southsider2k5

QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 05:47 PM) I am not in favor of this trade. Too much talent, if in fact it is true, going away for an oft injured IBman when we have other options I am going to be peeveish, but why do people refer to Thome as "injury prone" or anything of that ilk? In the last 11 years he has played less than 120 game ONCE (last year) and less than 140 games twice. Don't you have to be injured more than once in 10 years or so to be considered injury prone? I know his back gave him problems last year, but the guy basically never missed anytime in his career because of injury until 2005.

And what kind of liberal would you be if you couldn't be kept at your word?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 04:01 PM) Row + Haigwood + Gio = Thome + 1/2 his contract I just don't like it. Gio scared me with his small frame and injury problems. Haig bothers me more than Gio, but with the amount of money Philly picked up, we had to expect to give up something. It'll be interesting to see if either of those kids make it.

Good idea. I hate losing Aaron, because I LOVE the way he plays the game. He should serve as an inspiration to every single little leaguer around.

QUOTE(Pierzynski 12 @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 03:33 PM) I wasn't talking to you was i. You should have been. Enjoy your time off.

QUOTE(Pierzynski 12 @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 03:26 PM) Way to go KW.If this is happening then f*** you!!!Trading Rowand is bad. Don't post stuff like that. Consider this your warning.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 03:25 PM) I wonder who the prospect is. A Chris Young? I would be shocked if it were Young. As a matter of a fact he might have a shot at CF next year.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 03:08 PM) See if you can comprehend what I'm saying, I'll write in caps so maybe it's easier for you...ISRAEL IS OUR ALLY! THEY ARE OUR ONLY ALLY IN THE MIDDLE EAST! If Israel has nukes, and if the US has supplied them with the nukes, it's because the US needs the nukes there (strategically!). No need to get ignorant. The conversation was civil up until now. I see your circular logic. Its OK for illegal activities to justify the means in Israel, but if George Bush did do something similar to get his war in Iraq, that isn't all right. If you want to justify this fine, but don't get pissed off when it goes the other way. Then it becomes hypocracy, and that doesn't look good on you. By that logic, Iraq should have kept their WMDs as a protection against the US, despite the fact that it was an illegal program. You can't have it both ways, when it justifies your beliefs.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 03:11 PM) Even though I am happy about getting Thome. Losing Rowand hurts very bad That's pretty much what I think of it. I hate losing Aaron. I love the way he plays the game, but when it comes to organizational depth and talent, this looks to be a good deal for the Sox. Of course the devil is in the details, for money and other players in this case, but we will see about that stuff.

This is a tentative YES!!! until I see that no one huge is in the deal.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 02:58 PM) :rolly Some of y'all should know better. Just making sure it is spicey in here...

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 02:55 PM) Let's not let them of the hook for selling/delivering (through tunnels) illegal weapons to the "Palis". As opposed to the Israelis illegal WMD program that the US acts like doesn't exsist, despite the fact they probably got them all from US, at taxpayers like mine's expense?

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 01:51 PM) Of course the scarcity is manufactured, but making more XBOX360s is certainly a lot more involved than burning some WinXP cds and stuffing them in a box. There are also millions less of these shipped every year than Windows. Microsoft is the biggest company in the world. If they wanted these done, they would be done.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 02:44 PM) I doubt it. This is the very first ever worldwide(meaning same day everywhere in the whole world) launch of any product like this. They only had 8 months to invent and then manufacture the machines. Skeptics said they weren't going to be able to do it. And Simply put, they haven't. They were only able to get 400,000 units in the states. It could of sold as much as 5 million. That's just too big of a difference for MS to be playing around. The thing is by making it scarce early, they will sell every bit of those 5 million and more. They might not sell them today, but those people who were edgy about spending $300-400 for this if they could have gotten them at anytime are going to JUMP on this at the soonest moment because of the percieved demand, and view themselves as "lucky" for waiting to get it at "only" a few hundred dollars as opposed to what those idiots on Ebay are spending. This is all marketing. You have to think past today. They will make a ton more money by convincing people of how rare they are, and that they need to jump at the chance to get them, instead of your local WMT having a 100 of them so you can stroll down at anytime and get one.

QUOTE(J-MAN @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 02:03 PM) Actually he called me some unprintable names when I suggested that and he responded he had six people watching - I told him to let me know when someone actually bids on it cause they would have to be a moron! As W.C. Fields said there's a sucker born every minute - I don't know if the lower bowl is sold out someone may be desperate! The whole thing makes me mad ! In an ideal world the good seats would go to fans who care about the SOX! The lower bowl is not sold out per Brooks Boyer himself a couple of weeks ago. If you want lower level season tickets, you can get them for face value.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 02:25 PM) The money Egypt receives was pledged after Camp David, when Sadat was President of Egypt. Since he was assassinated, Mubarak has not been an ally, neither to the US or Israel. The money is basically doing its job. Anytime there are anykind of peace work done in that region, it starts there.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 02:10 PM) WRONG!!! 1) Egypt gets as much financial support from the US as does Israel, and Egypt is not even a Democracy, nor are they an ally. 2) Condi Rice, just last week, ensured that there can/will be a steady flow of weapons/explosives from Egypt into Gaza, by forcing Israel to give up control of the border surrounding Gaza. With "friends" like the Bush administration, Israel doesn't need enemies! The aid that Eygpt gets is a bribe from us from the 70's to be the first country there that wasn't trying to blow up Israel. You might as well call that aid for Israel, because we wouldn't be giving that money to the Eygptians if it wasn't for us protecting Israel. As for the second part of that, the ONLY way there is a chance at any peace there is for the Palestians to have something to call their own. Part of that is giving them control over their own borders. To reverse the situation, what would Israel think of Syria or Lebanon controling the Israeli border crossings? It wouldn't go over well at all would it? That was an inevitable step in the process.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 01:48 PM) I suppose you want (or think you deserve) an explanation...here goes...She has bent over backwards to placate the "Palestinians" every chance she has had. She f**ks Israel over whenever she can. That is so wrong it is laughable. The US has bent over backward for 60 years now to ensure Israels exsistant and safety. They get more of my tax dollars than any other country on the planet. We hide protect them in the UN, we protect them against their middle eastern enemies, and we supply them with every kind of aid imaginable. If we were truely f***ing Israel, we would cut them off and see how long their survival lasted for. If it wasn't for us, the Jews would have been a deadrace a long time ago, both because of our work in WW2 and our protections of Israel over the last 60 years. I wish someone would f*** me over the way the US is doing Israel.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 01:21 PM) Wait one second on that point...are you saying that the Bush Tax cuts have the upper tax brackets paying a higher percentage of their income to the government in the form of taxes, or are you saying that the Bush Tax cuts have the upper tax brackets paying a higher percentage of the government's total tax revenues? Given the massive budget deficits those are 2 very different things, and I'm just trying to understand your statistic. Here's the site and the full story http://www.poorandstupid.com/2004_08_15_ch...267440494775082

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 12:06 PM) Wealth in America "If one leaves aside homes and real estate, the top 2% of all families are found to own 54% of all net financial assets (stocks, bonds, pensions funds and so on), the top 10% to own 86%, and the bottom 55% to have zero or negative financial assets." Lester Thurow, A Surge of Inequality. Scientific American. May, 1987, Vol 256(5):30-37. Pp. 32. 1. Financial Wealth (1989 data) Top 1% of wealth-holders have 48% of all financial wealth Next 19% have 46% Next 80% have 6% Bottom 54% have no net (assets minus debt) financial wealth 2. Marketable Wealth ("Net Worth:" Financial wealth + housing and consumer durables' residual value) Top 1% have 39% Next 19% have 45% Bottom 80% have 15% 3. Income Top 1% have 17% Next 19% have 39% Bottom 80% have 45% 4. Distribution of Increases in Marketable and Financial Wealth Produced during the 1980s A. Financial Wealth Increases Top 1% got 66% Next 19% got 37% Bottom 80% got -3% B. Marketable Wealth Increases Top 1% got 62% Next 19% got 37% Bottom 80% got 1% 5. Distribution of Marketable Wealth Produced during 1962-1981 Top 1% got 34% Next 19% got 48% Bottom 80% got 18% (Household Wealth Inequality in the United States from Top Heavy: A Study of the Increasing Inequality in Wealth in America. Edward N. Wolff, Twentieth Century Fund Report, 1995.) These are the most recent figures I have found so far...I'll keep looking. I am going to go with Balta on this one. Income is very different than wealth. Taxing wealth vs income is two different things and America doesn't tax wealth, well at least until death, but that is a different story. If we are looking at income (and I will bold that in your quote just for reference sake), then you are going to be surprised again by the statistics. This is from the CBO on tax burden by income brackets The Bush tax cuts actually have the rich paying a higher share of income, and a higher percentage of taxes than their corresponding % of incomes in the US. I guess that means you are in favor of a tax cut for the ultrarich then because you want to bring their tax burdens in line with their relative income %?

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 11:48 AM) But the top 1% control at least 85% of the nation's wealth!!! I'd like to see that figure in print somewhere if you don't mind. IIRC it is more like the top quintile of people that control that much of the wealth.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 11:30 AM) Maybe I don't, but, I know we don't have a flat tax rate. In a perfect world, the wealthiest 5% of the population (who control >95% of the country's wealth), should be responsible for >95% of the tax burden. A serious question here, have you done much research into tax burden? The bottom 40% of US tax payers actually have a negative tax rate. Yes you read that right... Because of things like the earned income credit, and other deductions. The top 1% of US tax payers are responsible for something like 50% of US income tax receipts. What you are asking for is pretty much reality today.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 11:26 AM) Not trying to be a smart ass, but do you know how the tax system really works? It's not perfect, by any means... but I bet you're wrong on the statement above. Way wrong. The statistics prove it.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 11:21 AM) Okay then...let's nail the unemployed, the homeless, the disenfranchised, the uninsured, etc., Let's let the fatcats like Bill Gates, Donald Trump, the Waltons sit in their ivory towers and make billions of dollars virtually untaxed. Let's let Exxon destroy Alaska.... So basically you are either saying we need a socialistic government to make everyone equal, or that we need millions of more homeless people on the governments dime instead of being employed by the private sector. Its easy to scream in ideals and generalities, but I am curious what you want to do with all of these new unemployed people after corporations lay them off because of your tax increases, during times of increased costs and decreased spending??? Drop the whole big Jesse Jackson outrage thing and give me some practical solutions.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Nov 23, 2005 -> 11:14 AM) How about taxing the Hell out of those who can afford it most (i.e Corporations, the wealthiest 10% of the population), and not putting the burden on those who can least afford it? You mean adding costs to the companies that had already been shattered due to the Clinton recession and 9-11??? LMAO. We did that once already. Except back then it was called the Great Depression.