Jake

The only reason to do this would be the FO personally disliking ADA

Still waiting for TheoHoyer's stud prospects to turn into great major leaguers. Just would like to point out that Andrew Cashner had a .6 higher WAR than Rizzo last year. Of course, starting pitchers aren't what the Cubs need......

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2013 -> 12:17 PM) And you know what Duke? When people have to leave grad school and find low-paying jobs, or when people can't get an education because they can't get health care, or when people are locked into jobs they don't want becuase they have to keep health care coverage...these things are all bad for everyone. These things hurt the economy, deeply. People can't get the education they need. People can't get the kind of jobs they'd be capable of. People don't start small businesses. Duke has been one of the more open-minded about this issue, as he acknowledged that healthcare almost violates free market principles. You can't be a rational chooser when it's your life on the line. What's the price for that? Let's ask Friedrich Hayek, the most influential economic libertarian of all time:

QUOTE (scs787 @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 01:53 PM) Pinch hitter in Arizona...if that. He said the Sox are the only team for whom he would play part time

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 8, 2013 -> 02:59 PM) The whole use of the word "canceled" has been very questionable. My policy was "canceled" but I was offered a similar one for slightly more money, or a cheaper one with some less benefits. Either way, Blue Cross is still keeping me around. The word "canceled" makes it seem like those people are booted for good. In the past decade, only 17% of those buying insurance in the individual market stuck with the same plan for more than two years. Most of the time, this is because the companies were changing things every year. In the past 6-8 years, my premiums as a young, healthy man have well over doubled and my deductible has quadrupled. That indeed involved my plan getting canceled and them giving me a few options for continuing with the company. We never really knew what the other companies were offering. QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 8, 2013 -> 03:10 PM) Obama said everyone could keep their coverage and insurance will cost less. People are being dropped and their rates are increasing. Of course the Republicans will make political hay out of that. It's the obvious political move. Only the media can make people look at things this way. You could say that Obamacare forced cancellations and that this was a big fat lie. That's plausible. Merits discussion. However, the law doesn't force anything. It says those plans can be grandfathered in. On the other hand, they can only be grandfathered in if the prices aren't jacked up. The cancelled plans were cancelled because either 1. the company wanted to raise the prices significantly or 2. knew they could take advantage of this political moment to raise the prices. Why doesn't anyone ask why the companies are doing what they are doing? This is the problem with the way we think in this country. The unrestricted free market has become like a religion. We don't question the actions of a private company because we don't expect them to act in any way but their own interest. We hope that our families will act selflessly and for their collective good, but we are surrounded by immensely important institutions that will do nothing but serve themselves but nobody bats an eye. Why is the girl that wrote in the WSJ not furious at her insurance company? Why doesn't call out the private system on the whole?

It will be just like Romneycare, as I've posted about earlier. People will start getting notices that they will be fined if they don't sign up soon, and then the vast majority of signups will happen. Also, that "uninsured Americans" demographic includes people that are not eligible to buy through the exchange, such as those eligible for the Medicaid expansion.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Nov 8, 2013 -> 10:45 AM) So Google recently decided to make it so that you need a Google+ account to comment on YouTube. You'd think that this would make the YouTube comments section less s***ty and that a lot of people would welcome it and a lot probably do. But there's also a group of people who think Google's pushing Google+ down their throats (they kind of are, but so what?) and that this is the worst thing to ever happen to YouTube. It's like people don't understand that YouTube is owned by Google and that there is nothing wrong with Google requiring you to have a Google account to comment on it (comment, not view, mind you). This is like saying you shouldn't be able to use your Facebook account to use Instagram or you shouldn't be able to use your Twitter account to use Vine. These same people also act like Google shouldn't try to expand its social network site, but that's kind of Google's goal. They're a business after all. If you want to use their services, you need to give something in return. Google isn't a damn charity. I like it. I actually think Google+ is really cool, there just isn't really anyone I know using it. Places like ESPN have required Facebook for comments and it is far less s***ty now. It's still s***ty, but not nearly so bad.

Just prior to Citizens United, things were pretty good as far as money goes. My staffer friends still tell me it isn't as bad as you think. It is just too hard to actually take bribes. Your biggest donors are people that aren't trying to sway you -- you already feel the same way as them. They no longer can give politicians or their staffers a bunch of kickbacks or things anymore, either. There is something like a $20 limit on purchased meals even, which is semi-hilarious (try to find a decent lunch for that much in DC)

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2013 -> 01:11 PM) Pssh, trying to suppress the vote. Typical liberal. Like the one term president idea. Don't like increasing terms for legislators. Don't like the open primary and top 2 candidates advance idea. Give the other side a chance at least. And I really like #7. The rest, eh. No hard feelings one way or the other. I would eliminate state support for primaries. I don't like primary elections at all. It is one of the new-ish institutions that helps ensure that our representatives are far from the center of the public. Increasing the terms for legislators makes sense, because a huge problem with the House presently is the short terms. All they do is fundraise and campaign. Not only does this affect their motives, it is a tremendous drag on their time. This is why you have the truism that nobody reads the bills; who has the time? These guys and gals work 12-16 hour days doing a million different things. There is no time for reading longform documents. Term limits will make things terrible. The reason we have representatives is because we need people that become skilled at policymaking. If worthy people are re-elected often enough, they will become absolute experts on certain topics and generally become competent at legislating/governing. If you or I went to Congress, we'd spend the first 4-6 years just trying to figure s*** out. I have a lot of friends on the hill and all of the new Congresspeople don't know a damn thing. Just navigating the procedural matters is immensely time consuming. To have the breadth of expertise to have well-informed opinions on literally everything that gets voted on requires time. Or you can just go around and act like a crazy person and contribute nothing until you fizzle out, like Michele Bachmann or Ted Cruz. You'd have much more of the latter if you had term limits, because it would be the only way to communicate. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 7, 2013 -> 01:19 PM) I note that you didn't remove the Electoral College. I wouldn't agree to anything that retains the electoral college. It serves no good purpose. The Senate and gerrymandered districts are enough anti-democracy for me. Absolutely no good purpose is served by the electoral college. It just makes a few random places, independent of their merit as geographic locations, incredibly important while everyone else is ignored. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 7, 2013 -> 01:24 PM) I don't really see term limits being effective at fixing anything. That means that, instead of career politicians who are dedicating their lives to serving in elected office, we have people who are going to be there a max of a couple of terms and then they'll be back out in the private sector. In addition to what I said above about literally learning how to be a Congressperson, the private sector is very important here. If you don't like revolving doors, you'll hate term limits. You'll not only have people either going from lobbying positions to the Congress and vice versa, you'll have these people completely preoccupied with finding that kind of work during their short time in Congress. These people want to be involved in politics and they will do whatever they need to to find work if they can't even run for any more elections.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Nov 7, 2013 -> 07:49 PM) I'm really hoping they don't re-sign Deng, he seems to be getting worse every year. Even Boozer looks better so far. I used to be fine with him, he seems to be eroding from passable #3 option to offensive liability. I think they're fine with Rose, Noah, Butler and a Gibson/Mirotic duo at PF (I'm not even assuming Mirotic is a star, just an Ersan Ilyasova type). They need to find a SG/SF that can efficiently score in the high-teens at a minimum. I don't know where that guy comes from though unless they get lucky with the Charlotte pick (and it might be 5 years before that guy really makes an impact) . They don't really have the cap space to sign a stud even without Deng and Boozer and Klay Thompson isn't going to fall into their lap. I'm not writing them off, but I'm a bit more worried than I was a month ago. Also, not having a 4th big with the injury history that Noah and Boozer have borders on a criminal transgression.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 7, 2013 -> 04:53 PM) It's just not going to happen when there are programs like Duke, Kentucky (still top dog recruiter), Kansas etc all over the top players. Yeah, I mean, I don't expect that to happen. That's just what I think locking down an area would entail. We would have to have a 5-10 year run in which we were almost always a Top 10 squad to achieve that AND lure guys like Cliff on a yearly basis. Then we'd have a shot at it being a relatively permanent and not dependent on a particular coach or the success of the past season or two.

I just can't fathom why his BB:K rate would basically invert

Yeah, I'm not that worried. This team is really good. Whether it is going to be a top 2 kind of team is up to Derrick

To me, locking down Chicago means that the vast majority of players in Chicago will have Illinois near the top of their list and they will regularly get them...the best of them. The null hypothesis will be that a top recruit in Chicago will "probably" go to Illinois

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 7, 2013 -> 01:43 PM) They are a player the team will not want to pay who are still under team control but not contractually obligated to their remaining salary. Dan Hudson won't be non-tendered. He's far too valuable a commodity for the DBacks. Flowers could be, but there's not a lot of harm in bringing him back considering he's going to make close to the league minimum and is one of 2 "major league" catchers the White Sox have. The most likely candidate is probably Beckham, but in this day and age, there's not a lot of use in non-tendering players because someone will almost always give something for a player like that. Perhaps a marginal player in arbitration years who no long has an option that had a serious injury would be non-tendered to save money (Gavin Floyd if he qualified would fit this criteria). Other candidates are guys that really have no future in the organization that the team will no longer want to pay. This pertains very well to Brent Morel, but there are others as well. Hudson is in the exact same, albeit worse position that Gavin Floyd. He just had a second TJ surgery, later than Floyd did, and has been a decent pitcher for only a season and a half. I don't think that he will be non-tendered, but it would be no surprise because there doesn't seem to be a whole lot to be gained there.

Not a fan of term limits.

I knew I might miss out on the 19 points when I benched Danny Green tonight. I didn't expect to miss out on 4 blocks

We won't be right until Derrick starts acting like a point guard. He needs to make his teammates better. He doesn't do that. Hopefully this is just a side effect of him being so focused on finding his stroke. Getting our post players involved in the offense as they were last year will be a big help as well, but that requires Derrick to do his part as well.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 6, 2013 -> 08:36 PM) White quotient. Yes, it must be his grittiness we need

Why does Kirk Hinrich exist? How does it make sense that he's playing right now?

Not having Butler in the game and not coaching the offense is unconscionable.

Rose still not acting like a point guard, Pacers making everything. Not a good way to win

A foul against the Pacers? Must be a mistake

Gotta love stupid fouls likely ending the game

Dear Derrick Rose and company, Carlos Boozer isn't on the floor to play defense. Maybe he should touch the ball. Sincerely, Concerned fan