Y2HH

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2010 -> 10:05 AM) Nice to see you going off on a rant without paying any attention to the actual bill under discussion or how things change under the ACA. Whatever is the only valid response at this point. There is no talking to you.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2010 -> 09:07 AM) There's lots of things you can blame Obama for here. 1. Not reforming the MMS fast enough 2. Being slow in the response 3. Leaving BP too much in control 4. Not committing enough resources to deal with the cleanup 5. Not responding fast enough to international offers of help I could go on. Well, I'm not one to defend Obama, but no, I don't think it's fair to blame him for a lot of that, there is more too it than just 'slow response'. Did he respond slow, sure...so did the entire senate/congress, and everyone else involved. But he didn't "cause" it. Lax rules didn't "cause it"...BP completely ignoring rules/regulations did. And seriously, enough with the f***ing "reforms". BP was negligent from the get go. These "rules and reforms" are the same as Daley's gun laws. THEY DON'T WORK BECAUSE CRIMINALS DON'T CARE. BP didn't care...so you could have had all the safety reforms in place, and it wouldn't have mattered.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2010 -> 09:05 AM) Oh so wait, you're referring to the Republicans blocking of the yearly Medicare payment fix? Right, because this isn't what Medicare has done all along -- oh wait, they have. That's why it's "cost controls" work so well...they just don't pay and/or underpay. That's great business, this won't eventually fall apart on us or anything...oops, wait again...yes it will, and it is. And to fix it all?! Just increase the amount of funding every year...and if we can't blame those damned Republicans for blocking it! I thought this was supposed to make it all cheaper?! Sounds to me like nothings changed at all. Now let's blame the Republicans, right? It gets old, Balta, to hear you blame Republicans about everything...the Obama administration had and currently *** HAS *** a bigger majority in the senate/congress than anyone in history, and they all seemed to get things done despite not having such majorities. Seriously, move on from the blame Bush and the Republicans game, it's unbecoming now...you had a year for that, and the game is up.

I have no sympathy for BP, and I don't blame Obama for this, just as I didn't blame Bush for Katrina.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 16, 2010 -> 08:04 AM) I'll agree but modify slightly - mutual funds or ETF's. ETF's are nice because they give you the diversification of mutual funds, but without the load. Single stock picking is asking for trouble. And as for where to get mutual funds... any brokerage you go to, including optionshouse.com, will allow you to trade both ETF's and mutual funds. You don't need to go to a special place for them. Do some research - there is all kinds of useful data available for free out there. You can even see zone charts for mutual funds and ETF's that show the dynamic of risk vs reward, showing a heat map of where in that graph each fund sits. So decide BEFORE you pick something - where are you in the graph? Higher or lower on the risk axis (longer or shorter return period), higher or lower reward. Single stock picking works well for me. And mutual funds cost a lot most of the time, costs most people aren't even aware of. If you wan't to be totally hands off and plan on being long term -- as in you have no plan to touch the money for 10-20+ years -- you will not beat the S&P500 straight up...nobody does, and when they do, it's for short periods and they always lose in the end. The longer you go back, the more and more impossible it becomes to beat the S&P500. When people want to invest in that manner, I simply tell them buy S&P500 index, and you're done. In the long run, the S&P will win out.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2010 -> 08:16 AM) Now here's the amazing thing though...that's exactly what should happen if you start imposing competitive pricing on a previously uncompetitive, monopolistic system. A bunch of doctors try to flee medicare because Medicare is the only place enforcing cost controls. Suddenly, after they flee medicare, they discover there aren't enough available patients paying the prices they want to keep their practice running. So either they are forced to increase the efficiency of their operations (i.e. lower costs) to bring in more customers that way, or they're forced back into accepting Medicare clients to help meet their expenses. The only way that such things could be avoided is if we were willing to spend an infinite amount on health care. But as far as I can tell, we're not. Therefore, there has to be some level of competition introduced into the system. Ok, stop right there. Medicare isn't "enforcing cost controls", they simply are 1) not paying or 2) underpaying promised payments. Calling that "cost control" is an insult.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2010 -> 09:40 PM) Disproven...by every study that the tea party puts out. If I cited stuff a hundredth the quality of your crap I'd get laughed out of here. 1) I'm back. Again. 2) The bill will make Healthcare more expensive as written, as nothing was done to curb doctors/hospitals from raising fees and no rules were placed on them as to what they can/must do and/or can/must accept as payment. I warned people about this from the start, I was ignored, and it turns out...I was right. It's already beginning... http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-medicare_N.htm But wait...Doctors and hospitals can just choose to not accept Medicare?! Ohhh no! What ever will we do?! [sNIP] WASHINGTON — The number of doctors refusing new Medicare patients because of low government payment rates is setting a new high, just six months before millions of Baby Boomers begin enrolling in the government health care program. This is why Medicare is so "cheap"...they just don't, you know...pay. Well, Doctors are fleeing from it in record droves now...congratulations, you've fixed everything! It's like in the movie Casino -- when Nikki wins, he collects...when he loses, he just doesn't pay -- I mean, what are they gonna do to Nikki?!

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 04:43 PM) What kind of comparison is this, who actually has a positive view of street scum or defends them for being criminals? It doesn't make any sense to compare them to police officers. I didn't say it did, but it's one of the main reasons why police do tend to "look the other way" when it comes to defending their own kind. All of this sort of thing contributes to the bad in this world, on both ends.

Yea, CPD require an equilivant to an Associates Degree...but some are trying to get this requirement dropped so more minorities can be elegible for hire. My guess is this requirement would sooner be dropped than elevated to an even higher standard in the world we currently live in.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 02:54 PM) His catching skills were in question when we traded for him. Since then however, he's won accolades for his improvement. I believe he was even named best defensive catcher in his league, in the Southern League last year. I hope so.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 12:21 PM) It drives me batty to see people who think the 2005 team won because of small ball. However, its equally annoying when people think small ball didn't have SOME impact. The 2005 team was great primarily due to pitching, but it wouldn't have been nearly as good if it wasn't also quite good at (in order of importance): defense, home runs, situational hitting, and yes, small ball/manufacturing runs when the offense had a down day. All those things needed to be there for 2005 to have happened. Not some - all. IMO, the 2005 team won because they did just about everything, and they did it all well and exactly when necessary, from hitting a LOT of HR's, to stealing, to pitching, to unlikely "clutch" hits. When teams have that much balance, they are going to win a lot.

Is Flowers even a good catcher or are we just hoping as usual that a good hitter will also just happen to become a decent catcher? IIRC, he's not even a real catcher, but was able to hit HR's...and he's not even doing that much anymore. Meh.

Freddie has been quite awesome for us.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jun 3, 2010 -> 08:23 PM) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...quinn-1361.html Brady leading Quinn in the polls When I scrolled through this page of threads, I read that as "Brady Quinn leading in the polls..." I had to scroll back up and re-read this.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 01:27 PM) You keep turning my statements into extremes I didn't say. I didn't say all the time, I didn't say always, I didn't say highly illegal situations solely, and I certainly never said I blamed the judge for throwing the case out. I think the judge's decision to put aside the LT's testimony is questionable, but the ultimate decision pretty much had to be what it was. Most cops are good. I say this a lot, and a lot of people don't believe me. Some are bad apples. The rate of bad apples varies from department to department. But even the good ones are human, and sometimes get caught up in the pressure of a situation. I think you are looking at this job protection thing the wrong way. If anything, they probably felt like they needed to let the guy off to protect their jobs, because of the backlash if they didn't. You just cannot possibly say that there is ZERO chance this happens, as you stated earlier, because even if 99.9% of cops are good ones (which is too high a number), its still not 100%, nor does it account for the realities of the protective mindset. That mindset has its roots in good things - cops need to trust that their fellow officers will protect them when they need it. But it becomes perverted in situations like this. Well, that's fair, and that's mostly how I feel about it also. I just overhear people making very poor generalizations about the police these days, and I find it mostly annoying and uncalled for. Then again, people do this in relation to a LOT of things, and it's annoying on all accounts.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 02:30 PM) If by slowed you mean the gains are declining, but still rising, than sure. They were going up ridiculously fast for a while there, that wasn't going to continue. But when you say "hiring has slowed", that's not really true. This, by the way, looks like a trend of the future to me. Not just as a result of this recession. I think temporary and contract work will be increasing as a % of the workforce generally for some time. JMHO. It will, it's another way for companies to skirt around having to invest in 401k's and avoid healthcare costs, as if you are a contractor, you are paid X$, but you're responsible for health insurance, 401k, etc., on your own. Also, this way, they can cancel the contract whenever they want, and also don't have to give you vacation time.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 01:04 PM) The bolded is the only part you can know. The earlier part, you could not possibly know. I only worked in law enforcement for a couple years, and even in that short time, I saw numerous instances of cops covering for other cops who did something stupid. It happens plenty. I don't believe it happens plenty at all. It happens. But it doesn't happen plenty. Unless of course, you are counting very minor stuff like taking a pen and then lying about taking a pen. But to say that in highly illegal situations cops cover up for other cops all the time...that's just not true. Like I said, most of these cops depend on their paychecks, and will depend on their pensions, and aren't going to risk them to save an idiot from being an idiot. I know you want to believe they will...but nay, they will not. Most cops don't even know other cops outside of their districts, they sure as hell don't know the judges and wouldn't go out of their way to cover for them in any such illegal dealings. Those days are like 1965, and they're over. Hell, most cops don't know of cops IN their districts unless they happen to work the same shifts. And for the record, I'm not defending that this guy is getting off, as he appears guilty as hell, but it's not my job to presume someones guilty no matter how bad it looks. This appears that he's getting off on a lot of technicals, which means he would be guilty if things were done properly, so in this case I hope this guy gets his someday. That said, the judge cannot just pretend things were done properly, that's NOT his job as a judge, his job WAS to toss this case even if we don't like it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 01:06 PM) Wasn't there some police community support (or at least a lack of condemnation) for the guy who beat the bartender? I'd have to say probably, as there are always idiots who support other idiots. I can tell you of the police I do know, and all of them called the guy a moron and said he deserved to get fired/punished.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 01:04 PM) The bolded is the only part you can know. The earlier part, you could not possibly know. I only worked in law enforcement for a couple years, and even in that short time, I saw numerous instances of cops covering for other cops who did something stupid. It happens plenty. I don't know for sure, but that's what they told me, and I have no reason to not believe them.

I know a lot of police, and exactly ZERO of them have ever helped another cop cover illegal happenings in their careers, and exactly ZERO of them said they would ever do such a thing.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 12:54 PM) I call B.S. here. There is no excusing these guys protecting an officer who killed a couple people because he was drunk. I honestly doubt they are. Contrary to you're false belief, but cops don't go out of their way to break the law to defend other cops, as they know if/when they get caught, they'd get the axe, too. So call b.s. all you want, these accusations of police covering up for other police just aren't true, and in the cases this does happen, it's VERY rare, as once again, most normal police don't stick their own necks on the chopping block to cover up for a fellow officer knowing that their family relies on that income.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 12:44 PM) I think the backlash comes from the "protect your brothers" mentality projected by the police force. No matter what they do, they seemingly always stand up for each other. Kind of how the street scum all do the same, only against the police, all the time. So it's of no surprise the police are like this to me...when you have scumbags crying foul and making false accusations against cops on a daily basis, you'd begin to understand. And while them doing what they do will cause a few bad apples to get away with some bad stuff, it also prevents those bs false accusations from costing a lot of good police officers their jobs/livelihoods.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 4, 2010 -> 10:15 AM) I generally looked for good balance sheets, low debt load and some good avenue for growth in the future. I really liked JetBlue when I played in the market in early 2008. Frankly, I still like it today. The problem with Jetblue is they're unable to find a way to maximize profits. They're currently trading at $6.38, but they're P/E ratio is an astronomical 57.5. While profitable, they're only taking in about 10-15 Million in clean profit per quarter over the last few years, which isn't enough considering they're carrying close to 3 billion dollars in debt. That'd only take them 500 years to pay off at the rate they're making money.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jun 3, 2010 -> 08:07 PM) Any advice for a beginner investor? Im looking to invest about $1000-3000 this summer. Ive been using mint.com lately and Im thinking of using optionhouse.com for trades because it is really cheap and the first 100 trades are free.. Any stocks anyone would recommend? Any websites? Any general info? Ive been trying to follow the stock market day to day more often to see whats doing well and what isnt, anything I should be looking for in particular? Depends on what kind of investing you are looking to do. I'm a buy/hold long term dividend investor, as I don't expect to need this invested money anytime soon. The advantage here is that I can last through bad markets, such as the dip in 2007. During that dip, I just held everything without panic, understanding that I'm not concerned where my portfolio is today, but in 10-20 years. Needless to say, my portfolio was down 30%+ or so during the dip of 07-08, however, I continued to get paid dividends, and today it's all back to where it was, and in many cases way higher than it was. In my 401k, through the company I work for, I put 100% into the S&P500 Index -- this is *always* the best option for 401k's no matter what anyone tells you. I'm sure many will argue against my opinion on this, but in the end, the S&P500 *WILL* beat whatever 401k decisions they made. Also, the S&P500 indexes usually have a cost basis of under 0.20%, meaning they're cheap to hold...whereas a lot of other mutual funds will charge 1%+ just to hold it. For my personal investments, I choose individual stocks in a variety of sectors, mostly based on their fundamentals and future strength. Dividends are a big plus in my decision making, but only if they're sustainable dividends. A few stocks I hold today: Bank of America (BAC) ** Financial Baldor Electric Comapny (BEZ) ** Industrial Utility Bank of Hawaii (BOH) ** Financial Bristol Meyers-Squibb (BMY) ** Pharma Conagra (CAG) ** Food/Consumer Goods Casey General Stores (CASY) ** Food/Gas/Consumer Goods Cooper Tire/Battery (CTB) ** Automotive/Rubber Ford (F) ** Automotive First Energy Corp. (FE) ** Utility/Energy General Electric (GE) ** Conglomerate Coke-a-Cola (KO) ** Food/Consumer Goods Merck (MRK) ** Pharma Microsoft (MSFT) ** Tech Motorola (MOT) ** Tech Pfizer (PFE) ** Pharma Tootsie Roll (TR) ** Food/Consumer Goods Verizon (VZ) ** Utility/Telco I've been investing since 1999 or so, which is why I own so many things. It's not like I picked everything up all at once. I wouldn't have had that kind of money.

For the record, when it comes to 'Google catching up to Apple in mobile phones', this isn't going to happen. Google has ONE mobile phone -- the Nexus 1 -- and it's an industry failure. Android, however, WILL catch up and surpass Apples mobile OSX as the sheer distribution is higher, as anyone in the world can use it, including Dell, HP, ASUS, etc...whereas only ONE manufacturer can use Apples OSX (mobile or otherwise), and that's Apple. Google makes Android (the operating system) and releases it free for anyone to use/tweak how they see fit, hence why many Android phones run different base versions of the OS, and why all of them look different. Each hardware manufacturer can add whatever tweaks on top of the core OS that they want, as Android is just a Linux derivative. This can create (and will create) some incompatibilities, and also makes for a more complicated OS update path. There are no baseline requirements for hardware, what chips can and cannot be used, etc, which will lead to various opinions on Android depending on which model you happened to use. For example those who's first Android experience was a Droid or an Incredible will probably say it's pretty nice, where as G1 users will not. And for you G1 users our there that convinced yourselves that the G1 was/is good...it's not, so stop. This will also lead to confusing releases as there will be many new model Androids that are slower/inferior to preexisting models depending on what chips were used and why, causing the average user to scratch his or her head in confusion. Every successive Apple release has come to be an upgrade in the consumers mind -- both in hardware and software, and this will not apply to every Android release. Dell may use a 1ghz snapdragon while HP may chose a very old ARM chip, for example, and release them at the same time. Google is using the Microsoft business model when it comes to the mobile market, only unlike Microsoft they're looking to advertisement revenue to profit, whereas Microsoft made money by licensing Windows Mobile. Apple isn't necessary competing for this market, as they're more of an all encompassing company with tight hardware and software control to assure the experience to the end user is as they see fit. This will always equate to a smaller market share in the end, however, a much more profitable market share.