jasonxctf

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 15, 2006 -> 10:32 PM) He is definitely going to play up the foreign policy experience, and his energy background. as he should. imo, he is the most qualified candidate out there. He's been a congressman, govenor, energy secretary and US ambassidor to the UN. he's also doing some nice work on border protection in New Mexico.

in case you didn't see it, Govenor Bill Richardson met with leaders of North Korea today in Santa Fe. Here's hoping he has success and can springboard the success into a party nomination. He was also on Kudlow & Company on CNBC yesterday afternoon and got some good publicity. http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....=rss&rpc=22

i think people are frustrated by the lack of upgrades that have been made so far this year. going into the off season we needed 1) A Backup Catcher 2) Middle Relief 3) A new Centerfielder 4) A new leadoff person 5) A new shortstop and so far we've upgraded at 0 of these positions. Pitchers and catchers report in 3 months and the free agent market is dwindling. I think a lot of Sox fans feel that the "shot clock" is running out and we are going to be stuck with... 1) Chris Stewart or Sandy Alomar 2) No middle relief upgrades 3) Brian Anderson in CF 4) Scott Podsednik leading off 5) Juan Uribe starting at SS and what did we do to improve our team?????

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/base...ex.html?cnn=yes correction how Contreras family came to the US.

anyone else see $4.15 million of wasted dollars in this projection?????

personally im just glad that Cheney will get to stare at the biggest issue his party currently stands against, each and every holiday for the rest of his life.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 07:50 PM) If being "awake" means giving 5 years $55 million to Gary Mathews Jr, or a huge contract to JD Drew, then Kenny Williams could be Rip Van Winkle for all I care. [turns on soothing soft playing nursery rhymes] i'm caught in the middle here with the whole free agent issue. this is a marketplace where the price of quality free agents is more and more each and every year. konerko was approx $10mil per year last year. the marketplace would probably place him at $15-16 mil per year this year, and probably $18mil next year if he was a free agent during those periods. so you're caught between a rock and a hard place. we all may think that matthews, pierre, soriano, etc are overpriced this year, but their contracts may seem like bargains (ala Konerko) in 2 years when the marketplace is $15 million/yr for an average outfielder or starting pitcher. so do you bite the bullet now, lock guys in at what seems to be high rates to hedge against the future increases, or do you roll the dice and hope that the marketplace settles back down in a few years?

QUOTE(GoSox05 @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 07:07 PM) Carl Crawford could play center field and i would than do a happy dance. well then flip things around. Keep Podsednik in LF and put Crawford in CF. Same batting order.

there's been some speculation about the Sox making a deal with the D-Rays for Carl Crawford. If they did trade for Crawford (say McCarthy/Fields or Vazquez/Fields, etc) would you give Podsednik a chance to play CF instead of Anderson. Thus the lineup would be... 1) Crawford-LF 2) Iguchi-2B 3) Dye-RF 4) Thome-DH 5) Konerko-1B 6) AJ-C 7) Crede-3B 8) Uribe-SS 9) Podsednik-CF I know the Crawford isn't your typical leadoff hitter (with his power) however the .348 OBP and 58 SB would be a nice tablesetter for Iguchi, Dye and Thome. Plus with Podsednik hitting 9th, his speed followed up by Crawford's speed and average could produce a lot of runs. Personally I'd rather have Podsednik hitting 9th and playing CF than Anderson doing the same.

per rotoworld, Dye finished 5th in the MVP race. Justin Morneau was named AL MVP on Tuesday after receiving 15 of the 28 first-place votes. Ridiculous. Derek Jeter came in second with 12 first-place votes and 306 points. Even though Morneau was, in reality, the third most valuable player on his team, he ranked in the top four on all 28 ballots cast by the writers, giving him 320 points. In third place was David Ortiz, who received 193 points. The rest of the top 10 included Frank Thomas (174), Jermaine Dye (156), Joe Mauer (116), Johan Santana (114), Travis Hafner (64), Vladimir Guerrero (46) and Carlos Guillen (34). Santana received the lone first-place vote not going to Morneau or Jeter, but seven voters left him off the ballot entirely. Morneau wins despite leading the league in no significant categories. He finished eighth in OPS and 10th once OPS is adjusted for ballpark, and since he did that as an average defensive first baseman with little value on the basepaths, he qualifies as perhaps the weakest MVP in decades.

neh, cotts had fallen out of favor anyway. he couldnt get lefties out. so now we've got Thornton for the 7th, MacDougal for the 8th and Jenks for the 9th. Not too shabby.

point of contention here about taking sick days when you aren't sick. we all know that people who take care of themselves... daily vitamins, exercise, good sleep habits, healthy eating, non-smokers, are in general healthier individuals. why then, is it wrong for people who make a conscious effort to keep themselves healthy to take non-sick days off. Im not saying abuse the system, but if their colleagues are making unhealty life choices and are getting paid time off, why can't those who make healthy life choices take the same paid time off? the same goes for those individuals who require "smoking" breaks versus those who don't smoke. Those who don't smoke should get the same breaks than those who do.

shocker...

if we have to pay an extra 2 cents for every dollar earned by dividend income or capital gains, I guarantee it won't hurt it either.

well quickly, all i could find is information on how the market performs under administrations, not controlled chambers. this information is from The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. I've pasted the summary and the link to the entire article. There's an old adage that a Republican in the White House means higher stock market returns. This adage derives from the generally held view that policies promoted by Republicans are more favorable to stock markets and capital formation. The humorist Will Rogers reportedly suggested that, in order to find the place where the Republican Party was formed, one should find out where the first business was formed. This has translated into Wall Street folklore that, since Republicans represent the party favored by business, the stock market prefers Republicans to Democrats. This Economic Letter examines the evidence related to stock market performance when Democratic and Republican candidates occupy the White House. Using data for the period 1871 to 1997, we find that the stock returns are almost identical under Democratic and Republican administrations. The Democrats have a slight edge in the pre-World War II period as a result of the effect of the 1929 crash and the subsequent recovery. However, since 1945, the returns have not been statistically different when Democrats or Republicans occupy the White House. These findings generally confirm earlier studies for different time periods and stock market indexes, although recent strong stock market performance gives Democrats a slight edge (though it is not statistically significant) in the postwar period. http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=%22stoc...=1&.intl=us

i think the republican party is going to be in for a nice surprise from what the democrats come in with. remember they are winning seats in typical republican held territory. they will want to keep those seats and will be more moderate than you expect. the dems aren't dummies. they know that they are gaining these seats not because of their own agendas but of a failure of the republicans agendas. thus they are going to have to make something happen, quickly to maintain these strongholds. they will be playing defense here in 2 years for these seats with a corresponding presidential election as well.

two quick things... 1) I've seen many studies showing that the market performs better under Democratic control versus Republican Control. I'll try to dig something up. 2) This market typically prices in predicted events 6 months ahead. Will the fed move rates in Q1, 2007, etc. Do you honestly think that the market hasn't priced in a Democratic House Majority over the past 3 months. The Dems taking the house has been a predicted event for a while now. on yahoo business front page right now.. the middle of the article points out Consider: even as Democrats' election hopes soared following a sex-scandal cover up embroiling Florida Rep. Mark Foley and some Republican leaders, the Dow Jones Industrial average climbed to a new record above the 12,000 mark. That suggests one of two things, according to Prudential Equity Group LLC: "either investors don't believe a shift is afoot, or more likely that they don't think it matters." "Control of one house of Congress when the president is of another party is not particularly helpful," said James Glassman, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "That is even true if the Democrats take control of both houses." QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 3, 2006 -> 06:38 PM) DING! It's definitely not the party of "reaching out for compromise" right now. The bottom line is most people in this country are "conservative", and no, I don't mean Rush Limbaugh conservative... I mean they are fiscally conservative, and the leftist crap that we are seeing definitely doesn't support those conservative notions. Small business will be devastated should the Dems get elected, just read their own words on the matter. Here are what the experts say... Glassman said there are two key areas where Democrats may assert themselves most effectively: trade and taxes. Democrats could play a critical role in helping President Bush revive global trade talks that collapsed over the summer, he said, though they will be tempted for political reasons to withhold support. On taxes, many Democrats strongly oppose the cuts Bush enacted in 2001 and 2003, but Glassman said the party might use its newfound power to force a "grand compromise" with Republicans that extends the cuts, which are set to expire in 2010, but with major revisions aimed at helping working families. Because the Democratic party's election success partly depends on victories by some conservative candidates, or "blue dogs," in districts that traditionally elect Republicans, the ramifications on fiscal policy are not clear cut, lobbyists said. "The easy criticism of the Democrats of an earlier era is not so easy to make anymore," said David Resler, chief economist at Nomura Securities. "The Democrats are splintered politically."

the best part about this is that neither Kerry nor Bush are up for election next Tues. As someone from Newsweek pointed out, this is just distracting the media and public from the current issues and discussions and focusing on two political rivals taking jabs at one another. the only difference is that Bush and the Republicans have nothing to gain by bringing up Iraq, its a losing issue for them. Kerry can just be pushed aside by the Democratic party since he has no leadership roles or positions. so the bottom line, every day that goes by where this story is in the news, is a day lost for the Republicans to play catchup and try and keep one or both of the houses. thanks John.

if anyone can find the guys who did it, it's Dog the Bounty Hunter.

Katie Couric interviewed Fox today. Here is her report. October 26, 2006 Next Post | Previous Post My Interview With Michael J. Fox I’ve interviewed Michael J. Fox several times before – but never quite like this. After all the controversy and publicity and debate about his political ad, and the criticism he got from people like Rush Limbaugh, he really is in the eye of a political storm right now. But when he came to our studio for our exclusive interview, he was remarkably calm. He was also obviously symptomatic. He trembled uncontrollably, and his legs shook, but he explained it was actually a side effect of not taking enough medication. He told me he reduced his dosage because he didn’t want to have dyskinesia, which is the side effect of too much medication, and which causes the swaying back and forth that was so evident in the controversial ad for Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill. Fox said that he can never tell from one day to the next how serious his symptoms will be. It’s a crapshoot. Our interview lasted about 30 minutes, and we covered a wide range of topics. He explained why he favors embryonic stem cell research, why he has taken up this cause now, and why he believes he needs to do everything he can to help find a cure for debilitating diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. He talked about politics and how he supports both Democrats and Republicans -- he’s a big backer of Arlen Specter, among others – and he spoke with great feeling about how he’s living with this disease. And he emphasized that, despite what his critics have charged, in his words, “I’m not a victim.” He said he spent years having teenage girls put his poster on the wall, but that he threw his vanity out the window years ago. What matters now, he said, is finding a cure for Parkinson’s. No matter how you feel about the issue of embryonic stem cell research, you can’t help but be moved by Michael J. Fox’s courage. You can see it for yourself on tonight’s CBS Evening News, and here on The Web.

instead of listening to Dr. Rush Limbaugh's assessments of Fox's shaking, why not listen to the handful of actual doctors (not just those who are chronic pill poppers and real life drug addicts) who have come out saying that even while taking their medicine, it is not uncommon for Parkinson patients to shake like that for hours at a time. Rush is a sick fu*k and anyone who actually listens to him should be ashamed of themselves. period. and if this sounds harsh or childish, try watching your uncle die slowly in front of you for years from Parkinsons. Soxtalk removes unnecessary, objectionable material.

there's a family in Schaumburg who did the same. 2 damn good basketball players too.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 01:45 AM) this is correct. Every dollar went into the very low general education fund while an equal number of dollars were taken out and put elsewhere. So all of the gambling money went to education but no ADDITONAL money went in from the gambling. and this happened long before Blago was in office. This is mid 90's stuff.

so why would anyone be against offering these similar type of benefits to homosexual couples who are in a commited relationship together?

i guess i answered my own question... "Typically, marriage is the institution through which people join together their lives in emotional and economic ways through forming a household. It often confers rights and obligations with respect to raising children, holding property, sexual behavior, kinship ties, tribal membership, relationship to society, inheritance, emotional intimacy, health care, and love." and honestly, do you know of 2 straight guys that would pretend to be gay and tell their boss that they are gay, have a civil union just to get health insurance. and if so, is that any different then hetrosexual couples doing the same?