southsider2k5

Anyways, back to the regularly scheduled thread... Michael Bloomberg might be the Unity candidate http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117798143050287618.html

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 2, 2007 -> 07:07 AM) . I've come to like Grease for what it is. Just a sappy, light weight musical. Not many musicals hit the big screen. I've wasted a couple hours on a lot worse. And come on, Olivia in the leather at the end I can't watch that without thinking that she is my mom's age... :puke

To both, who is the funniest guy in the minor leagues right now in the Sox system? If you weren't a baseball player, what would you be doing? What was it like being in major league camp this year? What baseball player did you idolize growing up?

I though Egbert threads went into the futuresox section???

33 5'9" and a Sagitarious

QUOTE(The Critic @ May 1, 2007 -> 07:36 PM) First I ask them how the weather is up there. (That's always an awesome ice-breaker) Then I challenge them to a slam-dunk contest. (I let them win) Then I ask them to clean my gutters for me. (Selfish pricks always say no) Then I think of original nicknames for them like Stretch or Phone Pole or or Stilts or Manute Bol. They usually get pissed at some point, but I just keep running through their legs and they get frustrated cuz they can't catch me all the way down here. Then, to be nice, I offer them a ride wherever they're going, and I let them know it's cool cuz my car has a sunroof for their head. So yeah, we get along. Winner!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 1, 2007 -> 07:22 PM) Mitt Romney's favorite novel? Battlefield Earth. Yes, that one. Battlefield Earth was an excellent Sci-Fi book, and surprisingly L Ron Hubbard was an awesome Sci-Fi writer. The Mission Earth Series was the best I ever read. Looking back I think the reason he was so good at the genre was that he was a little wee bit out in space himself. Now the John Travolta movie just gives me yet another reason, after Grease and Saturday Night Fever, to dispise the man.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ May 1, 2007 -> 02:11 PM) Thats the 1st thing that caught my attention as well. I had no clue he was that tall. I had heard the height before, but the dude has to have about a 3% body fat!

QUOTE(mreye @ May 1, 2007 -> 01:58 PM) Ditto. Why would I? I'm a pasty-white redhead. Though stunningly slimmer than when I first met him

95%, I didn't know the form for immigration.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ May 1, 2007 -> 07:44 AM) Well the Sox have played the hardest schedule in the AL so far, and have had no hitting. I guess the fact they're about 3 games out and 1 game over .500 isn't all that bad at this point. The key is when they get the under .500 teams this year, to BEAT THEM!! well on the bright side, we should get a solid seed in the tourney...

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 1, 2007 -> 10:58 AM) Funny, I want the government to borrow less and that makes me an enemy of conservative values The reports I have read are either by pro-government groups or industry groups looking to move in. Plus, much is theory and predicting the future. I asked for a link where the public received more for less. Let's build on those successes. I am certain their are some programs that could be privatized, but not all. If you only answer one question, where will the profits come from? The government has inefficiencies. Private companies are motivated by profit, the more the better. Either category does not directly help the tax payer. You've always preached that higher wages are better for our economy. So which is better, higher paying government jobs (Inefficiencies) or lower paying private jobs and profit? I know I am pretty much wasting my breath here, but I have already answered half these things already, and asking them a slightly different way doesn't really change the answer too much. I think I have answered pretty much everything you asked, and then it proceded to turn into an absolute answer, and spun back around. Then again, that's pretty much how every discussion like this turns out. I give an answer, and you nitpick it apart based on assumtions, conjecture, and absolutes... and then post more questions. If you don't believe me that's fine, I am not going to waste your time, or mine, anymore. Have fun.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 1, 2007 -> 10:13 AM) inefficiencies = private profit. If we are spending the same and receiving the same service, we have not netted anything. I have not read an unbiased report where it has been privatized and the public received more bang for the buck. We net a benefit when we pay less and receive the same or pay the same and receive more. We don't net a benefit when we pay the same and receive the same or less service. I've read reports of "$500 coffee makers" that appear as inefficiencies until you learn the coffee maker is on a U2 spy plane with special shielding so it avoids detection. So which is better for the US and the economy? Thousands of workers earning higher wages via the government or fewer workers, earning less, and a private owner earning more? The same private owner who will pay his suppliers less, etc. If we need government debt to fuel our economy, how does this reconcile with that? I am not quite sure if you understand what government spending really is or not. Pretty much the vast majority of it is the US government paying people to do work at a much higher rate than anyone else would do it for. If you want to cut spending, you are pretty much going to cut government jobs and move them into the private sector. Plus there isn't an absolute rule that makes ineffeciencies the profit margin. I don't know where that came from, but isn't a rule, and it doesn't have to be even an actual occurence. The simple thing would be to make it a rule that a certian percentage of savings are given back to the taxpayers. Also doesn't surprise me that the reports that agree with privatization, you would label as "biased". I guess you borrowed from our evil conservative playbook by dismissing anything that doesn't agree with your point of view as biased.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 1, 2007 -> 09:54 AM) links? How many links do you want? The US government is the most ineffecient business entity in the United States. Google "government inefficiency" and tell me how many links you come up with.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ May 1, 2007 -> 09:36 AM) Could also try reinstalling the drivers for the mouse. I did everything I could think of with the mouse. It works fine otherwise, and worked perfectly before the upgrade.

D-FENCE

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 1, 2007 -> 09:10 AM) Forget who owns the debt, it's a problem no matter what. My biggest worry is we have lost sight of why we pay taxes. We have broken the link between expenses and income. The public is beginning to believe the only way we have a healthy economy is to borrow money. We believe that someone else is going to pay the debt and the interest. I am all for lower taxes, but lower the spending as well. I am for lower spending, but that is a completely different story. There are times when spending is need though... Heck I would be in favor of closing entire governmental agencies, and privatizing many others. Having the government run anything is collosal waste of funds in almost any case. The duplicity and other ineffeciency of the US government has been estimated to be as high as 10% of spending. If done in the private sector with a profit motive, those are cost savings that would be realized, because the incentive is there to realize them.

Brandon Allen is still looking decent. From the looks of his numbers, they must have gotten him to concentrate on hitting the ball hard, instead of swinging for the fences.

I might be alone, but I like the move. Anderson wasn't going to play here, so why let him rot on the bench. The only way the kid is every either going to get his stroke back, and/or regain any trade value is to be playing everyday where someone can see him. Terrero is no one as far as I am concerned. He is the 25th man, and isn't going to get but 10 ABs tops while Thome is out anyway. If we are going to let someone rot, it might as well be someone with no trade value in the first place.

Ugh, this was a disappointed episode as it really didn't seem to add anything to the climax, and it sure didn't really give any answers. maybe that will change in retrospect, but I sure didnt' see it.

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 1, 2007 -> 07:08 AM) Six years later, the deficits continue to grow, with no end in sight, because it's the way to stay in power. Eventually *we* have to pay the bills, with interest. We avoided one problem and a far worse problem is looming on the horizon. When the world stops loaning us money, and that will happen, we will be in a dire situation. We are building a country that we can not afford. We are looting our treasury and voting ourselves these gifts with no plan to pay it back. We are not maintaining any relationship between collections and expenses. We have split those two things in our minds. We have become a debtor nation. What makes you more prosperous, paying interest or collecting interest? Whoo Whoo Freee Stuff!! But keep laughing if it makes you feel better, it is basically like whistling through a cemetery. Isn't it ironic that it's a Dem that thinks we need to come closer to balancing the budget and a Rep who thinks we need to borrow trillions from foreign banks. Ah more excellent one liners at the expense of substance. Deficits haven't grown for years now. Deficits have dropped below historical levels as a percentage of GDP, and they have dropped in total dollars by a huge amount. An ugly secret is that the US economy has run deficits and carried debts pretty much for its entire history, except for a few small occasions. They have also run deficits for pretty much all of its history. I know its easy to use xenophobia that the scary foreigners are going to own the country soon (whatever happen to the Japanese who were supposed to own the US by now anyway?), but the only way they pull out of the US is if it isn't profitable to be here anymore. You want to take a stab at what would cause the quickest panic and withdrawl of foreign funds here? I'll give you a hint, its not a budget deficit... A prolonged depression would have money flying out of this country. The rest of the world knows it is in their best interest to support the US economy, because their economies are all perched squarely on our backs. Say theoretically that the Chinese pull their money out of our debt and our economy collapses into recession. When our unemployment spikes, and there is no one to buy their exports, what do you think happens to the Chinese economy? Well I am sure since they have a net surplus, they will be A-OK, because that is how it works, or so I keep getting told. Its easy to say that we have to balance the budget. Its common sense to know that somethings are bigger than a soundbyte on TV. The irony is that the budget is back on its way to being balanced, without taking drastic measures that would torpedo the economy, but I guess the evil conservative media machine must be falling down on the job, because you sure don't hear that being talked about anywhere, and you sure don't hear about what could have been after 9-11. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 1, 2007 -> 08:28 AM) I guess I don't believe that the tax cuts kept unemployment at 6%- versus 10%. I just don't think it had that large an influence. Also, the housing market boom was at least in part a delayed effect from 10 years of strong job and salary growth for the 10 years prior to 9/11. Then the sudden market crashes caused by the tech wreck in 2000, and then 9/11, caused a fear jump into real estate and gold (the ultimate safe harbor investments). All those things created the strong housing market much more so than the relatively small tax cuts, in my view. The effect was there, I guarentee it. All you have to do is look back into history and look at instances when action wasn't taken to prevent this, or worse, in times when the money supply was tightened. Like I said to Tex, read back through the economic history of the great depression, and look at the monetary supply actions taken and not taken. You don't have to believe me, but I really think history is on my side here.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 1, 2007 -> 08:07 AM) Part A is fact, Part B is partially fact and partially fiction. The single strongest influence on the resurgent economy after 2002 was the housing market - not tax cuts. If you look at the huge amount of money infused into the economy by way of huge real estate increases, that put a lot more cash in the system than the tax cuts did. Tax cuts probably helped too, I wouldn't argue otherwise. But they weren't the reason it happened, or even the single biggest reason. You are missing a step when you give credit to the housing market rally. The housing market only happened because people had jobs. If there was 10% unemployment, there wouldn't have been any housing market rally.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 04:03 PM) Actually Lincecum was drafted in 2006 so if the Sox wanted to be anywhere near in the position to draft him, they would have to be one of the 10 worst teams in 2005. I'm calling out anyone who is willing to make that sacrifice for Lincecum. You are not a Sox fan, and you don't know jack s*** about baseball. We could just trade them AJ...

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 1, 2007 -> 06:45 AM) I wish I could laugh, but I'm not buying the GOP koolaid. Spending is even higher. If the only way to maintain our economy is by borrowing money from China, God help us all. Nope, you restore confidence by buying people stuff. We pay taxes to stimulate our economy, not to pay for our government. Right Drunk sailors in the White House Weeeeeeeeeeeee!! Free stuff!!!!!!!!!!! Act a little sad and they will give you stuff. Don't worry out kids will be paying for all this, plus interest. In case you didn't notice, the USSR collapsed under their debt. I guess I forgot what fiscal conservative means anymore. It use to mean not spending a bunch of money. Now it doesn't matter how much we spend as long as there is a deficit. I know that because it didn't happen, no one can appreciate the economic disaster that we avoided 6 years ago. Its just like looking back on a pitching change after the fact. Go back and look at the roots of the Great Depression. The Great Depression was brought about two fold, a contracting economy, complete with crashing prices (which was already in place in 00) and then the banks made the stupid move of tightening the money supply to protect themselves, when they should have been infusing cash into the system. Putting a bunch of people out of work, or not aiding them keeping their jobs, doesn't help a recession end. Because the purveyors of money in the country acted so quickly and so decisively, I don't think people to this day appreciate how close to disaster this economy was. Everybody is too busy looking at the end result to realize what really happened in the game. You also have to realize that fiscal conservatism does involved common sense. I know all of the cute little soundbytes that you like to post sound way better than actually researching and understanding the situation, and that is fine, because I am used to that. But to ignore the situation regarding the economy in 2000-2002 does a complete disjustice to exactly what transpired. Now go ahead and feel free to resume your one liners...

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ May 1, 2007 -> 02:01 AM) 2k5, I'm using IE 7 and it works just fine. I'm not sure what you're problem would be...here's this site that may or may not help at all. If not, I have no idea. Actually that is exactly the kind of stuff I was looking for. I am going to give that a whirl when I get home tonight.