southsider2k5

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 12:54 PM) So has anyone other than me noticed that this thread is actually called "The lastest on Garland." Can we expect this to therefore be the last Garland-related thread here? Not.A.Chance

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 12:20 PM) Thanks for the WS, Jon. Now, see you in Hell. Joe Crede's new nickname, if this is to be believed, can be Joe Greedy. how about "One joke poster"?

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:49 AM) Can you change the title or get rid of this thread all together? Damn, admins do nothing around here. See you amatuers don't realize if you delete or merge the thread right away, they just post another one. The key is to give them a second to see this, and then merge away. And you want to be my latex salesman :headshake

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:48 AM) Be a leader....turn down all of your benefits and pay for everything out of your own pockets. Everyone will follow. Or we could just look at what happened to the airlines, automakers, and steel industry in the US as to what happens when you can't control your costs. I am sure the people of places like Gary would tell you that less benefits or lower pay is better than a bankruptcy filing and no jobs at all.

TRY HERE INSTEAD

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...2/19/wirq19.xml

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051222/D8EL0PG0K.html

Some rebuttals for traditional arguements... http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/...91756-3971r.htm

QUOTE(Konerko4mvp @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:10 AM) THAT IS WHAT SUCKS..by the time it goes to public there wont be tix available... Welcome to success big boy. Now all the fans are willing to show up...

Looks like a settlement could be close... http://nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22c...agewanted=print

QUOTE(Konerko4mvp @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 11:00 AM) WHAT IS THE EXACT TIME THAT TICKETS GO ON SALE??? (IF ANYONE KNOWS) I HEARD SOMEONE TOLD ME 10 AM???? Easy killer... It has been 10 am in the past, I haven't seen an official time yet. There is still 5 weeks until then though.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:19 AM) I just find it ironic that a company of this size (bigger than any oil company) is making bilions and billions of dollars and so many of their employees need government assistance. Perhaps they can take some of their record breaking profits and give back to the people who got them there. Provide some affordable health care at least. This is one thing that bugs me. The ultimate motivation of America is self determination. People are supposed to be able to get as much of what they want, or as little of what they want to the best of their ability. Corporate America was never intended to be any different than anything else. Corporate America AND the federal government where never intended to be our babysitters. Corporations do give back to their employees, its called a paycheck. The great majority of them go way beyond that and give their employees benefits. Last I read the average price of the benefits ends up costing the company about another yearly salary of that particular employee. This was never intended to be a socialist society where you work the same government job until your retirement age, and then you live off of a fat government pension. Basically everyone has the choices that they can make to improve their lifestyle. They can move, they can go back to school, they can stay in school, they can train for a higher position, they can not have as many kids etc. They don't have to work for Wal-Mart or anywhere else, nor do they have to shop there.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 10:14 AM) I see some people here arguing that Echelon was substantially different and more OK than Bush's current spying. I see others arguing it's all OK, it was done before and is being done now, so no big deal. And then there is the dangerously narrow-minded "I have nothing to hide so I don't care" argument. I'd like to plant the flag for this camp: it was wrong when Clinton did it, and it's wrong now. I would love to see some federal judge smack them both upside the head with an oversized copy of the 4th amendment text. Anyone else on this hill? Personally I think it is a violation of the constitution, but then again I thought emminent domain for private gain was a violation of our property rights, and we all know how that turned out. I guess my ability to interpret the constitution isn't quite there, so I am really hoping this ends up there soon so we have an answer.

Prior+Leo Mazzone? That could be scary.

Sirotka33(28), maggsmaggs(18), thomsonmi(40), chimpy2121(18)

Turns out the courts have never ruled on this specific issue. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3541401.html

QUOTE(TLAK @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 07:26 PM) As to the Yankee team, the 1998 Yankees traded Homer Bush (71 AB), Graeme Lloyd (49.0 IP) and David Wells (214 IP) to the Toronto Blue Jays for certain HOF’er Roger Clemens. Everyone else who appeared in the 1998 series also appeared in the 1999 series (Spencer was DL’d). I think changing 3 of 25 players is different than 8 of 25 players, 9 with Big Frank. The Yankees subtracted 1% of their AB and 18% of their IP. The Sox subtractions total 28% of their AB and 17% of their IP without bringing in Roger f’ing Clemens. No one has named a team that made changes on the scale of the White Sox and repeated. We’ve already had pages and pages of threads on this subject. It comes down to your appreciation of the now departed players, who I thought were pretty good. I think KW and his supporters are wrong, you all think I’m crazy. I’m willing to leave it at that. Lets actually look at the players who have a daily impact instead of the 23rd, 24th, and 25th men on the team please. The Sox have changed their CF, DH, 5th starter, and last lefty and righties out of the pen. That is two starters in the line up. And to be honest later on when you asses the IP and ABs we lost it shows the impact is way less than the 8 of 25 men that you reference. We have upgraded our rotation, and our offense. The only thing we have lost from is the pen, and that is the back of the pen at that. The closer, top set up guy, middle reliever, and top lefty all stay the same. All we have to replace there is the long man, and the second lefty. The changes aren't nearly as big as you think they are.

Signed The ACLU

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 08:37 AM) Yours was an opinion piece. Ah, only opinions need to be sited... I see now.

QUOTE(Mercy! @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 06:03 PM) When you use someone else's work, could you reference your source, please. Thanks. I take it you missed the very start of this thread, because otherwise you are just picking on me, and now I have to cry about it

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 05:33 PM) copier Dec 17, 2005 -> 02:59 AM Post #11 Winston-Salem (High A) Group: Members Posts: 542 Joined: December 30, 2002 From: Saint Charles, IL Member No.: 8 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 09:23 PM) The government should be made to do with less before it asks the people to pay more. Why should you, me and everyone else subsidize wasteful government spending? agreed. and that biggest douche in Alaska, Ted Stevens is the worst of them all. I want all Republicans here to look at who is the problem of "big government spending" The Tax Foundation has released a fascinating report showing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill. The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States. Here are the Top 10 states that feed at the federal trough (with Red States highlighted in bold): States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid: 1. D.C. ($6.17)- D 2. North Dakota ($2.03)- R 3. New Mexico ($1.89)-D in 2000, R in 2004 4. Mississippi ($1.84)- R 5. Alaska ($1.82)- R 6. West Virginia ($1.74)- R 7. Montana ($1.64)- R 8. Alabama ($1.61)- R 9. South Dakota ($1.59)-R 10. Arkansas ($1.53)-R In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid: 1. New Jersey ($0.62)- D 2. Connecticut ($0.64)- D 3. New Hampshire ($0.68) R in 2000, D in 2004 4. Nevada ($0.73)- R 5. Illinois ($0.77)- D 6. Minnesota ($0.77)- D 7. Colorado ($0.79)- R 8. Massachusetts ($0.79)- D 9. California ($0.81)- D 10. New York ($0.81)- D Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid. This post has been edited by jasonxctf: Dec 17, 2005 -> 03:08 AM Didn't we already pretty much send this BS to the grave last time? Why post it again when it was blown out of the water the first time? Basically you just took all of the poorest and least densely populated states and put them on a bad list. It has nothing to do with red/blue states and everything to do with the progressive tax system that takes from the rich and gives to the poor, well shock upon shocks, it has the same effect on poor/rich states as it is poor/rich people. Poor people tend to recieve more in tax benefits than they pay, boy what a shock.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 05:29 PM) Nice idea, but good luck with that. You could probably choose all the companies in the S&P, choose a major politician at random, and find similar questionable connections for half of the companies with that individual and some issue they are big on. I think they would suffice to just avoid the biggest potholes. And yeah, Walmart was maybe one of those. But again, doubtful the Kerrys thought about it, or the broker. You think there are 250 companies that politicians have spent $25 million and repeatedly called "evil" along with other not so flattering terms on the campaign trail? 250 other companies that have had union officials lobbying Congress about? 250 other companies that have their building sites picketed and protested? 250 other companies that have hate websites setup by union officials? If so, I would be impressed.

Good to have you back Spiffy... There are some people that could use a wake up call, now SNAP TO IT!@!!

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 04:37 PM) Garland's had one good year, and he was 5-6 after the Break in 05! Take a look at what the pitchers on the free agent market are getting and get back to me.

QUOTE(MurcieOne @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 04:34 PM) I could be wrong, but isnt a .9 the equivelent of 90% BAC? .01 is 1%.... Im either right... or am about to look like a total dong A .9 BAC is nine-tenths of a percent of your blood being alcohol. .5 is usually enough to kill the great majority of people.