Texsox

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 07:30 PM) I would say that it is never okay to allow dictators to kill innocent people. But the reality is that we cant intervene in every situation for a variety of reasons. Right there is the crucial concept. Every country has harsh penalties for treason, yet every country has different definitions of treason. We accept protests and petitions as a right, many other countries do not. Most countries do not have the death penalty, yet imagine our shock and awe if France sent in jet fighters to keep the Governor of Texas from executing someone? We see them as innocent protesters, their government sees them as treasonous rebels.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 07:18 PM) How did we beat the Cubs by $2M? Assuming you are looking at the Operating Income, we made $4.2M more. But I don't believe that column because then it mean the Yankees only made $25M last year? And we made $27M? No way we made more money then them, and how did the Red Sox LOSE money last year? I'm not sure I understand this chart. When it comes to revenue sharing, the Yankees give, give, give. And they have a huge payroll. I could easily see teams earning more than the Yankees.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 07:18 PM) How did we beat the Cubs by $2M? Assuming you are looking at the Operating Income, we made $4.2M more. But I don't believe that column because then it mean the Yankees only made $25M last year? And we made $27M? No way we made more money then them, and how did the Red Sox LOSE money last year? I'm not sure I understand this chart. Operating income = profit; well actually EBIT earning before interest and taxes. After getting a $30mil revenue sharing check, being in the race the whole season, and having the lowest payroll in baseball, the Padres were the #1 profit team in 2010. I'd have top see a 10 year average to really appreciate the numbers. Perhaps once a decade almost every team earns $20 mil or so and this was just an aberration.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 07:03 PM) Everyone ignores other humans' suffering. Do you spend your entire day mourning for every person suffering, somewhere? We're risking lives to arguably save lives. Some people have raised the moral issue of not helping the rebels. I'm starting to come around to the side that it is right to intervene, I'm just wondering when y'all believe it is ok to sit on your hands and watch a dictator kill his people.

Thankfully they turned a profit last year. I would have been so pissed if they had spent any of that $27Mil on a DH. Imagine of the team would have won their division, only to find out they lost a million or two. How terrible would it be to be a Bo Sox or Mets fan and realize your team lost almost $2mil last year. http://chicago.sbnation.com/chicago-cubs/2...-white-sox-10th BTW, kicked the Cubs ass by $2mil

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Mar 23, 2011 -> 01:07 PM) The Braves' 15 division titles since '91 vehemently disagree with this assertion. I'd say the Twins of the last decade don't agree much. Or how about the Red Sox? Or do Lester, Buchholz, Pedroia, Youk, Bard and Papelbon not qualify? Phillies won't agree, either. Yep, a couple teams have been successful. So every team should follow that same path? There are more than one way. But then you couldn't hate on the Sox as much.

If we drop down to AAA AJ, Sale, Dunn, Buerhle (winaa), Quentin, Peavy, and maybe a coiuple others, we'd have the best farm system in baseball! f*** Yeah!

At what point is it morally justified to ignore another human's suffering?

QUOTE (YASNY @ Mar 6, 2011 -> 12:05 PM) As far as most "remarkable" moments in sports, I'll have the say the moment Jim McKay announced the murder of the 11 Isreali athletes at the '76 Munich games. Man, that whole time was memorable. Glued to the TV. Turned me against haters to this day, probably made me a liberal

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 05:59 PM) That's fine with me. I'll be the new devil of the board. I'm NOT being mean or whatever, but I don't give a s*** what Humber has done this spring or what he's added. He's hippos***. If this were the Cubs, we'd all be laughing. But since it's the Sox there's some kinda fake hope that he can be good. That won't work on me. If I turn out to be wrong, so be it. But the odds that I'm wrong are pretty low. Like really low. If Webster's ever needs an illustration for pessimist, they should give you a call. Why do you even follow the team? I'm convinced you're a troll with nothing but Cubbie pinstripes everywhere.

If Flowers is hitting .400 and AJ is hitting .123, all the pitchers hate him, he spits on Ozzie . . . We could keep creating scenarios until we hit an obvious one that AJ is canned. Instead, how about what would it take for the organization to sit AJ down? It will probably be something AJ does, not something Flowers is doing. The job is AJ's until he screws up. If the pitchers still have confidence in him, if he is hitting at a reasonable clip, I just don't see him getting benched no matter what Flowers is doing in AAA.

But he'd be worth Pujols + extension, straight up in a trade. Anything less and Kenny is an idiot

There are people that find flaws in everything enjoy your lives.Walk around noticing the worst in everything, thnk about how s***ty something can be. Go to a game and only have fun if your team wins. Go to a game and only have fun if your team wins easily. But even then, figure out what went wrong and how easily they could have lost. Farm systems haven't been relevant since 1970.

During my recent trip to Big Bend many times I found myself saying "damn, I wish Balta was here to explain this formation". Yes, I have to admit, being a rock jock in an area like Big Bend must be very cool. I even think chicks would dig it. I spent an hour trying to find a volcanic vent which looked like petrified wood. Then another hike was looking for hoodoos. Seeing the exposed layers of different ro\ck, all tumbled together, was interesting.

No thread?

Once we start, we are in it for ever and ever.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 02:26 PM) Why do people buy cases of water...when you can buy a cheap water filter and save all the plastic. I blame it on her mother (my ex-wife) I've been after her to stop doing that. Lazy on her part. I've even bought her filters and water bottles. For a while she was at least buying gallon size spring water and piouring it into reusable bottles.

Drive In Movies Trophies to the winners

She had $60 but she bought a Big Mac

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 07:35 AM) He actually has principles and hasn't been bought out by special interests like 98% of the rest of Washington. Or he sold them, he didn't rent them

I agree with SS that tax incentives are tax incentives and those incentives and other regulatory issues need to be weighed against job creation. What makes this kind of different is in theory sales taxes are a pass through for the business. Yes, there is some expense in tracking and sending payments, but it isn't exactly like property taxes that they would need to pay regardless of sales volume. Also, near as I can tell the bulk of these affiliates are about the same as eBay sellers and really not contributing to their state's revenue. I wonder if Amazon announced they were ending their affiliate program if states would line up to offer Amazon an incentive to keep the program in place. I would have an easier time justifying a state offering Internet businesses who locate in their state being allowed to continue to ship tax free inside the state. Currently two Illinois based business, each shipping to customers within the state, could either have to charge sales tax or not if they were shipping through Amazon or someone else. That doesn't seem right. But that is really a side issue to solving the real problem of a significant percentage of consumer spending that was generating revenue for states and local communities that are going away. My daughter buys almost all her non perishable items from Amazon and receives free delivery to her apartment. No lugging cases of water up two flights of stairs.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 22, 2011 -> 06:28 AM) Honestly it depends on the situation. The reality is that it isn't any different in theory than giving property tax abatements to a factory full of union workers to come to your town, which happens all of the time, and is perfectly acceptable in today's political world. The only real difference is the taxing body involved here, and the way laws are currently written. Right now, at least in the state of Indiana, there aren't any exceptions for brick and mortar stores. If there were, I wouldn't have a problem with it being used like any other business recruiting tool that is used. I agree with all your underlying points, but come to a different conclusion. I believe the big difference is "coming to town". Amazon is not coming to town. You are giving an incentive for an Oregon company, who employs a ton of full time people out of state, to continue to use part time employees in your state. Plus, I really question how much these affiliates contribute to their home states. I suspect many are on par with eBay sellers. I was thinking about the 10,000 affiliate number in California. How much business would Amazon have to have to support 10,000 full time workers? If it was truly that much, would they really walk away from that much business? They were being asked to do exactly what they are in their home state, collect sales tax on sales to that destination. Another thought, is it fair that an Oregon business ships sales tax free into Illinois, yet an Illinois based internet business would have to charge sales tax? It seems like states have a really tough time with this. I would rather offer the incentive to create an Amazon competitor in my state, than give an incentive to an out of state company.

I really hope that a President, any President, has more information available than a candidate. I also believe that until you actually are in the room, having to make a decision like this, that you really don't know with 90% certainty how you will react. There is nothing in life that really compares to this and I have prayed for every President that he can live with his decisions.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 07:20 PM) The trade off is jobs. City's make that decision all of the time by subsidizing businesses to come to their communities. Interest free loans, property tax breaks, incentives... I don't see sales taxes as any different. If states are willing to forfeit them in the pursuit of attracting jobs, it is their right. Would you allow a brick and mortar store to operate as a sales tax free zone? After all that actually adds jobs in the community, not at a service center and warehouse many states away. Currently if Amazon happened to be an Illinois company, with a warehouse in Illinois or service center Illinois, residents wold have to pay sales tax on items bought there. Offer an incentive for getting that part of their operation. The affiliates are often times part time sellers with hobby businesses, not full time, businesses employing a lot of people. States understand what is at stake as well and will eventually push for a share of on-line sales taxes. They have to with so many sales heading in that direction.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 21, 2011 -> 07:18 PM) I see what you said. But the problem remains that even changing the current system only works if every (or a vast majority) of states also pass it. The problem is, for states begging for business/jobs, this effectively incentivized them to NOT enact such a law. They'd rather have the jobs, businesses and people than the sales tax...the prior 3 combined easily pay more in taxes than that one sales tax will ever bring in. Maybe you guys can't grasp what I'm saying because I'm saying it wrong...I don't know anymore. I really dont have another way to put this. Imagine if a state told WalMart, open new stores in our state and we will make your sales tax free to our residents. After all, we need the jobs in this state. It's the same as allowing Amazon to operate tax free in the state. The problem is technology has jumped ahead of existing laws. Now the laws need to catch up. I think we found the disagreement. Using Amazon as the example, most of their jobs are out of state. Ten years ago, less than 1% of consumer spending was on-line. Not a big deal. In 2006 is was around 6%. Today estimates are at least 15%. It is starting to get serious. I could easily see when half or more of taxable consumer spending will be on line with companies out of state. Addressing your concern, those out of state companies offer no jobs, businesses, or people to where they are shipping. Amazon is willing to cut their affiliates to protect their main business. That tells me their main business is far more lucrative than their affiliate business. In California they were willing to cut 10,000 affiliates to protect what states are really after, the sales tax on everything Amazon ships into their state. Put another way, having 25% of consumer sales on-line is about the same as cutting Illinois state sales tax to 4.75%. That revenue has to be made up somewhere. It seems to me that the fairest way to make up that difference isn't to create a new tax or fee, but to continue to recover the same tax, only this time to find a way to collect from the people that are selling to your state. As always, technology has leaped ahead of the law and now the law has to catch up.