Y2HH

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 09:11 AM) Thanks to the moderate El Nino this year, last month was the warmest January ever in the satellite recorded temperature records. We're also basically at the temperature level recorded in the monster el nino of 1998, even though this is a moderate El Nino and it didn't peak last time until later in the year. Remember all those articles a year or two ago, probably somewhere in this thread, about how global cooling was a serious threat because that really cold december showed that the Earth's temperature was now rapidly declining? Based on that argument, in 5 years the earth is now going to be as warm as Venus. I'll be fine, I'm Kevin Costner's friend, and he will know where dry land is.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 5, 2010 -> 10:54 AM) That's not nearly as strange as Kap being a Dem in that poll. He and I are in both. Last I looked, I had equal votes in each, which makes me happy. So you can Kap are Reliberalcans?

I'd like to know why I was nominated as a "GOP Poster" on this site...I'm not a republican. I hate them as much as I hate democrats. :/

I'm glad Fox didn't bother showing it...haven't we heard enough of Obama talking already? I mean, seriously. No president ever talked so much while doing so little. Yea, I've said it, he's done little to nothing.

2007 Jeep Wrangler (4DR) Rubicon Edition. * Sway bar disconnects * Lockers * 4:10gr * Dual Tops I get about 20MPG, too. ^ Not a girl car.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 08:55 AM) I'm not talking nuclear. I'm talking financially. Again, that'd destroy them, too. And no, they really can't. They only own about 1T of our debt...and that wouldn't quite do much. We'd emerge and persevere like always. You know, it really amazes me when people say things like this. I'm not even going further into it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 08:53 AM) The great part about this is we can just defer to military management and Robert Gates. What you are arguing for doesn't actually make the army better, it just keeps preparing them for the cold war, when we need an army smaller and more mobile for threats that are usually non-nation. And further what you are arguing for is really just welfare-like subsidies for southern states. The reason why it's so hard to cut the f-22s, aircraft carriers, etc is because it's money leaving someones district. But it has so much momentum now that if it doesn't change, it will never change, and we'll just be building things to keep congressman getting elected. Unfortunately there is indeed a lot of truth to this, and I don't think it surprises anyone here. I'm not arguing that we should be doing these things, just that it's better to be safe than sorry in terms of national defense. Apparently, Obama agrees for the most part (who many of you elected), hence the wars he never ended, refunded, and pumped even more trooped into.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 08:51 AM) China can destroy us without ever shooting a single bullet or missile. That would destroy them, too. Nobody is interested in going nuclear, because then nobody wins. Wars will continue to be fought despite post-nuclear capabilities.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 08:42 AM) LOL. Who has an army even remotely as big as ours? And with our nuclear capabilities who would ever think invading the US is a good idea? But that's the reason it's NOT a good idea...because we have a means to combat it. Chinas army is bigger than ours, by about 1 billion, they just have no way to deploy. That said, it doesn't matter...if they ever did find a way to deploy, air superiority is what will set us apart from them, because we will never match them in sheer numbers. It's not about the "need", its about the "just in case". National defense is a game of chess, and we have to stay moves ahead of everyone else...and I really wish we didn't, but we do. Would I rather we spend the money on better things...yes. But I also want to avoid the next Pearl Harbor, too.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 08:36 AM) When? (The reason why I'm pointing at the F-22 is that its a $100 billion program that I find very useless as an air superiority fighter when there's no need for an expensive air superiority fighter right now.) In case the need ever were to arise -- then we have them. That's why. It's pretty simple. In terms of defense, getting caught without something when the need arises makes you the one that lost. I know in your Utopian world where no war exists and butterfly wings create unlimited free power there is no need for them, but here, on Earth, in reality...having them in case the need arises is very important.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 08:32 AM) So you're arguing that the F-22 is useless and we need more cargo planes. I'm game. Even using conservative estimates for the cost of a C-130, you get 3.5 of them for the price of 1 F-22. Still stands that the government wastes on a lot of things, why we point at one single thing and b**** about it is beyond me. And no, F22's are not useless, they have a very specific and sometimes necessary use.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 08:25 AM) How many F-22's are being used for Haiti relief? So are you claiming that the only planes we've EVER ordered that we didn't need were F22's? You do realize in war, when we deliver ammo, etc...to our troops, we don't do it in F22's, right? Similarly, the same planes are used to deliver food, supplies, etc.

Just deliver my power as efficiently, cheaply and cleanly as possible. That's all.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 3, 2010 -> 05:54 AM) Yeah, it does suck when we don't have somewhere to use this stuff. Thankfully we have Iraq and Afghanistan for now. Planes are also used to deliver aid/food/resources to developing 3rd world countries in dire need. Do you not want us to have planes so we can't do this? Would you rather we let everyone starve to death in Haiti because having planes may mean they're also used for war? You've been Texed.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Feb 1, 2010 -> 01:15 PM) http://www.conservativeunderground.com/for...ead.php?t=24681 Its been a while since I've even been to CU, this is what I found almost immediately. So...did you give an answer?

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Feb 1, 2010 -> 01:37 PM) With off-days and rainouts, this is rarely the case, even come late April. Even so, over the course the the entire year, you can also reset your pitching staff on off days as well. In doing so, your best will be matched up against their best more often. You can ignore this and go out of your way to make sure it doesn't happen, or you can minimize the amount of times your best does not face their best. Case in point -- on opening day, MOST teams will use their statistical best pitcher -- so countering that with your statistical best is the smart move to make.

QUOTE (PeavyTime @ Feb 1, 2010 -> 01:04 PM) Since when does your best pitcher have to start on Opening Day? Peavy even said himself, this is Mark's staff and Buehrle should be on the bump Opening Day. Since your first pitcher will then most often be matched up against other teams first pitchers, aka, their ACES. That's probably when and why this ridiculous practice started.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 1, 2010 -> 09:18 AM) If you want this addressed, honestly, the best way is for journalists to actually be journalists. The UE number currently reported is what most people understand and expect. No President is going to make that shift - the only way to make the shift is for business writers to have a brain about it. I am surprised how often the writers, even in respected papers like WSJ or Crain's, don't do this. That's a whole different can of worms. I despise modern journalism, it's a complete bastardization of what journalism once stood for. Nobody reports news anymore, they report their version of it and try to pass it off as 100% unvarnished fact.

Much due respect to Buehrle, but I'd have to give it to Peavy, he's our best pitcher, and he needs to go out there on opening day and set the tone...we need to win that game, and Peavy gives us our best shot at that. Period.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 1, 2010 -> 08:14 AM) This part is true (not sure I'd go so far as Criminal), but its the number that every administration has used for quite some time. And more importantly, its the one the media chooses to focus on. While saying criminal is going too far, we let them get away with this decade after decade. When they get to toss out numbers like 5%, it seems low...hell, even 10% doesn't seem all that bad. After all, if it's 10%, that must mean the other 90% of the country is at work! I blame previous presidents/administrations as much as I blame the current one for continuing to focus on this fake number, however, previous governments didn't go out of their way to claim transparency, this one did. So I'm holding him accountable for being, once again, as transparent as the Hoover dam.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2010 -> 07:39 AM) It's more likely that they were using the best of the best of the best information, and just hoping that the name brand of Obama convinced people that things would be OK. I'm sure the 20% of the people not working are convinced. I'm also sick of them claiming unemployment is 10%, when it's 20%. The methods used to count the unemployed in this country are criminal and ignorant.

Look, I don't care who in his administration said it, he USED that information to state his case for stimulus concerns, it was wrong, and things are even worse for wear despite the fact that they claim they're saving jobs and focusing on saving jobs. It's safe to say that he, and his administration, have no idea what they're doing right now...they're guessing, and thus far, have guessed wrong. And don't launch into a tirade of "what if's", because there is no way to know. 8% is 8% is 8% with or without stimulus or bank saving tarp loans. To the people in that "8% unemployment" (it's actually more like 20% counting the people who have given up looking for jobs), the system has already collapsed on them. Too bad it's way higher than 8% now...and staying that way for a while. When you guys lose your jobs let's see if you vote for him again...that'll be the true test. Of course, you won't...because when reality hits home, it hurts. When reality is on the news, it's not so bad.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 02:12 AM) Dont worry kid, grades dont matter when your mom put you directly on the serial killer career path. Careful, it says he was from Georgia, but didn't say if he was a Sox fan poster on Soxtalk...you could be his first.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 01:35 PM) You do realize that the bank market you just defended wouldn't exist if the government hadn't saved it? Or at least that it wouldn't have any profits at all. The banks weren't profiting, otherwise they wouldn't need saving.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 29, 2010 -> 08:50 AM) So you'd be supportive of a much larger stimulus with fewer tax cuts and more job creation work? If it created jobs that were sustainable, yes. If it's nothing but a bunch of temporary work, no, and thus far that's all I'm seeing. Not to mention the job losses in the private sector far outweighed any gains in the temporary-until-we-are-out-of-stimulus-money funded public sector. I'm even in support of higher taxes if they start repaying our debt and getting the budget under control. I'm not unreasonable in these ways, it's logic.