren't many teams that want to give much, if anything, for Uribe. His offensive numbers are absolutely putrid. His only saving point is his defense, which probably relegates him to a defensive sub role. I doubt any team will give anything of value for a defensive sub. Anyway, back on topic. I say pass on Bartolo Colon. It's obvious he still has lingering medical concerns, otherwise the Mets would've signed him, and I think we're better off giving Danks, Floyd, et. al. a chance instead of spending money on a guy who in a best case scenario will only be a shell of his former self. As I said in the Lohse thread, we already have guys who can post a 4.50-4.75 era, and they have upside at least. Colon is seriously overweight, on the wrong side of 30, and has thrown a ridiculous number of pitches in his career. No thanks. I think I might be the only one who thinks that Uribe will now have a pretty decent season for the Sox. Remember the best year he had with us was when he was a supersub playing for a contract after being dumped by Colorado for Aaron Miles. I think the kick in the teeth of losing his job, plus having to fight for playing time, might make him a little more reseptive to playing a team game again.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2008 -> 07:29 AM) Well, state funds are often diverted that way - are federal? I honestly don't know. And that is better than regular income tax, but, its still not a real use tax. In some ways its better though, because it sort of covers all driving on all roads. This is from wiki

I wonder if Cameron would have had any interest in even coming here after the way things ended...

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jan 12, 2008 -> 05:09 PM) Levine says deal is dead because the O's were actually asking for impact players in return. Of course since the Cubs couldnt grab him he says that "Roberts is not available." Which of course is not true, that package would be easy to match for several teams. The whole idea that Roberts had no value was laughable. As long as he produces on the field, teams don't care about what he does off of it.

QUOTE(Felix @ Jan 10, 2008 -> 09:50 PM) Anywho who asks some of those questions is wasting an opportunity to ask an actual question and pick the brain of some people with a ton of experience. The majority of those questions are just stupid. Best post in the whole thread. Why waste a once a year chance to instead embarass yourself? If that's his big plan for Soxfest, he should just stay home.

According to the report on the channel 2 news tonight, Ozzie is in the DR talking to Bartolo Colon about coming back to the White Sox next year.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 11, 2008 -> 03:26 PM) Emergence of alternative markets is certainly an issue. But then, you have income tax evasion of all sorts now as well. One other thing on this - I think that the current system OR a sales-tax based system could benefit from more emphasis on Use Taxes. That is to say, less highway funding from the federal government, and more tolls. Less federal funding of national parks (already happening anyway), and more entrance fees. Things of that nature. I think those types of moves help encourage smarter spending, and allow more local control of things - not to mention promote efficiencies by creating more competition in certain market areas. Highways are already primarily funded by gasoline taxes.