Texsox

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 10:42 AM) Oh, it's coming, just no reason to jinx Gavin with time left in the season. we'll see That was a bold prediction, I'll give that to you.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 10:38 AM) Hmmmm, I dont remember it being about gamethreads as much as complete posting priveledges...... Maybe it might save your blood pressure if Gavin is successful That's how I remember it It may take more than a post here to cleanse that. This was locker room bulletin board material. Epic actually. I'd be thinking of a much bigger mea culpa.

Great choice, glad he made the list.

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 10:32 AM) Gavin Floyd.....there, I've cleansed myself of the stupid "guarantee" I made. good luck on cleansing that with one post.

I thought this team would contend, so not too many. At this point the Garland trade. I thought it would have turned out worse. I thought Konerko would be better. I thought Crede would have started slower, but finished. Wrong on both. I always think this is the year Buerhle wins 20+ I had the Tigers higher and the Twins lower.

We can encourage companies to do the right thing with deductions (if you are for them) loopholes (if you are against). For example by investing in alternative energy sources an incentive to the company to save on taxes is good for the US. Receiving a tax incentive to build a factory in a certain area or perhaps a baseball stadium can be good for us as well. Another way, is venue shopping. Showing a greater profit in a foreign country. Here is an example for those unfamiliar. Company A owns a factory in Mexico. The Mexico manufacturing company builds a product with their cost of $2.00 and sells the finished goods to the US distribution company. The US arm in turn sells 1,000,000 units to WalMart at $3.00. Here is were the game is played. They could transfer the item at $2 and show no profit in Mexico. They could transfer it at $3 and show no profit in the US. Both processes catch the ire of the respective governments. Using this to avoid paying US taxes is bad for us. So as always there is no clear cut answer. Overall, their employees generally pay taxes, receive wages, and contribute in that way. I've read some well opinioned articles that business should never pay any sort of tax.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 10:03 AM) When I said Congress, I meant state Congress, since we were discussing the state level raises here. And I meant to say it also applies to the Gov. I guess I should have said "State Assembly and Executive" to be more clear. I should have assumed that. I thought we were on a tangent. The minimum requirement should be no pay raise without a surplus.

Imagine a Presidential race in the 1960s through 1980s when Russia was not mentioned. That to me is probably the most interesting tidbit I saw there.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 09:54 AM) This is called goal alignment. Its basic business. If the lawmakers are getting the same increase in real wages that their constituents are, that does two great things. One, it motivates them further to create job growth and development, instead of smokescreen B.S. actions. Two, it creates more trust between lawmakers and their constituents, because they are in the same economic boat, on a RELATIVE basis. I think its very fair. If wages in the state aren't keeping up with inflation, why should Congress get raises and no one else does? Overall, I believe this is a better system than what we currently have, but should Congress be tied into State benchmarks? I agree that state reps, governor, etc should be tied to state benchmarks, but I think COngress should have national benchmarks.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 10, 2008 -> 09:59 PM) Man, you just can't give your BDS a rest for one f***ing post, can you? Look at the light hearted way the picture is posted and maybe make a funny post, not a partisan post. What the hell are you going to do if Obama loses? You will be un f***ing bearable. Two things, Decaf buddy. And if you think he will be unbearable after an Obama loss, imagine what an Obama win will bring. OK three things. (1st Photo of Bush) If this was Clinton, I would puke, Bush makes me laugh.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 10:19 AM) You guys are crazy. For one, money should NEVER be a consideration in why someone wants to run for office. Most of these guys are rich already, the money is a secondary concern. It should be all about working for the public. And of course rich people are better at running the government. We would not want to attract anyone who actually needs the salary. There is a balance. You get what you pay for. Millions is crazy, but $5,000 and a bag of chips is equally crazy.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Aug 8, 2008 -> 06:22 PM) In response to your quote which appears to be gone, there isnt a single person in the world who doesnt break some victimless crime every once in a while. Crimes like that shouldnt be enforced by cameras. Whats next, cameras in peoples houses to see if they cut the tags off their mattresses? Cameras to prevent people from jaywalking? Liberals inability to govern themselves and thirst for the government to control every aspect of their life baffles me. If they want shootings on the south side to stop maybe they need better cops not more cops. I hope I dont have to explain why Blowjobavich claiming he needs more money is so criminal it should piss off every Illinoisan. The man is so corrupt and irresponsible financially and now people are going to defend something like this? Liberals want the government to control every aspect? Let's review. The liberal is saying don't speed and there will be no fines to pay. The conservative is saying people will break the law and speed and will have to pay fines? Who can't control themselves? The governor is corrupt, so don't enforce laws? Brilliant! Drunk, are you telling me conservatives are against the enforcement of laws? The end user can remove the tags from a mattress. But you are correct in one thing, with a Governor like this Illinois can't defend anything.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 09:53 AM) We could give them all 50% raises and still come out ahead if they would eliminate the sweetheart pension deals they get. They should be on social security liek the rest of os, or 401k programs that THEY pay into. They should all be strung up for pushing that theft of tax dollars on us without the people getting any say. And Tex, before you say 'well, you elected them', that doesn't matter. Even if you threw them all oout the next cycle as punishment, you think the new guys are gonna end that cushy perk? No way. Actually you did not elect the benefit packages. My comment is mroe along the lines is the government needs to be competitive in salary and benefits with the private sector. The disagreement is whether or not a state rep should be considered the same as a shift manager at McDonalds, a regional manager at All State Insurance, or the CEO of a 100,000,000 company. And before you say they should pay for the privilege of being a State Rep or work only for expenses like George Washington, I think it is unrealistic and you should want to recruit the best possible person.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 09:35 AM) so in your mind, the President, Govenor, Lawmakers, etc are the same as a Dental Hygenist in Burbank, IL? They should be treated the same way, and compensated the same? Couldn't one argue, that being the Govenor of Illinois is a bit more important than your average joe? One can argue anything I believe the American public, over all, would do well with giving law makers merit raises or at least have some criteria for the raises other then longevity or inflation. Perhaps on the state level there will be a raise if There is a net reduction in the state debt, or increase in the surplus There is a net drop in the unemployment rate Crime is down etc In other words, reward them for doing a good job. Have all the lawmakers with the same incentives besides getting reelected.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 07:47 AM) I didn't have Nick on my list. Actually I didn't vote for anyone who is having their first year with the Sox. To me a favorite player has to grow on you. I could see Nick being a favorite in a year or two, but not yet. I agree, the only exceptions I made were Zisk and Gamble.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 09:14 AM) That's bulls***. Why should I have to take the time out of MY hands to fight someone else's ticket becuase of a flawed ticket? What if this happens in another county? What if a parent down in Central or Southern Illinois loans a car to their kid for a trip to Chicago and they get one? You think it's "easy" for the parent to drive 6-8 hours just to come in and say, "that's not me in the picture?" Hiring a lawyer or burning the gas is still a big waste of money one way or another. The sad thing is most people won't care and will just pay the fine, or go into court asking for supervision on it (more $$ for the government) just becuase they don't want to deal with the hassle of the courts. I am wondering what makes these tickets different than parking tickets? If you loan your car to someone and they park it illegaly, don't you get a ticket? Or can you go to court and prove you loaned the car to someone and then they get the ticket? I thought the camera tickets were not counted the same way as a regular ticket? And let's look at the technology: Radar? Gold standard, tough to fight based on radar was faulty. Cameras? Again, here is the pic of the vehicle and license plate. Perhaps someone may write down the wrong license plate number, but I imagine that would be rare. Driver? Again, much like parking tickets, it would not matter. Handle it the same way you would a parking ticket. Hey bud, you parked in a no parking zone, you owe me $1,000,000 for the fine. Hey bud, the camera got ya, you owe me $1,000,000 for the fine. But I guess if you have the type of friends who would refuse to pay, that a problem. personally I do not think I would loan my car to someone like that. I guess that speeding in a construction zone isn't as dangerous as parking illegally, so maybe applying the same sort of system to something as serious as illegal parking and minor as speeding in a construction zone, may be flawed. And I agree, unless the road has been altered with no shoulders, etc, there should be changeable signs that lower the limit only when workers are present. My son received a speeding ticket in a construction zone the same day they were taking down the barricades. Basically the entire road was done, no workers or equipment anywhere.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 08:43 AM) I resent that remark, I am MUCH better looking on the internet! You both are correct, we all look better on the internet

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 03:17 PM) Your point is on such a different level of what anyone is saying though. Assume youre not fighting the actual speed you were traveling but who was driving the car. If you get stopped by a cop, you wont have to go to court because they accused you of speeding when you werent even in your car, that is the difference. Sure, if you want to fight the speed youre traveling the appeal process would be the same, but not if you werent driving the car. Same with a parking ticket. How would you handle it if someone you loaned your car to parked it illegally and received a ticket? Wouldn't the same thing work for camera tickets? How is this different?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 12, 2008 -> 08:29 AM) All us Admins look alike on the internets. If he knew it was you, he would not have disagreed

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 10:36 PM) I think I forgot Kittle on my list. I loved copying his batting style. He was very likeable. Saw him hit a roof shot one time. He hit more than one. Kittle had seven IIRC. Six with home plate moved up, and one at it's more common distance.

There are some names that twenty years from now would still make Soxtalk's Top 50. Thomas, Dye, or Buerhle perhaps. I do not wonder if Swish is one of those names. Fun for a while, like a pet rock.

StrangeSox My entire basis for saying slower is safer is based on this: For an accident to occur, there must be two objects that occupy the same space at the same time. That could be vehicle-vehicle or vehicle-object. To avoid that situation, one of the vehicles needs to either stop in time, or alter the vehicles path to avoid the same space and time. Based on Texas physics, a vehicle traveling at a slower rate of speed, arrives at that space slower than a vehicle traveling faster. That gives the driver of the vehicle more time to avoid the accident. Now it has been brought up and we agree, that the variation in speeds caused by 20% of the drivers obeying the speed limit and 80% breaking the law by speeding, causes the opportunity for more accidents. The more uniform speed, the less there is to react to. It would seem then that the argument would be to raise the speed limit based on how fast people are currently driving. But you say that has not been proposed by anyone in this thread. So try and complete this sentence without mentioning the current speed of the drivers: Changing the speed limit from 55 to 70 on this stretch of highway will make this road safer by . . . How else to achieve this more uniform speed? I believe there are only three options, either raise the speed limit to match the people who are currently speeding, stop the speeders by enforcement, or both. (enforcement efforts that are being attacked by many people in this thread) Since you claim no one has proposed raising the limit to match the speeders, I must be missing an option and look forward to reading it. My basis for injuries is equally simple. You walk into a wall, you may get a bruise. You ride your bike into the wall, you may receive a greater injury, you hit it at 25 mph in your car, perhaps a different, 70 even greater, and finally at 200 mph in an airplane, even greater. It would seem that accident, injury, and death rates would vary based on speed. Set the speed limit at 20 MPH, and perhaps there would be zero. At 100 mph, perhaps there would be more, I imagine there would be a curve. At some point there would be a sharp spike. It would be impossible to run such an experiment in the real world, so highway builders and lawmakers must use computer models and experience to determine fastest speeds with an acceptable accident and injury rate for that specific road. In some areas that may be 25 and others may be 80. But the reasons I have read here, it wastes time, the government is corrupt and just wants speeding fines, people are speeding already, it's inconvenient, etc are not valid reasons. I also understand that certain stretches of road have speed limits that are set too low, but there are also some that are set too high. Areas that were once rural highways now go through areas with higher densities of traffic. It is very difficult to lower speed limits once they are set. In Texas they monitor data including accident rates, traffic patterns, and volume to determine speed limits and I do see them adjusted. Both increasing and decreasing. Perhaps Illinois could learn a little bit from Texas.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 07:30 PM) I'm thinking Frank Thomas, Robin Ventura, Carlton Fisk, Mark Buerhle, Paul Konerko, Carlos Quentin, Jermaine Dye, AJ Pierzynski, Joe Crede, Aaron Rowand are the top 10 not in that order unless I left out someone really obvious. Other probables Luis Aparicio, Ray Durham, Carlos Lee, John Danks, Bobby Jenks. Will be interesting to see how many from the 2005 Championship team make it. Pods ? Everett ? Garcia? Contreras? Iguchi ? Uribe ? If Baines is not in the top 5, then some Sox fans need a history lesson.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 11, 2008 -> 11:40 AM) You are extraordinarily obtuse. I've provided some information that increasing speed limits to reasonable levels does not lead to more accidents or more serious injuries. Do you have anything showing why 55 MPH on all interstates is a good idea? It doesn't save gas, it doesn't save lives, and it wastes monumental amounts of time. I have argued that following the speed limit is the best course of action. I agree with everyone here that having a large variance between the fastest and slowest drivers is a bad thing. Which seems to me means that speeders are a hazard. Others feel the better course os for everyone to speed. I have argued that it is much more arbitrary to pick the speed that lawbreakers are going as the limit. I have not argued that 55 is a good idea on all interstates. I love the stretch in west Texas that is 70 mph. Not much traffic, no homes, businesses, etc. Just lots of miles to cover. I could research and get you some stats but it seems that if you can stop your car quicker and have more time to react, that would result in fewer accidents with less severe injuries. Advances in car design and construction have decreased injury rates. We'll never know if you took away all the newer cars and people wearing safety belts and just had them drive faster would achieve the same results. But if you think getting cut off at 70 is safer then getting cut off at 55, great! I won't try and change your mind. If you believe that hitting a car doing 70 results in less injuries then hitting a car at 55, great! I won't try and change your mind.

Great story SS and a great write up. 1983 was just a great time to be watching games. Kittle was so easy to root for. He seemed to love the game, his teammates, and most of all the fans.