iamshack

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 01:25 PM) Pretty sure that's what I said, using slightly different words. Yeah, pretty much. But you intimated that he actually sought out who would be the easiest to get to by what position she held and what her duties were. What I am saying is he probably didn't even think it through that much. It was not meant to be a challenge to your point. It was me agreeing with you, but just taking it a step further anecdotally. Edit: Oh, I see what you meant now. That the fact that she was that politician made her the easiest to get to, which is who he ended up having access to. I slightly misread it.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 01:02 PM) Yes, but I've developed a problem with this though. I've forgotten how to express myself without sounding combative. Qwerty is the master at this. But I'll work on it. The reason Qwerty and Kal are so good at it is because they limit their points to facts and data. Some of the rest of us like to mix in too many adjectives and profanities, or make the points of a personal nature from time to time, myself included.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 02:01 PM) You are completely backwards with the burden of proof here. Its impossible to prove it wasn't partisan, you are setting an impossibly high bar. The proof should be if he DID do it for partisan reasons, and there has been no indication whatsoever of this being the case. Frankly, I think it was a matter of convenience. This was the US house rep for the Tucson area, which makes her the most easily accessible federal elected official in Tucson. Therefore, that's who he targeted - someone he could get to. I think you're even giving him too much credit there. I think he knew some federal politician made a habit of showing up at the grocery, and decided it would be a great idea to shoot her.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:57 PM) Didn't even notice. May I ask why? If you don't wish to share that's not a problem. Without getting into the specifics, it was just a difference of opinion. Eventually I asked to be just a regular poster and I think it made all parties involved more comfortable. I am happy with it, and I think for the most part the moderating/administration team is happy with it as well.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:49 PM) All the makers have one. Texas Edition, Lone Star Edition, etc. From Dodge to Toyota. Usually is will be larger and nicer rims, upgraded sound system, badging, etc. Everything is bigger in Texas! I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Texas is a larger market than almost every other country, honestly.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 01:46 PM) Yes he's an idiot but I still don't understand why so many, with almost no evidence other than a youtube profile and a little facebook data from googling, is 100% convinced that this was a 100% apolitical event. Just because his facebook page didn't say "I will kill the local Democratic Congresswoman because Sara Palin and other leaders I admire told me to" doesn't mean that there couldn't be some political motive in this. After all, he went to a political event and went up to the Congresswoman and shot her first. That didn't seem random. My first inclination would be that somehow this was politically motivated. Maybe I'm wrong but who knows? None of us have interviewed him or searched his belongings or interviewed people he knows. We really don't have that much info into what he really thinks to completely dismiss this as politically motivated. And yes he seems to be crazy. And even if he admitted that he did this because he agreed with Palin or Rush or whoever doesn't make it their fault but his. But it would be evidence to those politicos to tone down their rhetoric instead of getting defensive as we've been seeing. I just hope that investigators are looking at all possible motives and not excluding one because it could hurt some people's feelings. I can admit that maybe this crazy bastard was in some way motivated by the violent rhetoric. The distinction I made in my post to you was that no sane person could take it literally. We can't be limiting our manner of expression because crazy people might interpret them literally. And that isn't to say that I think the map or some of the other stuff that goes around in politics isn't taking things too far. But this week, it was a map with targets on it. Next week, it will be something someone said. The following week, it will be something else. What needs to be changed is the entire freaking system. Not just the degree of violent rhetoric that is allowed. Some group of people needs to stand up and be willing to accept things that are not necessarily in their best interests for the time being, but are in everyone's best interests in the long run, and take the hit. Until that happens, this crap, at least IMHO, will continue to spiral downward.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 01:44 PM) I've watched the news quite a bit the past week, and your characterization is pretty ridiculous. Frankly, what you're describing is not happening by anyone in leadership positions nor most of politicians i've seen interviewed. That's if you take them at face value. I don't. Did you think in the weeks after 9/11 that there would be a point down the road 10 years later that we would be resisting paying the medical bills of the first responders?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 01:41 PM) I have to go to one "Stephen Colbert" for the best point on this topic. What we need to do is keep ramping up the rhetoric until it actually does directly lead to someone getting killed. Once we're at that point, we know where it is, so we take one step back, and we'll know that we're at the perfect level of violent political rhetoric. The sad thing with satire like Colbert's is that we keep decreasing the gap between reality and satire in politics as time goes by.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:36 PM) Will just agree to disagree, I guess. I'm trying to be a little bit more cuddly. A week ago this would've been a SERIOUS debate. Not really. But you get my point. I'm no longer a moderator so I hesitate to give you any advice on how you should or should not post, but you don't need to withdrawal from a discussion or debate because you want to stay cuddly. I welcome your debate. But we just have to adhere to the rules and guidelines of the site while doing so.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 01:16 PM) Certainly I'm not a legal scholar, but couldn't the same type of laws that prevent people from carrying weapons on airplanes or in schools be applied to political events where elected officials are present? People are willing to accept some restrictions on their liberties because of the increased chances for danger. This is just common sense. And the Founding Fathers could have never contemplated the capabilities of some of these modern weapons and flying around on airplanes when drafting our Constitution. Sometimes, we are just being too incredibly literal when trying to interpret it. There is a certain balance that must be achieved between trying to adhere to the spirit of the Constitution and using common sense to determine restrictions on the liberties the Constitution was trying to protect when drafted. That balance includes the danger present, whether the spirit of the liberty is still being protected, whether the proposed restriction would actually accomplish any tangible benefit or achieve any increased measure of safety, etc.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:16 PM) I'm a huge Beltre fan and not even I would want to commit those kinda years/dollars. I can agree with you about Lee over PK. But there is just NO downside/risk, IMO, to the Dunn signing. Without him our off-season is a D minus instead of a B minus, IMO. Well, without being privy to what the true situation is regarding any attempt to sign a Boras client long-term, I can concede that I am not sure what the possibilities might have been. But I think had we offered 5/$78 or so two months ago, it might have gotten done. I agree the signing of Dunn will probably not hurt us in terms of production versus pay, but that doesn't mean it was the best signing to make with our money. The way I see it, you're not looking to make signings that simply don't harm you financially, but you're looking to maximize your dollars committed versus the production you receive based on what is available on the marketplace. I guess if it were my money, I would be willing to take the risk of allocating a total of $27ish million per year this season to Beltre/Lee/Thome, with the the remaining commitment in years and dollars to Beltre over the next 4 years after that, given the current makeup of our roster, especially considering ages and contract commitments, than the $27 million per year over the next two years we have committed to Konerko and Dunn, and the remaining dollars committed in the years following that to Dunn and Konerko.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:59 PM) To illustrate that it's not unreasonable to question Palin or bring up what she said/did. There are obvious questions that any sane person could make by looking at what happened. Time line: - Palin issues map with sniper targets attached to names - One of the people on the map asks Palin to take it down because it could incite violence - That same person gets shot in the head Of course people will make those connections whether it directly caused the shooting or not. It's human nature. I disagree with BMags and you here. This is called "coincidence." A really, really sad and unfortunate one, but I deem it entirely coincidence. Now if one of the other people with a target on them in that map gets attacked soon, then I will concede you might have been right. And to BMags point, I disagree. This isn't going to stop or change anything. In fact, both parties have seized on it for political gain. Instead of there being some realization that this has all gone too far, it has gone even further. I don't believe the outrage or the fabricated sadness one bit. Yes, we are all sad and frustrated that this happened. It's terrible. But now both parties are tripping over themselves to see which can be more sorry and more sad and more outraged than the other to see which can come out of this looking better. It's not making anything better. The parties are only descending into a lower form of pathetic.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:04 PM) Yeah, that was more shack I was responding too about comparing the two, which you then responded to. It's a matter of the law of diminishing returns though. I think signing Thome would have been a great calculated risk, given his history, especially in the DH role. I then would have gone after Derrick Lee instead of PK, and Adrian Beltre. Basically, Beltre/Lee/Thome rather than Dunn/Konerko.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:01 PM) What the hell? You said the other day I was going 'overkill' or whatever because of me criticizing the Crain/Ohman signings yet you don't love the Dunn signing? The guy has averaged 40 HR/101 RBI the last 7 years with a slash line of .253/.381/.533/.914 over that same period. He's only 30 and you'd rather have Thome? Now come on, that's not what I just posted, J4L. And secondly, go back and read the threads from the Dunn signing and the Konerko signing. At no point did I express any jubilation with either of those acquisitions. I've maintained that this has been a solid offseason for us, but I have certainly not been one of the people who has been absolutely stoked about it or anything. I have even been questioned a few times because I have not been particularly overjoyed by their offseason, including by yourself. That doesn't mean I hate the offseason they've had either. It just means I would have liked to see them go about things a different way. Of all the players they have signed this offseason, I think Crain is the only one I would have chosen to go after had the choice been mine.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 11:56 AM) Nobody saw it last year. If used correctly, I can definitely see it. Some guys are just born to hit. Julio Franco was sporting .800ish OPS's at age 44/45. If they can keep Jim's PAs around 350-375, I can see him having a fine year. I know I have been saying it and so have a few others too. Thome's skill set is not one that decreases rapidly with age. He's not going to lose sight of what is a strike and what is a ball as he gets older. He's not going to lose all that strength until he is well past any age where he could continue playing baseball. The only skill that he could lose would be his bat speed, but has and will continue to learn how to compensate for that by cheating on pitches. That will cause his strikeouts to increase marginally, and his BA to decrease marginally, but he's still going to hit a lot of home runs and post a very, very solid OBP. The true risk with him is and always will be his health, but if you limit his PAs, like you mentioned, you can help him stay healthy. He also is known to have a tremendous work ethic, so you know he is going to work his ass off to stay in game shape. I'm certainly not going to argue that he is going to be the player Adam Dunn will be over the next 1 or 2 years, but he can certainly be 75% of the player for about 20% of the price.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:55 PM) I believe I mentioned this 50 times in here. No, I don't believe it's what caused the shooting. I know you have said it didn't cause it. No one has said it has. But you just brought up the darn target map again. What for?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 11:47 AM) Especially since Giffords because something terrible could happen as a result. But still Sqwert, and I know you are very liberal in your beliefs, you can't honestly believe that the target map in any way could be interpreted by anyone who is at all sane in a literal manner. I mean, come on. There are limits on how far one can stretch the politicising of things...

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 12:41 PM) As for yesterday, before the Thome signing, the combined projections I calculated (CAIRO, Bill James, Fan Projections) had the Twins at 90.1 wins. They had the Sox at 90.7. I think this move probably puts the Twins ahead in terms of projected wins based on WAR. Thome was worth 3.6 wins last year. I really doubt he does that again, but still, I think he'll be good for at least 1.5. Jeesh. Part of the reason I am not super in love with Dunn is because I know we could still have Thome for not just a fraction of the price, but a freaking sliver of the price. Obviously at this age, the odds of Thome staying healthy decrease with every PA, but still, it frightens me a bit that everyone is so excited about the Dunn signing, but many of those same people were so unsatisfied by Thome's last few years here. Imagining what we could be doing with this payroll had we not traded for Peavy and just kept Thome on board two years ago makes me slightly queasy.

crud.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 10:24 AM) In what sort of world would you not expect Palin's map and the violent rhetoric directed specifically at Giffords by some not to be brought up and questioned after someone puts a bullet through her head? Are/were some rushing to conclusions to make political points or confirm pre-existing biases? Absolutely. But it isn't a problem solely of the left, and I think it's ridiculous that many on the right are painting themselves as victims here. Look at some of the vitriol Rush has spewed. Look at what Republicans are saying in comment sections of news articles or on conservatives forums and blogs. Yeah, you're seeing the same things on HuffPo or TPM, and yeah, I also find it disgusting. But it's no different. Label this crazy person as a member of your political enemies and use it to justify and intensify your hatred and dehumanization of them. But to say this is truly frightening? Pure hatred flowing out in the open? Isn't that going a bit far? What if this guy was a Muslim or had said his favorite book was the Koran? Even if there were no real ties to radical Islam, no ties in his ideology and what drove him to kill to his religion, would we honestly be shocked to see this brought up over and over and over again in the media? To be used by many as an excuse to justify and intensify their hatred and dehumanization of Muslims? Maybe I'm just too cynical, but this is just "business as usual" to me. Perhaps those on the right are not quite as used to being painted with such a broad brush as those on left and are shocked and dismayed at how unfair and unjust and unreasonable it is. Great post. I don't really identify much with either party, because all the nonsense that goes with politics in the last 10-15 years disgusts me to the point of choosing not to really participate. I see good ideas coming from both parties at times, but hate the entire process so much that I can't really be bothered with it. And as you guys know, there are not many things that I can't be bothered with. So I guess what I am saying is that coming from someone who is not really on either side here, I find the immediate finger pointing by the Dems to be insensitive and almost sickening, but the dramatic "how could you possibly say such a thing" by the Republicans to be disingenuous and pathetic. This was a tragedy brought about by the fact that NSS pointed out, some people are just crazy and stupid. The discussions that should be taking place are not which party might be to blame for this, because there isn't one to blame, but rather, how has our political system reached this point where this debate is even occurring? In the wake of such a tragedy and such an outrageous assault on our right to democracy, how is this what the issue has become? I mentioned this earlier in the thread and I guess I'll repeat it again here, but this should not illuminate a failure to provide adequate protection for politicians, because again, as NSS and others have pointed out, all that can be done to protect our politicians is being done, at least with the technology that is currently available, but rather, it should illuminate the disgusting culture of political mudslinging for even the most minute political gain, even if it is at the hands of a reprehensible tragedy such as this. That, honestly, is more frightening to me than all the dramatic and fabricated outrage taking place by both parties here.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 11:45 AM) Either way, not a good place to be. Yeah, I think you're right. Thanks!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 10:28 AM) Not to mention if you lose your job for some reason, you owe that money back instantly. That applies even if you go to another job. You don't owe the money back instantly. It would be changed from a loan to a withdrawal. You would be responsible for paying the penalties associated with taking a withdrawal.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 11:15 AM) Unless you are in dire financial circumstances, I would avoid taking a loan from your 401k. You are mortgaging your financial future, literally. You are correct in that you are paying interest to youself, so on a purely cost comparison, its better than a car loan. But... That money now cannot gain with the market, cannot earn dividends, cannot be part of the multipliers, etc. Each dollar that isn't in a 401k now and for the next few years, is 10's of dollars you miss out on later. I'd avoid doing it. Oh I guess you're right. I didn't think of it that way at all. I've basically got no clue when it comes to investing, and this is another example of that. And this is why I asked you guys. Thanks for the explanation. I suppose I should have realized that though.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 09:57 AM) I think he is referring to his paycheck deductions, not his actual filing. I laughed out loud at Lost's incredulousness. So my company has a 6% match, as well as a separate retirement plan. It's one of the things they do pretty well for us on. I joined the company in July of 08', and it took a few months to get things all set up with my 401k and everything, so basically, I started buying mutual funds right around when everything hit bottom. So I've been pretty lucky. My company uses Vanguard. Anyways, since I may be in the market for a car, and especially a used car, I was thinking of taking a loan out of my 401k as opposed to a standard auto loan, since the loan on my 401k would be a 4.0 % or so, and from what I understand, I'd basically be paying the interest back to myself. My plan allows me to continue contributing and getting my company match while paying back the loan. Good idea? Not a good idea?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 06:28 PM) My friend is a teacher. He does not work summers, ever. He sat around playing video games 24/7 and partying all summer. He says he looks forward to his paid vacation every year... Oh, and he makes a lot, to boot. Or they teach Driver's Ed and make another $10k in the summer.