Rex Kickass

My feeling is the party shouldnt get to nominate anyone. The President should.

I finally got health insurance for the first time in three years. I have received more medical care since Jan 20 than I had in the five years preceding it.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 01:05 PM) The Republicans actually had no choice. The party in power is the one that writes the organizing resolution. In 2007, the Democrats have a majority as long as Lieberman votes with them and Jeffords does not caucus with the Republicans. I would also doubt that the Republicans would have included measures similar to 2000 when they wrote the organizing resolutions in 2004 and 2002, but I can't be certain without knowing where the hell to look for them, and I'm too busy for that anyway. The case of the Jeffords switch actually being able to change things in the Senate is, as far as I can tell, a unique event, precipitated by the dual facts of a 50-50 Senate on January 3 2001 and the fact that Al Gore was still VP on that day, which would have given the Dems the power to enact the organizing resolution if they really wanted to try to. The GOP now controlling 50+1 seats of the Senate though could filibuster for new organizing resolutions. There are outs for the GOP that enable a flipping of Senate control. Although unlikely, it is a possibility.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 09:49 AM) This thread symbolizes what's wrong with people today. Bush and his people suck, therefore, do not give any of those people a chance. You really want a pick? How about Joe L.?? What about Robert Gates? He'd be a good pick. Joe Lieberman is a pick that would seem most likely. Not only would he "appear" to be bi-partisan but it would have the added effect of moving the Senate back in the control of Republicans, since the CT Governor is GOP.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 06:30 PM) Really? What might those be? I would say a PDB delivered on Aug 2001 to the President in Crawford might be a great place to start. Under her leadership at State, North Korea's gone nuclear and Iran has accelerated a weapon enriching process. In the last few months, our old buddy Pootie has all but declared a new cold war against the United States, and the last significant contributors to our Iraq coalition have announced complete withdrawals within a year. A secretary of state that thinks diplomacy can only begin with conditions attached definitely doesn't deserve a promotion. I used to love Condi. I really did. I thought the work that she did for Poppy Bush as an analyst and Deputy Secretary of State for Soviet Affairs in 1989-1990 was nothing short of masterful. She even wrote a book that IMHO is the definitive work in analyzing the US role in the unification of Germany. However in the last two years, she's been an even weaker Sec of State than her critics thought she'd be and the incredibly shrinking Sec of State seems to be following the path that her underling John "Death Squad" Negroponte has been blazing the past year or so.

There are plenty of reasons why Condi could be legitimately denied the VP spot.

She does stump for candidates. Just watch next year.

I think the Scooter Libby verdict emperils the tenure of Cheney more than a DVT.

The only thing that's funny about this show is Dice's driving glasses. When did he become 70?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 03:00 PM) This should be broken into 2 categories: a. The place you're living does not allow satellite dishes (apt, Condo, Dorm) b. The place you're living does not have a view of the southern sky. I think the best argument about doing something in this case is that it denies a government-subsidized form of entertainment to people because they happen to live in the shadow of or on the wrong side of a tall building. Except not really... how much federal funding went into the Cell? If you use that argument, I could see courts requiring carriage in the state where the funding came from (i.e. White Sox games must be given statewide cable carriage in Illinois, Tigers in Michigan, Brewers in Wisconsin, etc.) but only if the stadium was financed using public financing. So no requirement for the Cubs, Red Sox or Yankees for example.

Yeah but there's nothing illegal about restricting consumer choice of a broadcast. If that was illegal, anyone could broadcast American Idol live on their channel so long as they cut a check to FOX. It doesn't make sense. The better argument is the antitrust exemption. Just because Bud Selig wants to limit the reach of local teams doesn't mean that the White Sox necessarily wants to, or the Royals, or the Dodgers. If the White Sox own the rights to their broadcast, shouldn't they own the right to opt out of an exclusive Direct TV deal?

I got bored and flipped to something else 20 minutes in.

Another CPAC highlight. Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7030201619.html

I was advised to go to the ER for chest pains in January. The day before my insurance kicked in. Two and a half hours: $2000 (More than half of that time I spent in a gurney lying outside of X-Ray waiting to be wheeled back to the ER). Turns out I pulled a rib cage muscle in the gym. The best part about this story, is that the insurance companies pay about half that cost. No insurance? Hello, full price!

And that makes her different from the average politician, how?

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Mar 4, 2007 -> 01:17 PM) The overwhelming majority of scientists need to keep their grant funding coming, and a crises is a great way to do that. Of course, corporations that produce CO2 emissions have a financial interest as well, I suppose. I'm not a conservative, but I think a conservative's environmental viewpoint is that the Earth is in pretty good shape (as Limbaugh says, "the Earth is not fragile"). The book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Lomborg probably sums up the conservative view the best. They take the prgmatic approach that human influence on global warming is unproven and that's is irresponsible to destroy an economy based on something very uncertain. Assuming global warming is happening, Lomborg calculates that it would be far cheaper to adapt to a warmer climate than to try stop the process. Anyway, I probably shouldn't speak for conservatives, but that's my impression of their "environmental platform". I think its foolish to say that the changes necessary would "destroy" an economy. Especially when that economy is based on a finite amount of resources that seems to be near its pinnacle of production. There are ways and methods of reducing CO2 that will benefit our economy in several ways in the long term. Limbaugh is right, the earth is not fragile. It will adapt and fix itself - however the conditions that creates on the planet might make life a lot less pleasant for Joe Sackopotatoes.

So will Ann Coulter.

In the state of New Jersey, you can not be denied service if you walk into an ER. Seeing a non-walk in clinic doctor can be quite difficult without insurance, IMO, here otherwise.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 11:26 PM) Magglio started it, if I recall correctly. [insert rebuttal of "OZZIE SHOULDN'T HAVE REPLIED!" here] Ozzie didn't rip Politte in the media, or Cotts, or McCarthy in season. He didn't even really rip him. All he said is, "We might've made the playoffs if not for him" and it seems like something he said in passing. Not like he sat there saying, "McCarthy cost us a playoff return!" or anything. I need to hear that interview. Maybe Zito was misinformed but I'm basing my opinion that Ozzie's good to his players and they generally think that from his remarks about what Konerko told him. Good pitchers like to go six innings. They like to get their work in. Ozzie lets them. And he lets them get kicked, too, for the experience. So they can learn. It's valuable for a pitcher to be allowed to go out there and compete. Period. -- I can't possibly be the only person here who thinks everyone's overreacting and that Ozzie's a damn good manager. I'm leaving this discussion. I can't stand to defend Ozzie from everyone and their mother. Heads, I got your PM. You'll get yours. That's great. I seem to recall that the average White Sox starter last year averaged the longest start in the Majors. I know that was the case for 2005. Wasn't it the case for last year as well?

After a WS ring, you'd think that's all the confidence a then experienced Garland would need.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 10:58 PM) Perhaps. I would counter that most of you who hate Ozzie or think he's a garbage manager are in the minority of Sox fans as any visit to US Cellular Field will attest to. Hell, I know a lot of smart baseball people who think he's one of the best at dealing with a pitching staff, mainly for his old-school approach. How can you say after last year, he was good in dealing with a pitching staff? If by "old-school" approach you mean tiring out arms so they can't perform in August and September when it really mattered, I guess you're right. If it means bringing up a green kid from AA or AAA when a starter's injured to keep the guy who GOT you in the playoffs in 2005 by pitching clutch as a rookie in the bullpen, I guess you're right. GP, we fundamentally disagree here because from Game One as a Big League Manager - I've seen a guy who never knew when enough was enough from his guy on the mound.

Mitt Romney's latest supporter. Ann Coulter

QUOTE(watchtower41 @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 03:45 PM) Why does this board and a lot of Sox fans in general have to take every single comment Ozzie says and completely overreact to it?? The only thing I take from this comment is maybe Brandon should have been more concerned with talking with guys like Burls instead of hanging onto a minor league buddy for nights on the town with their newfound success. It seems like Brandon was the type of player that never wanted to listen to what he superiors had to say, and was always on the one track mind of wanting to be the rotation. Even with the whining when they left him off the playoff roster, which was probaby when these tendancies started for BMac. Ohh well, wish him the best. Some of you are worried if BA is gonna be insulted by this comment, I personally would like to give the kid more credit than that, but appearantly we have a bunch of fans that think he is mentally soft or something. I think it has nothing to do with an overreaction with what Ozzie has to say, it has more to do with a sincere desire to see him shut his cakehole. Because it will hurt his team down the line, if it hasn't already. I work with a boss who says stupid things like this all the time. About the people that work for him. You think that doesn't have an effect on the atmosphere in this office? What makes a dugout any different?

My view from afar is simply that Oz isn't a good game manager, and although he's good for providing spark to a listless ball club, once this club tastes success - he's been more than happy to let the life get sucked right out of it again. I view him as a short term success and not a long term solution.

Or it just means that George Bush is willing to cook intelligence to acheive his political aims, reality-based or not.