Jake

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 2, 2015 -> 04:06 PM) Untouchable? It's a penalty if you touch him

Let's all remember that the second amendment was written to simultaneously allow governments to form militias while still giving them the privilege to restrict civilian ownership of guns. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/th...ntrol-amendment I especially like that thought experiment—if the words "well-regulated" weren't in the amendment now and someone proposed adding them, what would the reaction be? What would the right say the consequences of that phrase's presence would be?

As long as it is technically possible to meet some standard of accessibility to the IDs, we won't care about how much it changes from one year to the next or how likely it is that people know what they're supposed to do

I'm happy enough with my AT&T cell phone plan, partially because I'm on a business plan which seems to get you a far better level of customer service. I signed up for AT&T U-verse a year or so ago and it was a freaking catastrophe. They show up and say that I don't have the connections necessary in my neighborhood for the level of speed for internet that I chose (their systems were wrong about what was available at my address). I say okay, just give me whatever I can get. The tech isn't allowed to hook me up with anything but what I've signed up for. He leaves. I call them, wait for an hour, then talk to someone. I say please lower my speed and send another tech. They say okay, your new plan will be [whatever my old plan price plus $40/month was]. I say wait a minute, I'm asking for less service. Well, we can't help you. Let me send you to another CS person. Okay, wait another 30 minutes, go through the entire explanation and they offer the same high price. Nope, that's not what I want. They send me to another person who may have the ability to make this change. Wait an hour. This person is helpful, has to get permission from manager who is out to lunch. They will call back. No call back, ever. I call back, they can't find any record of any of these conversations, so I redo that entire process. They finally manually change my plan and allow me to schedule the installation for 5 days later (I was in a new apartment with no TV, no internet). 5 days later, nobody shows up. I look at my online account and there's an alert that says my appointment was cancelled because I signed up for an internet speed that is not available in my location. I at this point just called and cancelled, which took a while of course as they tried to sell me a mobile hotspot plan. They were still generally courteous, no Comcast horror story in that sense. As soon as I hung up with AT&T for the last time, I signed up for TWC online, drove to their local retail location, and picked up the equipment and hooked it up. No problemo.

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 2, 2015 -> 04:59 AM) MSNBC interviews someone who was concealed carrying, or whatever the term was. He said he was afraid to pull out his gun in fear of getting shot. Wrong! It's easy to tell who the good people with guns are

Allowing some simple things like using government funds to study gun violence and punishing FFL/gun dealers who sell large amounts of guns that are later used in crimes. Back when the government was allowed to look into these things, they found that nearly every metro area had just a few gun shops where the vast, vast majority of guns used in crimes were sold. Then too much talk about gun control and registries and the right made sure nobody was allowed to look into these things anymore.

I would like to see Democrats counter the talking point that Republicans have used for several years about the federal budget. They go crazy about budget deficits, etc. and how it should be treated like a household budget. But if the budget being balanced was really your top priority, you would never decrease your income. The truth is that most of both parties are comfortable running a deficit, but they disagree over what makes a deficit productive. Democrats feel that government spending is morally important and stimulates the economy in such a way that leads to longterm solvency since more people will earn a living and pay taxes. Republicans feel that lowering the tax burden will stimulate the economy and ultimately lead to more people making more money who will make up for the lower rates. What's really going on is the Republicans both want to cut taxes out of some economic concern—and, to be sure, to please donors and be consistent with their worship of successful businesspeople—but also want to cut spending because they have moral or other disagreements with what the spending is for. Regardless of the purposes, though, you can't with a straight face say that you care about the budget being balanced while you decrease your income. Any business owner would know that too, since they like to compare it to real world budgets; you would never cut your business's earnings on purpose, but you might increase spending (investment) even if it cost you debt.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 30, 2015 -> 10:55 AM) NBC Chicago Pope Francis supposedly had an important message for Kim Davis, so important that attorneys for the Kentucky county clerk say he delivered it in person ----> http://nbcchi.com/i9QRKP7 It's not implausible, but I'd wait till I hear it from someone other than her

Looks like PFF did a write-up about Rodgers's grade. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/...negative-grade/ Basically, 1. They say not to automatically take any number that begins with a minus to mean "bad." They say it's really more like average when it's that near to zero. 2. His fumble cost him. 3. He threw multiple TDs to Randall Cobb that were basic out routes that Cobb turned into touchdowns. 4. He threw what should have been an interception for TD if not for a bad non-catch by the DB. Because Rodgers did his job badly on that play, he gets downgraded. So does the DB for dropping it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 29, 2015 -> 09:45 AM) PFF seems to mainly function to confirm your biases when it shows it and ignoring everything else. PFF routinely rates Matt Forte as like, the worst Bears offensive player. Bill James said something to the effect that a given statistic isn't worthwhile if it doesn't surprise you sometimes. That doesn't mean every stat that is counterintuitive is automatically good, but the whole point of PFF is to give you information that isn't in the box score. You can't refute it with the box score. Their system could also be bad or wrong under certain circumstances or it's totally right and we aren't appreciating that Rodgers was carried by his teammates. I don't know.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/09/ge...n-martin-corpse A fan of George Zimmerman's mentioned him in a tweet that contained a picture of Trayvon Martin's dead body, Zimmerman retweeted it. Also, I guess his Twitter account has just become a general outpost for him to make it clear what sort of person he is

Looks like we preferred giving somebody else consistent reps over whatever possible better production we'd get from Allen (if any)

I think one of the biggest big picture limitations the Sox have is the location of their ballpark. It doesn't make success impossible by any stretch, but I think it is a big part of the reason that the baseline for attendance is so low.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Sep 25, 2015 -> 01:18 PM) So Obama had better experience then a CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Yeah, I don't think so. They both might be massive failures but I think you very much underappreciate how much it takes to be a CEO of a large organization. I've met a lot of politicians and I've met a lot of executives...very rarely have I met a politician who was smarter than the executives I've met. Often times, the politicans I've met at various fundraisers / charity events, blow me away their lack of savvy and overall acumen. To be President of the United States, Barack Obama had way better experience than any CEO who has been running for POTUS. It has nothing to do with whether it's hard to be a CEO or how smart CEOs are. Governing requires a specific set of learned skills and experiences. This is why lots of smart people are against term limits, for example. It takes a long time in government before you know how to write laws well, read laws well, manage your staff and the media, broker deals with opposing legislators, etc. CEOs may very well have some of the raw aptitudes that make for good government executives, but they get none of the expertise from running a company. Obama had been an elected state representative for nearly 8 years and a US senator for nearly 4. You don't get that experience trying to deal with executive boards and managing mergers. There is one area of policy where CEOs may have a better or at least unique insight, which is of course those things that affect large corporations. I'd hesitate to say better, since it will be almost necessarily biased towards their experience of policy as a CEO, but it would at least be a unique point of view to counter the others who won't be familiar with that side of things. Of course, it will all go down the s***ter when they learn how difficult it is to craft a law that doesn't cost too much, doesn't have unintended consequences, and will actually be accepted by peers. For a relevant example of a non-politician going straight to a top executive political position, look at Arnold Schwarzenegger. He straight up admits how wildly unprepared he was and rude of an awakening it was to have to actually run a state. Some might recall during one of the budget fights when Joe Biden got together with Lindsey Graham and some other top Republicans to hammer out a workable deal. And they did. That's because those guys have been in the game for a long time and know how to talk to each other in these situations, how to swallow their pride, and to the extent possible manage more unruly peers. You won't see someone like Carly Fiorina ever come close to grasping that kind of working knowledge of governance.

Tough thing about shutting down the government is that there isn't a 100%, indisputable offending party. Technically speaking, both sides have the option to vote for what the other side wants

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Sep 25, 2015 -> 11:17 AM) If you trade your above average players that are locked up to team-friendly, sub-market, pre-free agency extensions, you will ALWAYS be rebuilding. :notworthy

There's a near-zero chance that I'd ever vote for somebody who has never held public office to be President. I think being the CEO of a large business is an especially rotten preparation for knowing how to govern if you haven't been on the other side.

lol, I am very disturbed by the fact that Greg has found Infowars

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 22, 2015 -> 04:05 PM) I want the media looking into the possibility the kid's family had him disassemble a clock (not make his own clock), put it in a box with wires sticking out, pretend it's his own invention, act like a little jerk when questioned about it, now trying to raise money for himself over his 'mistreatment,' have the kid admit to a Dallas reporter he 'didn't want it to look like a bomb.' Why would a kid excited about his making of a clock even think about it being a bomb if he was merely excited about building a clock? I applaud Bill Maher and his panel for questioning this! Kudos to Mark Cuban as well! Please buy the White sox Mr. Cuban! Another article on the likely hoax http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/09/21/judg...purposeful-hoax If it's so easy to disassemble things and put them back together, I challenge you to disassemble and reassemble your computer. We will wait for your posts

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 21, 2015 -> 06:35 PM) It was kind of weird watching us switch to the spread with Claussen, when we started out with 2 TE set with Cutler. I'm guessing it had to do with which parts of the playbook Clausen had reps using

For the record, I live in Ohio and very much dislike Kasich. I've seen his corrupt little jobs-building programs and his pouring of funds into backer-owned voucher schools that consistently rank among the worst in the state. I also saw him refuse to debate his opponent in the last election and act like a big baby when he had to be interviewed in that candidate's presence because he didn't think the other candidate should exist. But, you know, there are worse guys on the ticket and while I don't like how corrupt and immature he can be, his firm policy positions tend to shade moderate. If someone would promise that Lindsey Graham couldn't control the military, I'd probably vote for him in a Republican primary

Kasich–he's basically George Bush, I know what to expect. Jeb Bush–he's basically a slightly more moderate George Bush, I know what to expect. Donald Trump–he's probably the most liberal in the field on issues he'd have a snowball's chance of effecting. In the worst case, he helps lead my party to an upswing in the mid-term. Rubio–I have a hunch that he might be a reasonable person deep down inside. Lindsey Graham–he'd by my top choice if it weren't for the POTUS's ability to more or less singlehandedly decide to wage war. Outside of his Muslim paranoia, he's the most reasonable and moderate of the rest of the field and is someone who I know knows how to make legislation happen in Congress.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 20, 2015 -> 09:36 PM) Don't count "losing" based on polls 4 months before the first vote is cast. Here's October 2007: Howard Dean was leading in Iowa at this point in 2003. While I'm at it, 9iu11ani would eventually spend about $50 million to win 2 delegates. And that doesn't even mention the roller coaster ride of the Republican 2012 race. I think we're almost to the 4th year anniversary of the Herman Cain boomlet. I didn't say that she has lost them, but there is good reason to believe that if those states held elections today, she'd lose. Chances are she isn't intentionally allowing this to happen just because she knows the race is a ways away. Considering Sanders's issues with name recognition, time could arguably be Hillary's enemy. Of course, you might say that she'll ramp up the contrast advertising and rhetoric nearer to the race; that might be right and that might work. The presence and non-presence of Biden in the race is pretty meaningful as well.

Dayan wasn't a miserable MLB player, he just wasn't good enough to make plans to start him. The fact that he can't play good defense was both his downfall as a starter and the reason he's in the minor leagues. If he wasn't a bottom-tier OF and more of just a DH, he'd get a chance because even his offensive disappointments weren't horrible in terms of overall production. But you can't give too many chances to a guy who has to hit way above average just to cover his poor defense. I'd call him up if I needed him, but I wouldn't ever enter a season trying to a find a place for him.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 20, 2015 -> 03:40 PM) For a person who is "entitled" to the spot, she's sure been working hard at earning it. A number of writers have been impressed at her campaign organization, she's taking the "Obama" route of getting strong campaigns established in Iowa, NH, and in as many states as possible and ignoring the stupid daily talking points in favor of fundraising, policy proposal release, and organization building. I was particularly intrigued by her proposals on controlling college costs by tying the availability of federal education funding to the performance of graduates and ability of individual colleges to limit cost increases that came out a few weeks ago. Must be demoralizing to her that she's still losing in those states. Of course, her vast resources are clearly paying off elsewhere. I do wonder if she has the ability to people truly excited for her candidacy a la Obama, Sanders, etc. Of course, there is no prerequisite that says your average supporter must be incredibly enthusiastic since most presidents win without that type of support.