Y2HH

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 11:27 PM) I think it only makes sense to do this at a game. It only makes sense that Curt Hennig is dead.

QUOTE (knightni @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:40 PM) I'm a wuss. Sitting in the stands in April sucks. (If we choose a game) Of course, May's not much better. We can just do an all nighter at a bar like last time, we don't have to do an actual game, that might be too expensive!

QUOTE (knightni @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 08:38 PM) ^in I was suggesting May earlier. May sounds good to me, hell...April sounds good to me. Something to kick off the season!

I'm in. When? Where? Let's do this again sometime soon! Anyone else?! Date/time?! Let's make it soon!

QUOTE (ChrisLikesBaseball @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 02:24 PM) Pena homer... Mark's letting his pitches hang a bit. Mark is probably practicing honing some of his pitches vs actually trying here...that's what spring training is for.

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 01:41 PM) i have the minimum minute plan which is like 450 minutes a month, then unlimited data and unlimited text.. i could probably get rid of unlimited text and save about 10 dollars. im keeping the unlimited data plan because its not being offered anymore so if i lose it ill never get it back. You will eventually lose it anyway.

Thigpen

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 01:35 PM) You aren't familiar with the standard insulting names used on other Midwestern states? As I recall... WI: Cheeseheads IL: FIB's LP MI: Trolls UP MI: Youppers (sp?) IA: Iweejans (and no, I don't know what that name comes from) MN: Puddle Jumpers I can't remember the Indiana one. Nope, never heard of these. I thought puddle jumping was an aviator term. :/

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 01:32 PM) f***ing Illinois Bastard

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 01:29 PM) You are also a FIB, not a Cheesehead, so I didn't ask. I don't know what an FIB is. :/

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 01:27 PM) As I recall, the numbers on that bill were better than 50% in favor before it passed, then dropped to right around 50% around the time it passed. Not sure where its at now. Not great, but not exactly against the will of the people either. What are the numbers like supporting this WI bill? I'd love to see support for the benefit cost increases, and the collective bargaining issue, seperately. +1 in support of Wisconsin bill from me. Then again, I'm a known anti-union guy.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 01:24 PM) Actually, the polls showed they did, until the GOP started all the fear mongering of death panels and "grandma's gonna die" There were plenty of polls that showed it didn't, too.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 01:09 PM) Impeccable timing, Sqwert. That made me laugh out loud in the office for reals...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 01:05 PM) You've got inter-office Mail!!! I wouldn't read that email. That way you can just keep coming to work. Though I suspect they'd fix the glitch and everything would just work itself out quietly.

Internet company AOL traded lower yesterday following news that it is laying off more than 900 employees, or about 20% of its workforce, in a cost-cutting effort.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:56 PM) This keeps playing right into my "let's not continue to have stockholm syndrome with the plutocracy" thing, here. This goes back to my statement about this amendment coming up now...which annoys me. When they had the super-majority and could have brought this up and quickly ended the subsidies, they didn't. They waited until they lost power, then brought it up...because I'm convinced they [Democrats] don't actually want to end these subsidies, but bring it up now as to blame the Republicans for loving big oil all the while knowing they'd be the ones to shoot down what they didn't want to actually pass in the first place. I hope I didn't create a paradox in there.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:53 PM) Maybe in Detroit. Oh, and you're on here during the day as much as me...do you work?!@#$#@!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:53 PM) Maybe in Detroit.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:50 PM) I'm talking longer-term, not day-to-day typical market schizophrenic behavior. Really, if we took away $70B in domestic exploration subsidies today, what impact would that have on the spot price of oil on July 1st? We're hardly the largest producer in the world, and those subsidies aren't for short-term operations. I believe we are like #3 in the world as oil production goes. I think it's Russia #1, Saudi Arabia #2, USA #3. That said you are probably right...the short term reaction would be bad, but over the long haul, you are probably right, it wouldn't do much. But they'd still tack on a new 'hidden' refining fee for gasoline, I'm sure of it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:43 PM) Yeah, that's not conservative, that's 91-year-old-losing-his-mindism. You have to take BigSqwert with a metric ton of salt. I mean, look at him...he has Capt. Picard trying to kill Chunk.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:44 PM) How much impact can subsidization of domestic oil production have on world oil prices, anyway? That'll at least give some hint to the level of impact it could have on gas prices I would think. Well, in a real world of sanity, not much. But this isn't a sane world when it comes to oil prices. When any little thing happens, oil prices rocket...hell, a tiny newspaper in the middle of nowhere can print a false story about oil inventories being down, and if it leaks to the Internet, oil prices would spike on 'inventory shortages'. After the story is refuted, it would take DAYS for oil prices to return to where they were before the story broke.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:41 PM) The argument that oil company subsidies should be kept to keep energy prices down for the poor makes no sense. It is abundantly clear that getting off fossil fuels in the long run is the best possible course for everyone, poor or rich. So the question is more simply, what do we do in the meantime to protect poor users of the energy? And the idea that passing the money through a corporation who may or may not trickle down some of the savings to some consumers indirectly is an efficient use of capital is laughable. States already all have energy assistance programs in place. If you put the money into those agencies in the same amount as the oil subsidies, you will lose some of it to overhead - just as you would with a corporation - but you have CONTROL over how much, and can force change. Give it to BP, and I guarantee little or none of it is causing any real savings to anyone, AND you have no control. Furthermore, it just feeds toe fossil fuel beast, slowing progress, and therefore slowing the process of getting poor people cheap, renewable energy. So basically, in looking at sending the money to BP/Shell/etc. vs a set of state energy assistance agencies, both are inefficient pass-throughs, but the latter is actually focused on helping people and would accelerate us towards the long term goal. Seems pretty clearly a better use of funds to me. And remember, most of the time, as you've seen me post, I tend to favor private business for efficienct use of money. Its just that there are some situations where the goal alignment doesn't work well for that, and this is one of them. The problem here is they are merely talking about ending oil subsides...not taking said subsides and giving them to the poor for assistance. One is a hypothetical situation which someone made up and started discussing here, the other is what they're talking about doing. So let's concentrate on what they're actually talking about doing -- ending oil subsidies...that's it. That WILL increase the cost to the consumers, because they aren't going to just pass the losses off to their shareholders or bottom lines. I agree, in the end, the only realistic and long term solution to this is to not end oil subsides, but end the use of oil...period. Oh, and I don't foresee renewable energy being cheap, at least not at first, and for that matter, not for as long as the people who invent it and bring it to the masses can help it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:39 PM) links? I've seen nothing but question begging. Links? We aren't playing golf. You shouldn't need links to prove to yourself that companies will lay the burden on the consumer whenever they can. That's kind of like...common knowledge.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:36 PM) Indeed. I just feel like ranting on conservatives today. Give me my outlet. BigSqwert...more like BigJerk. Complete with your bandwagon hopping "I joined Soxtalk in 2005" date.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 11, 2011 -> 12:31 PM) You've still yet to explain how these subsidies are passed on to consumers without shareholders/exec's taking multiple cuts on the way through such that it remains the most efficient way to subsidize fuel costs for the poor. Or how they'll just be able to raise prices without effecting demand (or destroying the economy) to keep profits up if subsidies are removed. Or how it will cost billions in administration to simply give this money directly to those who you are ostensibly trying to help. Or why continuing tens of billions of subsidies in fossil fuels controlled by monopolistic forces is good, but why subsidies for alternatives to this completely inelastic, limited-supply fuel are bad. Yes he has, you just aren't accepting it.