jasonxctf

1. Erstad-CF 2. Iguchi-2B 3. Thome-DH 4. Konerko-1B 5. Dye- RF 6. Pierzynski-C 7. Fields- 3B 8. Terrero-LF 9. Uribe- SS this should be the lineup, but I'm sure Ozzie will put Mackowiak and his .236/.320 as* out there instead of Terrero at .241/.380.

QUOTE(DonnyDevito @ Jun 20, 2007 -> 02:41 AM) i wonder why greg walker can't pick that up? he doesnt have the $12.95/month???

QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Jun 19, 2007 -> 06:17 PM) Just remember-"rent a players" dont fetch big returns didnt we trade Miguel Olivo and Jeremy Reed for Freddy Garcia who was a rent-a-player for 6 months before signing an extension in the off season?

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jun 18, 2007 -> 02:31 PM) Thome would be playing DH. No Prancer. Prancer is hopefully playing his last overpriced season for this team. He cant steal anymore, so pretty much he is worthless to this team. except if he hits .275

would you rather have... 3B= Fields LF= Mackowiak CF= Owens/Terrero or 3B= Mackowiak LF= Terrero/Fields CF= Owens (when healthy)

it was probably coke withdrawl symptoms. the jail was probably tired of cleaning up her puke.

what would the Yankees give up for Dye? Abreu's hitting .233 with 2HR's.

the only way the Sox could have been competitive this year was if everyone was healthy. because of podsednik's, hall & thome's injuries, we've been stuck with Mackowiak/Sweeney/Ozuna as regulars with pierzynski playing nearly everyday for 2 months. Now Ozuna is hurt so we've got Mackowiak/Terrero/Gonzalez. Uribe's offense has been predictibly horrible as KW chose not to upgrade that position or any other position during the off-season. When you've got a team of players who hit their peak years 2 years ago, (Konerko, Dye, Crede, Thome, Pierzynski, Erstad) you're stuck with a team who will get consistenly worse and worse over time. Unfortunately the only player on this team that I think will get consistently better over time is Danks.

Luis Terraro, welcome to the game.

send sisco down and call reynoso up

if this program, itself creates a surplus then lets keep the surplus in a separate account and build it. if that means that Arkansas doesnt get $5 million to build a Museum honoring underwater basket weaving then so be it. therefore, either (a) taxes have to get raised to cover the costs of these projects or (B) these projects get eliminated.

why not start saving the surpluses we earn from now on? put those into some interest bearing account (if thats legal for the govt) and not touch it? maybe that would help buy us an additional few years before its a deficit building expense.

i pulled this comment from the May 15th Gas Protest discussion. I think it certainly deserves its own thread. interested to see peoples thoughts/comments on this. Social Security has been running a planned surplus since the early 80's and the Greenspan reforms. The design was to have Social Security take in more money for the 30 years from the mid 80's to the mid 10's so that when the baby boom hit retirement, Social Security would have extra money saved up. Social Security has therefore been running a surplus in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year for years now. The problem with that plan is that the Social Security Administration used that money to purchase government bonds...and the Congress treated the money coming in through those bond purchases as added tax revenue in the general fund. Therefore, the couple hundred billion Social Security surplus has been spent every single year. Without that revenue, the deficit would have been $200-$300 billion a year greater than what we've already seen it as. The problem is, those bonds are going to come due eventually when the Social Security system starts cashing them in. So either the government will be raising taxes again to pay for them, or it will decide to destroy the world's financial system and default on its debt. Al Gore's whole "Lockbox" thing was a proposal that the government should stop spending all the money in the Social Security surplus, so that the money would actually be available when the baby boomers retired, instead of constantly spending it as part of the general fund.

Moore's point is well made... and will be enforced when the movie comes out.

wrong time to be making these waves... with the proposed merger in place.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 7, 2007 -> 06:33 PM) Hey times are tough all over! They didn't even make a million dollars last year, and those hybrids are expensive! so if you make a lot of money, you should waste the resources that are given to you??? (get rid of working cars??)

Obama doing pretty well with Republicans. Surprising.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 7, 2007 -> 06:24 PM) I just came accross this... Not only does he want the secret service to use them, he does not own one himself. I guess its cool to be green as long as someone else is paying for it. http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/374028,...tside07.article OBAMA: It's an old one. should i go upgrade my 1980 Triumph TR7??

anyone here ever challenge a property tax bill? How did it go?

QUOTE(Cknolls @ May 3, 2007 -> 08:15 PM) Aren't all Pres. candidates afforded Secret Service protection? never this early in the process. in the articles i read, it sounds like some white power people have been threatening him and the secret service picked up on it. better safe than sorry. interesting note that all past first ladies are also afforded secret service, so Hillary's had protection probably since 1991/92. Can you imagine, 16 years with secret service people around???

.204

john edwards with the zinger. nice job John. keep with that line of comments and you may actually have a chance in winning.

yeah, if we got off our rears and vote'em in.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 23, 2007 -> 01:07 PM) Hawk would be proud I vote for the guys that deserve it. so if you are voting now, how do you know who deserves it? Based upon 15 games? Or do you wait until June, when things have leveled off a bit?

looks like last nites dinner