Y2HH

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 12:16 PM) I thought the same thing...

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Aug 18, 2009 -> 10:57 AM) And...um...doesn't he have a crappy record in domes, especially the Rollerdome? He had a bad record in domes when he was younger -- that changed over the years and he became better in domes than in the colder weather (in his older age). He has Peterson behind him -- he's not going to be expected to throw the ball every down like he was a few years ago on the Packers and on the Jets -- he's simply there to loosen the box for Peterson. I'm excited to see it...I think the difference between the Jets and the Vikings are the Vikings are a real team -- they're good. Favre should make them better. Keep in mind he went to the NFL title game 2 years ago -- not 30 years ago like some seem to think, and he did it without a real running back, too.

QUOTE (longshot7 @ Aug 5, 2009 -> 05:35 PM) No it's not. People fast ALL THE TIME - this is no different. And it's only for a short time - your body can go weeks without food as long as you're hydrating. It's totally healthy. Fasting (the Master Cleanse is a modified juice fast) has been done for thousands of years in most major religions to improve health and when you consider most toxins are stored in the body's fat cells and this leads to obesity, why not do a 10-Day Cleanse to purge them? Just because people do something doesn't mean it's good for you. Fasting is NOT good for you, never has been, and it never will be. It does NOT improve health -- it's meant as a sacrifice to your religion, it's not meant to be done to improve your health. To call starvation, even temporary, healthy is beyond ridiculous.

QUOTE (hogan873 @ Aug 12, 2009 -> 07:57 AM) I'm getting tired of watching Dye hit into double plays. He's obviously in a slump, and I'm trying to remember everything good he's done. But, damn, maybe he needs to sit a game or two. I hope that his slump won't be magnified by the acquisition of Rios. As of late he's been absent minded in the outfield, too. And I'm not talking about his mediocre defense, I'm talking about his recent string of botching EASY plays. Take the Angels game for example, the line drive he put his glove up and just missed...only it took him a few seconds to realize he missed it...he needs a rest because it's getting worse and worse and that wasn't the first time in the last few weeks I witnessed him do something like that.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 12, 2009 -> 02:48 AM) I agree with the Bjorn Lomborg approach: Dump all the money into R & D. The only way to make a dent in the problem is to make renewable energy economical enough for people to actually replace fossi fuels with it. Otherwise, we're just kidding ourselves and throwing money away. I actually agree with that, too. Whatever we come up with, it has to be cleaner, equally or more efficient, and equally or less expensive than what we currently use or a majority of people (and foreign nations) will simply not make the change. A day will come where we look back and laugh at the power sources we currently use and laugh about it, but some serious breakthroughs in energy creation and storage have to happen first.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2009 -> 10:41 AM) Official EPA rating for the Volt: 230 mpg. I don't buy it. Something goofy going on to come up with a number like that.

Dye *WAS* a good fielder. He isn't anymore. Please understand that.

The only vendor I recognize at Sox games is the outfield beer vendor we call "The Nuge", the long haired guy that looks like Ted Nugent. He actually responds to being called The Nuge, too.

Franceour was probably roiding.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 5, 2009 -> 12:43 PM) who cares, fox and friends are idiots. So are most, if not all modern "news" stations.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 5, 2009 -> 08:41 AM) So it would have been better to have them rot in a prison or perhaps even to get tortured just so we can continue to be "tough guys"? Because that's what he said.

I don't want Pods on the team...he sucks...AAAnderson should be our CF, AAAnderson rules.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 02:17 PM) What do FDR, Truman or LBJ have to do with a modern bill? The modern bill isn't much more than a way more complex version of the same bill they all tried to pass. A few things tweaked here or there...but the bottom line equates to a government option.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 02:02 PM) Well, here is my argument I have had when people say " i havent had time to read the bill". Often, major bills are worked on for MONTHS, maybe over a year. They are in committees and talked about within party meetings. So, by the time the bill comes to vote, you've had AMPLE time to go and read it, or get a "cliff's notes" version from someone. To say " I havent had time to read this bill" is absolute lazyness. There are obvious exceptions when parts are put in at the last minute. but in general, they've had plenty of time. Reading a bill and understanding what you read in said bill are two different things. Keep in mind that these bills are purposefully written so laymen cannot understand them, as they're filled with double talk and legal jargon that you need an advanced law degree to understand, and even then, I'm skeptical the people who write them even understand some of what's in them after the 50,000 revisions and last minute changes that occur.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 4, 2009 -> 10:58 AM) See, now these are points we can actually discuss. First point...if the Democrats proposed something with either lifetime limits or that limited people's ability to keep a patient alive on life support, wouldn't that immediately be jumped on as "Rationing!" and "Killing the elderly!". Even in this thread we've heard enough about the evils of rationing and how it happens in all those other evil countries but never here; isn't a lifetime cost limit basically the definition of rationing? You only get your ration and that's it. As you mentioned, this ties hand in hand with the issue I raised of "unlimited annual/lifetime coverage" -- to sidestep the typical "Rationing!" or "Killing the elderly!" remarks, limits must be in place as a stopgap -- however, they want to remove the same limits that would otherwise protect insurance companies from this sort of thing, while not wanting to limit choice...well, reality dicates you cannot do both. There either has to be hard rules in place on limiting people's abilities to keep patients on life support (that will never recover), or there has to be a cap limit so they insurance companies can get off the hook for the payments on this sort of delusional behavior. People tend to not want to let go of loved ones, even when they know they should -- keeping a person attached to a machine when they'll never speak again, or enjoy life again is beyond inhumane, IMO. It's greedy in a way I cannot even put into words for strong enough effect. I dislike the term "universal" when it comes to health care, as the term itself stands for a plethora of things, such as unlimited, unending, all encompassing, etc...and the laws of reality dictate that just isn't going to happen. I'm not exactly sure what word I'd prefer they use when it comes to this, but not Universal, as it represents "too much", IMO. In addition to the things you listed, a public plan also provides a number of negatives. Concentrated markets lead to lack of innovation -- it's like Apple owning the entire computer market -- who competes with them, and if nobody's competing with them whats their drive to innovate? On the flip side, say there IS competition...what's the playing field looking like? Does this government plan have to be profitable (doubtful), and if not how is that fair competition? I'd sooner say a the government creating a "non profit" entity that must break even or be profitable is something I'd consider supporting before a government option with no downside guarantees. What are the rules for getting on the government plan? What are the rules for companies choosing to not supply private insurance but just having employees going onto the same public plan? I'd need to know details such as this before I'd even consider it. First and foremost -- I keep hearing people say things like "low overhead", but name me one MAJOR government program that has low overhead? Not buying it. Secondly, since when did corruption and abuse not enter a government run entity? I can name a million things that's government sponsored and it's abused from here to kingdom come, so suddenly I'm to pretend they will run this ONE thing the right way, free of corruption, scandal and abuse?! Not buying it. I'm all for seeing the uninsured get their fair chance at affordable coverage -- but doing it with a government plan isn't something I see myself agreeing with. If it's free/cheap and coming from taxes (which it will), and just as good as private insurance (which is what they're trying to sell it as), why wouldn't everyone want to get it? I mean, since I know I'll be paying taxes on it whether I'm on a private plan or not...why would I choose to continue paying for private insurance that has no added benefits? Questions like this aren't being answered for me...not by anyone, and until they put it down in clear, plain English I'm not buying it.

I checked the AAA roster and he's listed as being on the 7 day DL -- but his assignment reads : rehab. I've heard murmurs of his imminent return to the Sox, does anyone have any updates? Is he still topping out in the mid 80's, or has he somehow found some velocity as of late? His minor league stats look decent, but that doesn't translate to ML stats, either. Anyway, was just looking for any info if anyone had any. Edit -- topic should be Freddy, not Freddie...don't know why I typed it like that.

* No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history. This is something that needs a few rules in place. For example, an aged person (I'm talking too old to still enjoy life for this particular person) or a person with a terminal illness that can be kept alive in a near comatose state via various machines that signs onto X insurance a day before they make the decision to live this way would cost the insurance company millions but would do nothing for their quality of life. This sort of situation worries me about these non "Pre-Existing" conditions clauses. Insurance companies wouldn't be able to stay in business if everyone at the end of their lives signed on to keep a person who is almost void of life alive via machines...and for what, so family members can be happy because the person is still breathing? Things like this need conditional rules. For most situations, however, I do agree with this -- pre-existing conditions for a moderately healthy person should be covered. * No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses. Again, rules need to be in place. I'll even be extreme on this and say for the first 5 regular office visits PER year, there are no co-pays, etc...but for system abusers who, for example, take 800 ambulance rides a year...hell no. And I'm not lumping people with serious conditions in this that need constant care, either. I simply mean people that go to the doctor for every sneeze or sniffle when they can stay home and eat chicken soup. * No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics. Disagree. This shouldn't be put on the insurance companies...this should be put on the doctors/hospitals. Why do they get to charge the insurance companies for this, but the insurance companies don't get to charge anyone?! Seems a bit unfair to me. This is an expense that needs to be shared or put on the doctors/hospitals giving the care...not the insurance companies. * No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill. Agree. So long as they didn't sign on the day before (keep in mind, these pre-existing clauses I spoke of above). * No Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender. Agree. * No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive. Unrealistic. I know this sounds good -- but there is a finite amount of money out there. If insurance company X only has 3 billion -- then that's their limit before they're bankrupt and aren't making payments anymore. I know that one patient would never use this much money, but they have a lot more than one patient to worry about here. I do think the limits/caps should be raised much higher, but making them unlimited is just unrealistic. * Extended Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26. Meh. I think 21 should be the limit unless you are going to college (then make it until they graduate, however long that is, with a minimum per year credit hour requirement). For those unwilling to go to college, this would only help breed a society of lazy twenty-somethings still living at home who don't want to strike out and start living their own lives and they'll use the "insurance" excuse to do so. * Guaranteed Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick. Agree. I know some of you may not like my opinions on this, but that's too bad.

QUOTE (longshot7 @ Aug 3, 2009 -> 04:00 PM) I've done the Master Cleanse a bunch of times, and it's wonderful. The last time I did it (two weeks ago) I lost 18 lbs in 10 days, plus got a great energy boost from cleansing a lot of the toxins from my body. Afterward, I take probiotics to replace the good bacteria from the intestines and other organs. Any questions you have about the MC, ask away. It's also really...REALLY bad for you. Master Cleanse is another way of saying "starvation diet". http://www.everydayhealth.com/blog/zimney-...et-master-scam/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18595886/ http://www.ehow.com/facts_4829718_master-c...se-dangers.html There is no way to cheat without side effects. Do it right. Eat properly and exercise.

Who is the new guy we drafted this year -- I've heard a few radio personalities call him a star in the making...he was the college world series mvp or something -- wouldn't he be considered one of our top prospects, too?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2009 -> 10:52 PM) Gotta retain top talent. Don't you just love reading stuff like this?!

This is voodoo medicine. If you get your colon cleaned, or took some supplement (extreme laxative) which cleans you out as suggested above, within one meal you'd be right back where you started. Waste is a constant flow through your body, consider it an assembly line -- it's not like you go to the bathroom and are suddenly completely empty of waste and this assembly line shuts itself down, your body continues to produce more regardless of what you do to clean it out. Also note, there are living bacteria in your colon -- NECESSARY bacteria -- these are good guys, they fight off infections and other such infiltrations, if you cleanse this, you're dropping your defense net, so while you think what you're doing is good for you, it has potential to backfire in a VERY serious manner. Unless directed by a doctor for some specific purpose, (and I mean a REAL doctor, not some colon cleansing "expert"), avoid doing such things as they're unnecessary. Drink water if you want to remain "detoxified" and stop putting bad s*** in your body -- that includes alcohol, drugs, etc. But don't try to binge drink and then use some sort of ultra cleanser to make up for it. This is one of those can't have your cake and eat it too situations.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 11:01 PM) If someone wants to break the law, how are more laws going to stop them from breaking the law? This usually applies to people who have nothing to lose, but brokers/traders often have a lot of money and a lot to lose, such as their families, etc. But you're right, more laws won't help if they aren't enforced, which was my earlier point. Taking 5-10 years to enforce these types of laws gives these guys a lot of wiggle room. It's not really that it would stop them from breaking the law, but it'd put a quick end to that person doing it, rather than them getting away with it for a span of years, which affects other peoples lives.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 29, 2009 -> 07:21 PM) When the report is actually released, we'll see if the rules in place are or aren't enough. If people broke the existing rules, then the rules don't need changing. If that is the case, then they need to enforce the rules better/faster -- having rules with no enforcement is as good as not having any rules. I'm tired of them letting this stuff go on and then 5 years later going after people -- while others suffer in the mean time.

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Jul 24, 2009 -> 11:48 PM) Yep, it's basically speed. You'll work out like an animal for about 45 mins to an hour, then crash HARD. Did you see any size gains? Sounds unsafe and unnecessary.