StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 01:48 PM) He's a cheap closer. He's 29. He's good, not great. You have a ML ready replacement waiting in the wings. I'll give KW credit for at least recognizing the value of a 60 inning reliever. Thanks for restating what I came to realize thanks to several posters itt, I guess?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 01:37 PM) I'm confused...weren't you just on the other side of this thing about an hour ago? I wasn't sure what to make of it at first. Still not 100% sure. I never disliked the move, I just didn't fully understand 'why Santos' because he's cheap.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 01:25 PM) Yes. Phil Rodgers clearly knows more about this kid than the former Blue Jays' scout. 148 ks vs 18 bbs tells me the scout knows more. Yeah but AA.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 01:30 PM) Which is why I'm iffy about trading a cheap MLB-level player for him. Kw really needs to have nailed this one. But the Sox have zero need for that player over the next couple of years, even if he is cheap. Maybe this isn't the best prospect KW could have targeted, but I can't fault him getting a prospect here.

This wasn't a joke, this was a 'legitimate' discussion on Fox News-Business over whether Liberals are using the Muppets movie to brainwash your children against capitalism.

This is too perfect for the current discussion not to post:

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 01:11 PM) Santos had some issues with lefties (723 ops v 427 against righties), its possible that the Sox felt that Santos was at his peak value and thus traded what would be a depreciating asset. Not the guy you expect to be traded, but if you arent serious about winning you dont really need a closer. I guess that's what I keep coming back to. The Sox have zero reason to hold onto Santos for the next couple of years, even if his is cheap, if they can get something of value for him.

But core ideologies are generally what determine your positions on specific issues (at least hypothetically, more often it is just political party tribalism). Libertarianism is a good example of this: core philosophical positions of non-aggression and private property rights lead to more-or-less consistent positions across a wide variety of social and economic issues. The spectrum is not a static thing and what is the middle is constantly in flux. The spectrum also isn't 1D or 2D, so left/right or left/right/liberal/authoritarian charts only provide limited information.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 11:47 AM) I consider being a left leaning or right leaning person to be normal. I consider a centrist normal. When you go too far right or too far left, unlike how many attempt to redefine it, it does NOT mean you move to the opposite side...it means you're a moron. Too far left and you don't become center-right, what you become is Nancy Pelosi. You don't change, your perception of others changes. obama is a marxist liberal to some, a centrist corporate shill to others. Center and the leans are fluid, not rigid norms. Additionally extremist positions aren't necessarily wrong and centrist our compromise positions e not inherently good.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 12:02 PM) If Buehrle, Danks, Quentin, and possibly others move on this off-season, with the farm system in the current state it's in, do you see this club really competing for a title, or even the division over the next 2-3 years? The logical answer is no, and if that's the case, having a top notch closer is nearly meaningless. I don't mind getting rid of santos, it's just that he was cheap. This doesn't make sense as a salary dump. I dunno, I'll just have to see how molina is. I don't have a problem with the deal, I just don't get it yet.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 11:54 AM) I love it. Sell high on a closer before paying him (always a bad idea), and Molina will clearly wind up in our rotation at some point. He is under contact for three years, no payday in the near future. Not getting this move right now.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 11:49 AM) This is what blowing up the team looks like. Dumping a low salary guy?

Wtf

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 11:38 AM) Oh, and sorry for blow up about the "when you get so far left you become center-right" thing, but I've heard that before...and it annoys me to no end when people redefine what left/right means to suit the situation, when and how they want to do so. But it is a subjective, fluid scale. In America, the Democrats are considered a generally liberal party. Compared to most European states, though, they're center-right to right. That's the whole concept of the Overton Window and a real-world example of the fallacy of the appeal to moderation. The extremes define the middle, so if you keep getting more and more extreme, you keep pulling the middle ground towards your positions.

Oh and I don't think I claimed that I wasn't biased in there. I'm openly a left-liberal.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 11:02 AM) MSNBC is AS biased as Fox in the opposite direction. This is my opinion, which has equal weight to you opposite opinion on the matter. There is no way to prove this in either case. One could craft a careful study of the two organizations. Alternatively, one could simply view their respective coverages and maybe take a look at some of the internal documents leaked out of Fox. Claiming that MSNBC is as biased as Fox is just laughable false-equivalency nonsense. They are both s*** media outlets, but one is deliberately so. What? No, that wasn't the intention of that. MSNBC is biased left, at least in their editorial shows, as I said. They do not, however, engage in the deliberate propagandizing of the news that Fox routinely does. That's sort of basic Overton Window stuff and demonstrably true in the real world. If I'm a Third World Maoist advocate, Democrats are going to look like a center-right corporatist regime. If I'm a raging conservative, McCain (at least a few years ago) is going to be a center-left RINO traitor, no better than the Democrats.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 10:52 AM) And leaning left is a bit soft on the description of the bias of MSNBC. The only news network that thinks that MSNBC has any right wing tendencies is RT. Well if you get far enough to the left politically, every Democrat, except maybe Kucinich, is really a center-right asshole at best. So from that viewpoint, MSNBC is a corporatist MSM news outlet looking to back the corrupt, corporatist Democrats over the more-corrupt, more-corporatist Republicans. I'd still contend strongly that network-wide biases at MSNBC approach anything close to what Fox does. Yes, their editorial shows are mostly liberal, sometimes strongly (Maddow), sometimes stupidly (Schultz). But it's not quite the same as, say, Fox having multiple commentators and guests talk about how "Obama left GOD out of his youtube address!" over the course of a day's worth of shows, or how their coverage of #OWS focused almost entirely on how they're a bunch of dirty, smelly hippies while rarely, if ever, actually discussing some of the stronger messages coming out of the movement.

Generally as a weak centrist punching bag. But Fox is brazenly biased. It's readily apparent in their programming, editorial stances, leaked memos and the stated goals of Roger Ailes. They're the talk-radio version of cable news. No other TV news source comes close to their deliberate, intentional bias. I mean it's a refreshing change of course when Shep Smith strays to a center-right position. Other networks have partisan editorial shows, but the entire network doesn't have a systemic bias in the same way that FNC does. Compounded that issue is how conservative news outlets pound listeners/viewers over and over on how they can't trust other sources, that they're just lying to you. The bias isn't entirely focused on anti-Democrat, either. Look at their routine dismissals of Paul as a serious candidate with serious ideas for consideration since he breaks strongly from their orthodoxy on foreign policy issues.

The euro zone’s terrible mistake

typo maybe?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 09:19 AM) It's debatable. To be clear. Does Fox lean republican? Absolutely. But does that mean the republican party "controls them"? No. Someone favoring one party over another actively being controlled by them are two VERY different things. At best, I can only say "maybe" when it comes to this because I don't know if they control them or not...but I'd probably side with not. That has nothing to do with the fact that most Fox tv personalities lean right. Well this is a fair point--does the GOP control FNC, or does FNC hold considerable sway over the GOP? Either way, though, 'lean' right is a bit soft of a description of their bias.

An Overview of Growing Income Inequalities in OECD Countries: Main Findings

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 6, 2011 -> 08:17 AM) The GOP runs the news networks? You mean Fox, MAYBE.

BP accuses Halliburton of destroying evidence in Gulf oil spill case Over/under on total jail sentence length for all parties combined? 2 years?

Contaminated water found leaking at Japanese nuclear plant