southsider2k5

Am I the only one left rifling through his change to find them? http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/1...s.ap/index.html

A response from Zogby on the Clinton camps characterizations of the poll showing Hill trailing Barack http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1394

QUOTE(Whitewashed in '05 @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 01:13 AM) Whether he admits it or not Rowand's favoritism towards the sox has lowered because they went after Hunter first. He now knows the money we offered Torii and it's all about the money now. If they want him here there will be no discounts, at least not any substantials ones. Unless CF is an issue KW is going to address this offseason I don't see us getting into any bidding wars for Rowand or Fukudome. A lot different than I imagined during the season. Everyone had Rowand pegged to be back especially after his interview when he said he would narrow it down to one team he would want to go to. For the $60-70 million he is talking about, I am sure he will get over it...

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 07:01 AM) Its not out of the realm of possibility that Rowand's price will come down from what he wanted earlier, but I'd prefer Crisp myself. Besides being a lot cheaper, if he regains his Cleveland offensive form, the guy is only 1 year older than Owens, he could be a .300 hitter with a .340 OBP with 15 homers and 25 steals while playing solid defense. Is Torii Hunter a real good bet to put up similar numbers the next 5 years ? The White Sox apparently were willing to pay him $15 million a year. Crisp has been banged up in Boston, and some people aren't comfortable there either. See Edgar Renteria. For the money they were going to give Hunter, they can pay Crisp and Fukodome should he decide to come over. Seems to me it would be a much better plan. Its also possible the Sox realize they have to increase their price to Rowand or go into next year with Jerry Owens as their CF.

QUOTE(knightni @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 08:34 PM) Don't call. Stop in, in person. ^^ This right here. More than likely they hired someone else, as they couldn't wait for you in May. But if you make the right impression now, you put yourself on the inside track to get hired next time there is an opening. Retail is a fickle, high turnover industry, so there will more than likely be something that opens up soon enough.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...eedName=topNews

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Nov 28, 2007 -> 06:10 AM) Just an interesting tidbit, the guy who asked Romney the question about hiring Muslims may have had a motive for asking that question. Seems he used to be a bundler for Clinton. Was he trying to help torpedo a potention Hilary challenger? http://www.survivorsrightsinternational.or...t_doc_wp0429.mv LOL. Another Clinton plant. Now I really do believe that the quote was either butchered or taken out of context completely.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 01:32 PM) I would say yes. I would agree. The only way I see NY potentially coming into play for the R's is if Rudy wins the nomination, and someone other than Hill wins it for the D's.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 01:02 PM) Why? because its down 10%? Where did that stat come from and who says that is the official CORRECTION? Historically 10% down has always been the definition of a correction. The 10% figure starts at the highest point of the bullmarket that was going on at the time. The high of the current bull was 14164.53 meaning the 10% correction mark was a little bit under 12750. A bull market would be declared with a 10% rally from the lowest close during this correction.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 12:46 PM) In other words, he went off message in an interview, and the next time the issue came up his campaign made sure to get the soundbite right, because he can't sound like he's endorsing quotas. Don't see how that's surprising at all, as far as I can tell every campaign takes that pattern with most things that you could classify as slip-ups. Makes sense to me. These candidates are so fake, this might as well be running for a Mrs America pagent.

I think whoever ends up with Prior next, gets a bargain. I think once he gets out of the Cubs spotlight, he bounces back.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 26, 2007 -> 08:52 PM) Mitt Romney: http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...jhkMThmMGY2MzQ= It is starting to sound like these were taken out of context... That sounds more like an arch-conservative.

The latest national polls... http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...l_tracking_poll

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 09:17 AM) Oh, come on. It clearly hurt our offseason. Hunter was our staple, and he even made the deal for Cabrera in large part because he told Hunter he would. Sure, Kenny's probably operating on multiple fronts but asking someone, "Hey, what would it take to sign you?" or "What do you want for X?" isn't really much. I am having trouble imagining what we're going to be able to get and where from. Kenny has his work cut out for him. When everything that comes out of the organization and the players dealing with that organization saids one thing, and the media saids another, it takes a special kind of narrowmindedly focused grudge to ignore the obvious.

This is pathetic, even for a politician http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007...ted_in_nh/8203/ BTW, since UPI forgot to include it, Dodds is a Dem.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 09:38 AM) Very few. Because most people aren't thinking long term, or alternately, can only afford to think short term. Thing is, I think you'll see $4 next year anyway, so $5 is not so out there. It has to be a real price shock to get people to change their behavior. A straightline increase over a period of years doesn't have the same effect. The 1973 oil embargo was a real good example.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 27, 2007 -> 08:41 AM) I would be. Realistically, what percentage of the population would say that?

I was happy to see that article for a couple of reasons, but the big one was that it puts the stupid myths that the Sox are cheap, and that the Sox are unprofessional somehow when chasing after free agents. There was a lot of praise for Williams and the Sox in there.

Why is it that when the media focuses on one guy, they just assume the Sox are operating the same way? The first thing Kenny said after Hunter signed with LAA was that this shouldn't hurt them too much because they have already been operating on mulitple fronts at the sametime. The whole article is faulty.

These are the cases that the death penalty exsists for, not to mention every method of torture ever invented. I hope these two both get really familiar with Huntsville Texas.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Nov 26, 2007 -> 12:44 PM) www.270towin.com its funny. amongst all of the head to head matchups, questions that people ask about candidates. I ask this question about Hillary. Using the Electoral College, I don't see a way in which she loses for 4 reasons. 1) She'll win every state that Kerry won in 2004. 2) She'll win Arkansas (may be close if Huckabee is the top ticket, but he won't be) 3) She'll win Iowa (unless Romney is the nominee, which he wont be) because she actually campaigned there. unlike Guilianni, McCain and really Thompson. 4) She'll win New Mexico with Richardson as a running mate. Thus she can still lose battleground states in Virgina, Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada. That puts her exactly at 270. Hill is really slipping hard in the polls, even against the dreaded R's, while even Edwards and Obama hold theoretical leads. Don't underestimate the hatred of Hillary on the right. Clinton as the nominee is akin to runnign Jeb Bush on the right. It would be brutal. http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...=22&sp=true

Mitt Romney is an idiot. According to his own system, he shouldn't be President because he wouldn't be representative of the entire country. I hate to say it, but I would rather see Guiliani nominated than Mitt. Even as a Clintonesque scumbag, he at least holds some moderate social positions. I guess anymore we just assume our Presidents have no morals or ethics, or none of the leaders of the races would even be mentioned as Presidential material.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Nov 26, 2007 -> 12:35 PM) great info. So if a politician was able to stand up and say, for our public interest and national security that we reduce crude oil imports from 10.1 million per day to 9.6 million by 2010 and here's how we do it... wouldn't the public be behind it? So the public would be behind $5 a gallon gasoline? Interesting.

A rate correction is already factored into this market for at least the Dec meeting.

For those keeping score at home, the Dow was down about 240 today, and has now entered official correction territory.