StrangeSox

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 07:52 PM) I cant find it anywhere but I heard it on Fox News, but if anyone wants some insight on McCain, Sean "P Diddy, Puff Daddy, Diddy" Combs discusses why Palin isnt qualified because there are no black people or crack heads in Alaska. Come on now, does anyone really care what that dumb ass has to say?

Brian Anderson is such a communist. How anyone could doubt that at this point is beyond me.

Lahaina area is nice and has lots of shopping and restaurants. Lots of snorkeling or scuba diving boat tours all over the island. The aquarium there is really nice, too. I didn't do any helicopter tours or sport fishing, but I wish I had. Enjoy your trip, and congratulations!

FWIW, "In God We Trust" was also added to our currency long after the Founding Fathers had died.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 2, 2008 -> 08:45 AM) The 'right-wing blogs' you mention were a handfull of the REALLY right wing nutjobs, that the left has their fair share of as well. Most of the right-wing blogs actually refused to do anything more than mention that a HILLARY supporter claimed to have the Michelle Whitey tape. That's about it. How many 'right-wing blogs' do you read or track? or do you just get that meme from DailyKos or DU? http://www.google.com/search?q=michelle+ob...lient=firefox-a It was spread around the internet plenty, even if they only "mentioned" it. That's my main problem with blogs - one person starts a rumor, and it spreads like wildfire across the internet. By the end of the day, its definitive proof of how evil someone is. If it spreads far enough, it even makes it on to national news broadcasts. It's still just "mentioning" or "questioning," but its negative press and some people will just assume its true. And, of course, when the story turns out to be absolutely nothing, there's never apologies or retractions. It's just on to the next rumor

The runner was only about 40 ft down the base line when CC reached the ball, FWIW. If he picks it up cleanly, its an easy out. Errors are definitely judged based on the individual player (which is part of what makes recording errors pretty ridiculous anyway). If Torii hunter gets to a ball that 95% of fielders won't even have a chance on, but it hits off of the heel of the glove, it will probably be scored an error. For the other 95%, it'll clearly be a hit. That also shows why defensive metrics are hard to evaluate accurately.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Sep 1, 2008 -> 10:32 PM) It's not a smear, because honestly, none of it's stuck. Rev. Wright - that was RSO's own doing, not the right wing. He stepped in his own s*** spot on that one. Birth Certificates? WTF? That's just stupid, and I've never heard of it. Ayers - ok, let's face it, the guy worked with RSO. Period. Closely at that. Yet, no one can prove a thing there, and so that's all the further it's gotten, so what? It's not about "fighting back". It's about taking the high ground, something neither party seems to know how to do. I'm sick of the "gothca" bulls***. Let's just stick to the issues. I'm really surprised. Google "Barack Obama birth certificate" and be prepared to laugh. IIRC, it orginated with a completely made-up B.C. claiming Obama's religion listed as Muslim, that he was really an African citizen, etc. Then there were demands from the right wing blogs for "proof" that Obama was eligible. So he produced an abstract of his B.C. from Hawaii, but, of course, that wasn't good enough. They had "proof" it was a fake (even though the State of Hawaii said it was accurate) and they are still claiming its just all made up. There's even some nutjob Clinton supporter in Philadelphia that's sueing over the issue (Barack isn't eligible and Hillary should be the nominee). You also didn't mention the "Whitey" tape the right-wing blogs all claimed existed a few months ago. Supposedly, there was a tape of Michelle ranting about "whitey" at Trinity. Of course, it never actually surfaced. Just like all the dirt that was going to come out on Obama at the Rezko trial. I'd say just about everyone here on Soxtalk sees right through that sort of garbage, but there's plenty of people that eat it up and pass it along via chain e-mails and crappy blogs.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 02:32 PM) So, if the country doesn't have a problem with a guy with no substantial executive experience running for President, I doubt that they'll much mind somebody with executive experience (albeit slightly less overall government experience) running for Vice President. The point with her experience is that it can knock the wind out of the sails of McCain's attacks on Obama over the same issue.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 02:40 PM) Massachusetts, home of the Kennedy's was never going to go Republican in a national election anyway. As of the 2006 election, the Republican party holds less than 13% of the seats in both legislative houses of the General Court: in the House, the balance is 141 Democratic to 19 Republican, and in the Senate, 35–5. Although Republicans held the governor's office continuously from 1991 to 2007, they have mostly been among the most liberal Republican leaders in the nation, especially William Weld (the first of four recent Republican governors). Romney has strong ties to Michigan, though.

QUOTE (shipps @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 02:44 PM) Bauzin will not make any NFL roster this year.From what they said he looks talentless. Great use of a 2nd round pick. Could really have used an OL with that one instead.

Jeff Dickerson is reporting the Mike Haas and Dan Bauzin are both being cut.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 29, 2008 -> 12:00 PM) See what she did there? Very slick. She pads her statements with all this "inclusive" talk. But what she is trying to "include" is the bizarre idea that creationism is science. That's like saying they should teach Spanish and English in English class, because "you know, we should be inclusive, and teach other theories". Bad analogy. There aren't mountains and mountains of evidence supporting English and some religious texts supporting Spanish. I don't know much about Palin, but those statements is a big negative for me.

Looking to solidify pissed off Hillary voters' support? Weakens the attacks on "experience," imo.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 27, 2008 -> 01:24 PM) Now that sounds about right. I knew it wouldn't take long for the truth to come out. Mac (of Mac, Jurco and Harry) was saying his sources told him that same story yesterday.

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ Aug 27, 2008 -> 12:41 PM) A very ballsy, yet stupid move. Nobody ever accused Shawn Merriman of being a bright individual.

Great. It's damn near impossible for umpires to make some of those calls while sprinting down the line. I really don't understand the opposition to it. Rogers tears apart his own argument. He thinks its just because they blew a call for Arod, but then says that they've blown the HR call thousands of times. Uh, sorry, that's not "beauty." Huge, game-changing errors of an umpire's judgment of a ball 200 ft away shouldn't be a "historical" part of the game.

Road to Hana, and drive all the way around. It's pretty cool to go from a rainforest on one side of the mountain to dry volcanic fields on the other.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2008 -> 11:55 AM) Anyone who tells you "always" in economics is full of it. Its not a study of absolutes. If you want something to read and learn a little bit about why people believe tax cuts drive governmental revenues, read up on the multiplier effect. This is pretty dry, but it gives an idea of what the theory is there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplier_effect Thanks for that, I'll definitely read it through. I was never arguing that it doesn't work that way (I think I've used the retail sales analogy on here before), just that there should be a big ol' caveat on "tax cuts increase tax revenue."

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 26, 2008 -> 12:44 PM) I don't think anyone has said ALWAYS. There is diminishing marginal returns to take into account, as well as the multiplier effect. But in general, yes it does increase revenues. Its the same reasons that increasing prices leads to less items sold. Some tell me ALWAYS. Not here, and I didn't mean to imply that's what you, Kap, or anyone here has said. Your example of individual store pricing is a lot less complex system than world's largest economy. It's easier to study that and see why people are buying less, what alternative goods they are buying instead, if the competitors are getting more, etc. I'm just saying that it seems hard to me to isolate increasing, decreasing, or leaving the taxes the same from what the rest of the economy is doing to determine if it leads to increased or decreased revenues. Then again, like I mentioned to you before, I've never studied economics too in depth so I might just have no idea WTH I'm talking about!

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 26, 2008 -> 11:06 AM) Just look at pure revenues, not bottom line (spending). Problem is with that, though, is other monetary policy. Economics are like any large, complex natural system. It is extremely difficult or even impossible to completely isolate certain cause-effect relationships. One tiny, tiny little change in input values and you can get completely different results. So, while I often hear from conservatives that "cutting taxes always leads to increased tax revenue," I view it with a large dose of skepticism.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 25, 2008 -> 04:38 PM) You know, I watched his concession speech. He did a complete 180 from how he conducted his campaign. If he had not acted like such a self-serving slimeball he could've won the nomination. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 25, 2008 -> 04:43 PM) Slightly OT...when is the last time someone didn't come out looking better after a concession speech than they did before? Seriously? I thought his speech was awful. It was full of every conservative's stereotypical/ shallow/ dumb criticisms of liberals. It was so over the top and corny. Then again, maybe that would have won the nomination...

QUOTE (longshot7 @ Aug 25, 2008 -> 05:39 PM) Most Americans favor Universal Health Care - so does Obama. Most Americans want to get out of Iraq asap - so does Obama. Most Americans want Social Security to be fixed - so does Obama. Most Americans want Bin Laden to be caught - so does Obama. Most Americans want a higher tax rate for millionaires - so does Obama. Most Americans want the new energy alternatives explored - so does Obama. Most Americans want some forms of gun control - so does Obama. etc etc etc. Seems pretty Centrist to me. The problem is the Right doesn't want what most Americans want - they want what a select few want. And that's not democracy. It's not what about fickle mainstream America wants right this second. Increasing taxes on the wealthy to pay for social programs is absolutely leftist policy. At one point, over 70% of Americans believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and were gung-ho about invasion -- does that make it a "centrist" policy, or just a popular one? It's not that ridiculous to claim Obama has a lot of far-left or heavily left-leaning policies. Many of those listed fit the description exactly. Government-run Health Care is left, Social Security is left, soaking the rich on taxes is left, gun control (at least to the level Obama supports) is left. I'm not arguing whether or not any of those policies is wrong, but I don't get how anyone can say they Obama isn't running on a pretty left platform.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 25, 2008 -> 02:20 PM) one account. What is he centrist on? His tax plan is the definition of income redistribution, his economic plans contain some pretty far-left ideas (windfall tax), he is in favor of strong gun control (handgun bans, licensing, registering, etc.), and he seems pretty left on environmental issues (good thing, imo). I don't know his stances on all of the social issues, but he seems pretty left on those, too.

I spent the afternoon driving down Sheridan road yesterday out of boredom from Dempster up to Waukeegan. Holy s*** those are some big houses.

Cheap move? Sure. But it doesn't seem like the wrong call.