Balta1701

Yeah, just like when that Barmes guy got hurt falling down the stairs & lost the ROY award because of it. Isn't it amazing how people who are under contracts requiring them to not do stupid things wind up with the wierdest sorts of injuries? Almost mind blowing, in fact.

Every few months it seems one of these cases comes along, and no one ever does anything about it to change policy. There has been an airline passengers' bill of rights hanging around as an idea for a while, but the airline industry lobbyists have enough money to prevent it from passing. Eventually one of these messes will be enough to accomplish that.

Want to play better "Small Ball"? Get an acutal speed guy at the top of the lineup who can stay healthy, steal at a >75% clip, and get on base. The guy we have there hasn't done any of those in a year and a half.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 09:50 AM) It was frivolous, even reading those blogs, the people are retarded. If you make hot soup in your microwave, you spill it on yourself placing it on your lap, do you sue the microwave company? can you sue yourself? If something is served hot, most likely it will be hot. If someone else buys a gun and shoots you with it, do you want them sued or going to jail, or do you laugh it off and say "oh, if I bought a gun and shot myself I can't just sue myself"? Anyway, that's my last comment on this matter, I'll stop sidetracking this thread from this point.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 09:48 AM) I dont agree with this at all. They have a young core, their window will be open for several seasons, especially with the emergence of Deng as a future star. Trading for right now is not a great idea. Scary thing is, you're both right. The Bulls' window for being able to compete for an NBA title probably starts this season, but depending on how the draft goes this year, injuries, and the continuing development of TT, Lu, BG7, Noc, Thabs, and other guys whose name I can't shorten as much, the Bulls have a window that could last well over 5 seasons here where they could be one of the top teams in the NBA. On the other hand, Jimbo is also right in that the Bulls' window for making a trade probably closes at the trade deadline, because the trade deadline is the last day that we can turn one of our biggest tradeable assets into something useful; PJ Brown's expiring contract. Barring another major move, this may be the last time when the Bulls have a veteran player with an expiring contract that they can trade to a team wanting cap relief until Wallace's contract ends. QUOTE(Jimbo @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 09:49 AM) I figure the core is Kirk, Gordon and Deng. This leaves us with an aging Wallace after next year and no Center. Please explain?? Couple possible things worth noting. First, even with the cap situation, I believe the Bulls should have the veterans exemption available to them each of the next few years, which should give them roughly $5 million or so to play with in the Free Agent market, which is at least worth something and can be used to fill holes with non-superstar players. Secondly, double-T. I know he's not there yet, but we have a 20 year old kid who's 6'10" with some mad athletic skills, especially on the defensive end. With every other kid we've seen on the Skiles development plan since he took over as coach, we've seen significant improvement every year. Barring injury or trades, I think TT is going to be a dynamite player within a few years, and shoudl be much more impressive, especially on the offensive end, after another summer of work. And then that doesn't even mention that we'll probably have a pick in the top 10-11 slots in a draft very deep with big men this year, which can again help us fill that hole.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 09:42 AM) They will if its judged by the same people who ruled in favor of the dumbass who burnt herself with hot coffee God I hate it so much when people cite that case as if it was a frivolous lawsuit. Please, take some time and actually learn about the merits of that case. 3rd degree burns. 700 other burn cases before a lawsuit finally was triggered, including burns which caused permanent disability.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Feb 13, 2007 -> 05:13 PM) EDIT: Also look at Toronto. They were TERRIBLE last season. Now with Colangelo in as GM and the new fast break offense, they've actually been one of the best teams in the league over the past 20-25 games. An awful lot of that though is the coming-of-age of Chris Bosh. 23.2 ppg, 10.7 rpg, both up significantly over last season in a couple fewer minutes per game, fouls per game down by 1/3, etc.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Feb 13, 2007 -> 10:23 PM) As the story goes: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...-home-headlines Uribe IS in shape. I hope so! I'll believe it when I see it. He looked like he had packed on a few more pounds the last time we saw a picture of him walking out of court a month ago.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 13, 2007 -> 05:14 PM) You are completely wrong here. They weren't processing it because they were buying it from AQ Kahn and Pakistan. They still had a nuclear program going on underground. There was no interuption of their program. No, I'm afraid you're the one who is simply completely wrong. The Pakistani nuclear program focused almost entirely on Uranium production, because in the 1970's foreign powers began restricting sales of equipment to Pakistan that could be used in plutonium production. Pakistan was virtually unable to produce enriched plutonium before the turn of the century. On the other hand, the devices that AQ Khan built for the Pakistanis, which were tested successfully in 1998, were Uranium 235 fission devices, not plutonium devices. Khan developed the program and the technology that would export his uranium enrichment experience. North Korea was consequently only able to deal with the Khan network on Uranium enrichment, because that was all that Khan had to offer. Plutonium enrichment is a totally different story, and North Korea had been working on that path for decades prior to the framework of 1994. It is in part because of the fact that Khan's network only had uranium enrichment technology to sell that the Iranian program is based largely on uranium enrichment. However, uranium enrichment is simply not an easy process. Even with what the Koreans were able to purchase from the Khan network, they were well behind even Iran in terms of being able to enrich uranium. On the other hand, North Korea probably already had enough fissile plutonium for 1 low yield bomb in 1994, and they had the fuel rods and expertise sitting around that could allow them to produce 5-10 more of them, possibly more. Without the Agreed Framework, those all would have been processed into bombs by 1996-1997. Because of the Agreed framework, the material was placed under U.N. Seal and monitored until the North Koreans removed the monitoring equipment and reprocessed the material while we were invading Iraq. I never said there was no nuclear program at all in North Korea. They did manage to have dealings with the Khan network in the 90's. However, they were ungodly far behind even where Iran was in terms of uranium enrichment, but they were standing on the doorway of a plutonium bomb when the 94 accord was reached. Roughly 9-10 years of delay were created by having that material under U.N. lock and key, and if we had managed to keep it under lock and key, North Korea would today still be decades away from successful completion of a bomb through uranium enrichment.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 13, 2007 -> 12:47 PM) Their program has never been interputed, even when we had "agreements". The only difference is it has been more "public" at times vs other times when they hid it better to keep receiving their bribes. This agreement will be no different. Totally untrue. The material which made up the attempted test was under U.N. Seal from the time of the agreed framework until 2002. They may have been doing other things that were in violation, but the program which produced their testable device was totally interrupted for a number of years. They could have reprocessed those fuel rods years beforehand, probably giving them multiple nuclear weapons by 1996-1997 barring U.S. invasion and did not do so. That was a major interruption in the program.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 13, 2007 -> 12:48 PM) Why would you post that crap here? There would be a fit if I posted something like that from Rush Limbaugh, or the like, in the Dems thread. That one sure confused me too. Would have expected it to be posted in the Dems thread also. So I think there's bipartisan agreement about that post.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 13, 2007 -> 11:02 AM) The irony is that I don't think it will work any better than the 1994 agreement, and even if we had done the agreement 6 years ago, it wouldn't have worked then either. I imagine we will be at this point again in the future, because NKs economy is a shambles, and they will need to hold the world hostage for something again soon enough. Our best hope is for Il to somehow exit the picture, and the whole system just collapse. At least then someone could get some influence in the country while they are rebuilding it. If the whole system is going to collapse...i for one would have liked it to do so before they reprocessed all that plutonium, rather than after.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Feb 13, 2007 -> 09:28 AM) I'm gonna go with the Yankees just because I can't even remember the last time they didn't win that division. 1997

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 13, 2007 -> 11:50 AM) Whoa, I missed that one. The Yankees seriously collapse without Mo at the end of that pen. I'd bet both Toronto and Boston pass them if Rivera leaves. Mr. Automatic is really pissed at how the Yankees are dealing with Bernie Williams.

How did his ass look?

Transcript.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Feb 13, 2007 -> 09:02 AM) Maybe someone like a Jim Mora, Jr.? Probably too young. Golic was saying a possibility could be June Jones. He and the Chargers owner have a good relationship, his def. coordinator is Jerry Glanville, who runs the 3-4 and June is an offensive minded coach. Might not be a bad fit. JMJr. already has himself a job with the Seahawks where he's probably set up as the heir apparent to Mike Holmgren. I have to figure there was some sort of nudge nudge "don't interview with other people" sort of deal set up there when he signed it.

QUOTE(SoxFan562004 @ Feb 13, 2007 -> 08:58 AM) there's only a handful of teams that could/will ink this guy. 1. NYY 2. NYM 3. Bos 4. LAD 5. LAA 6. Cubs 7. Poss Tex?? not any specific order. I can't imagine Cubs letting him walk, Hendry/Tribune will have to pay up. I think there are a lot more teams than that which could, if they want to. Not every General Manager seems to be all that intelligent in how they spend their money, and at the rate revenues are increasing, there are lots fo names to add to that list...just would depend on whether Z wanted to play somewhere. As long as they're not in that lower 1/4 of payroll, I'd at least say it was possible, depending on how dumb their GM is (i.e. don't expect KW or Beane to be in that sort of deal)

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 12, 2007 -> 09:07 PM) uhh, why? It's certainly by no means guaranteed, but it's also not out of the question that Verlander should be a topic of some worry for the Liger ship. Before 2006, the most innings he had ever thrown in a season was 130. Last season, counting the playoffs, he went up to 207.2 innings. Those kind of jumps in innings sometimes can be really, really risky for a young arm, especially one that throws as hard as Verlander.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Feb 12, 2007 -> 06:06 PM) I thought they said they were going to keep him? Just a few weeks ago. That makes an entire coaching staff they'll have to replace, if true.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 12, 2007 -> 02:44 PM) I was about to write, I agree, changing to get elected is wrong. But I'm wondering, If they stay consistent with that new view, is it wrong? If they say, as President I will do this, even if it is opposite what they did as a Governor, Senator, etc. is that so bad? You are getting what you voted for and isn't that what we should expect? Now if they change back after the election, I'd be at the front of the impeachment line. But if they tell be they are Pro-X, even after voting Anti-X, and stay Pro-X as promised, I'm not certain I'm that upset. So, if for example, a governor from some random large southern state were to declare during the Presidential campaign that he was in favor of regulating CO2 emissions from power plants, quite directly and specifically, even going so far as to put out specific proposals for the policy and having his underlings refer to it, despite having taken no steps at all to regulate virtually anything while he was governor, and then 2 months after taking office flip-flops and declares that he is not in favor of regulating CO2 emissions from power plants, wouldn't that satisfy your criteria exactly? (Yeah i know I belongs on the other side. I just couldn't resist on this one.)

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Feb 10, 2007 -> 03:12 PM) Eagle Scout, class of 2003. /awaits recognition Well, fine, if we're all bragging, I think i was sometime around '97.

Here we go again.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 10, 2007 -> 05:29 PM) As long as it's let's do better, not "we can waste as much as you". I can't wait for the public to say, you're both wrong; instead of what my side did was wrong, but you did it first. Well, stop and think for a moment...what's the one question that in the media's zeal to make Pelosi look bad, no one seems to be asking? The Sgt. at Arms requests a non-civilian plane that can make the non-stop trip from Washington to San Fran for security reasons...don't exactly want the #3 in the line of succession to become an easy target because a plane needs to refuel. The problem is, the only plane the DOD has which can do that job is a monster plane with fold-out beds, etc. And the DOD has 4 of them. So here's the questions I think no one is asking; why exactly does the DOD need 4 planes that cost $22,000/hour to operate, and why is that the only plane the DOD has available for government officials who need to cross the country on something other than air force one?

So, last year, in a period of about 6 months, I managed to drop about 30 lbs or so, which is a decent drop when you're not tipping the scales. A few of my successful items: 1. Eat more fruit. As far as I can tell, this has been the biggest change for me. About a year ago I flipped from having a v-8 and a nutri-grain bar for lunch to having an apple & a banana or some mixture of those sorts of fruits (whatever was on sale). I immediately began noticing that I was losing weight, without adding in any real extra activity or cutting out anything else. Just replaced some other items in my meal with fruit, and bang. 2. Eat less. Sounds simple enough, but it can take some getting used to. If you cut the size of meals you eat, or just don't entirely stuff yourself with each meal, or even just have an extra glass of water with each meal so your stomach fills up faster, you can make a big difference on how many calories you eat. Some degree of will power is useful also...yes, I get hungry when I have an apple at noon and have nothing but water before dinner, but tolerating the hour or two of hunger lets me cut down pretty dramatically on what i'm eating. 3. If you're going to have a snack, when shopping, try to pick out a slightly healthier version of whatever you're having. Try for something whole grain if you can find it. Sub in low-fat or low-calorie items. Or replace a snack or two with fruit. In fact, this works for many things...go from 2% to 1% or skim milk if you can take it, go from Rice Chex to multi-grain chex as a cereal, or whatever else you actually eat. 4. Up your fiber intake. Very, very few Americans get the 25-30 g of Fiber that the USDA reccommends per day. Keep a particular eye on this line when you're buying food, and if you can't get to that level, consider a supplement. 5. Go to China and get a horrible intestinal bug. I wouldn't reccomend trying this one...but if you're really desperate...