Balta1701

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 01:46 PM) Paxson: No Gordon deal If that was KW, I would interpret the article to mean "3 days from now the deal will be complete." I don't know about Pax yet.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 01:46 PM) I actually agree with the fact that some fringe eco-groups are blocking GM crops and some developments like that for no good reason. Yeah there are some groups blocking GM crops, but I wouldn't in all cases say there's "no good reason." One of the big concerns about GM crops in general is that even if you have a perfectly designed GM crop, you've inserted genes into it which are out of equilibrium with the natural system. Given how easily plants can cross-breed, or how many different varieties of animals might eat them or transport them, it's entirely possible that at some point there will be some very severe downsides to GM crops. I'm not opposed to the development or use of GM crops, but I think that we should be very careful in how we introduce them to the environment. All it takes is 1 little mistake to develop somewhere along the line and we could find tens of thousands of acres of land overrun by some sort of weed that picked up a GM gene and suddenly becomes incredibly hearty and pernicious or resistant to a predator that used to keep it under control.

He has at least some interesting thought lines, but I don't think he's taken them to their full extremes. For example, he cites one possible benefit of global warming being more arable land for trees. Well, that is one possibility, but on the other hand, you can also enlarge deserts with global warming, thus removing arable land by cutting off the rain supply. Or you can shift weather patterns to the point that the areas getting moisture are impractical places for growing. Or for that matter, you can make several arable areas significantly colder, to the point that it has a large negative impact on the land. I think he's fallen into the classic trap of "global warming", which I think is just thinking that the whole world gradually warms up, and ignoring all of the little variations it can produce, like significant cooling in some areas, large shifts int he climate patterns of others, etc. For that reason, I still prefer the term "Climate change", since it is probably more accurate.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 01:19 PM) I wonder how things will change after the Abramoff scandal and what role lobbyists will play in Washington. Seems like the environment was very low on the lobbying depth chart. The environment is almost always going to be low on the lobbying chart, because there's very little profit in it. For example, what would you expect to be more profitable, the coal industry or the people who want to cut down on air pollution from coal? The mining industry or people cleaning up abandoned mines? etc. Nothing would make me happier than to see the lobbying environment overhauled in D.C., but given how it's developed in such a way as to keep the people beholden to it in power and remove those who aren't excessively beholden to lobbyists from power, even the Abramoff scandal probably won't be enough to shake it, even if it takes down 60 congressmen like Jack said.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 01:01 PM) Um, it would be The Hitler Youth (I can see why you're not able to think of that. . .). And it was pretty much compulsary (I'll save you looking that up: it means required). I believe that the Pope also left the HY about as soon as he could, even while the war was still on, in order to do church work, if my memory serves.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 12:39 PM) Did we forget that the ABA said he was well qualified? Oh, they are part of the Bush cabal, I forgot. Does anyone actually know what standards the ABA uses to judge a candidate as well-qualified? I honestly don't, and without that, for all I know is that means he passed the bar exam.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 12:41 PM) What is his view on abortion??? The phrase he used, which Alito refused to endorse, was that Roe v. Wade was "Settled law".

Also from the Church thread... QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 12:15 PM) Who's this Satan person? Does he exist? QUOTE(zach61 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 12:18 PM) I believe he is #81 for the NY Islanders. Yes, he does exist.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 12:26 PM) The Twins are probably a year away from having a rotation as good as the White Sox, and their bullpen will almost always have live arms in it. Rebuilding would be dumb. Retooling would be smart. The question with the Twins is probably going to be the same for the next few years...do they try to stay close every year and hope their pitching gets hot enough and people stay healthy enough for them to make a run @ the end, or do they at some point trade some of their young pitchers for 1-2 big bats to really make a run for the title? Right now, they're sort of hanging inbetween, which I don't think is smart. Case in point Torii Hunter...if they want to just hang around and hope it all comes together, he should be traded before he becomes a FA, because they won't be able to afford to sign him. On the other hand, if they were willing to trade away some young pieces, they could try to make 1 last run this year while they still have him. Hanging inbetween ends up just giving you draft picks.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 11:10 AM) *ding ding ding* winner!! You could see this coming the moment Levy was brought into the fold. I thought that too, even though I'm not sure I like it. Penn state, eat your heart out.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 10:27 AM) Your post also got me thinking about this. Are you telling me that you agree with every blank of every canditate that you vote for? Or are you telling me that you should agree with everything that a canditate saids, if you are going to vote for them? I am also curious as to what you disagree with your party and canditates on as I don't think I have ever seen you actually say something like that? Of course I don't agree with everything either a candidate or a party says or does. Best example I could give is that I actually agree with you on the budget-deficit issue, and for example I thought that the Medicare drug bill the Democrats wrote was basically worse than the one the Republicans passed. The question I think you have to consider overall is...how important is each issue to you? If I genuinely felt I had a candidate who would advocate a balanced budget, barring him being like a neo-Nazi or something like that, he or she would probably wind up getting my vote, simply because I think the idea of paying interest on debt to cover normal expenditures (and not recovering from a disaster like Katrina or launching a large infrastructure building program) is ludicrous. But like you, I don't see any candidate out there willing to do that. The best alternative I could give in that case would be the split-Congress solution, where each party controls 1 house, and each side has a chance to genuinely knock out the stupid handouts that the other side tries to write in. Actually, when I was in the Dean camp before his meltdown in the primaries, I had 2 main reasons for being in his camp...#1 was Iraq, obviously, but #2 was his skills with Vermont's budget...Vt is the only state in the union not required to find a way to balance its budget every year, and it was badly out of balance when Dean took over that state, but he actually moved the budget back into balance and set aside reserves so that when the economy tanked in 00-01, Vt was able to weather the storm quite readily. After that, well, then it came down to choosing between 2 people I wasn't thrilled with at all, but considering how I view Bush's performance, it wasn't really a contest. If it makes you feel better, just to prove I can be bi-partisan, I did vote for Lugar in 00 when I was still living in Indiana, and I'd probably do that again in 06 unless the Dems ran someone dynamite against him.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 10:04 AM) Very in agreement with. Read through the GOP thread if you don't believe me. But see, here's the problem....Conservatives can sit there and say "yeah we agree the deficit is too high", but if you're not willing to do anything about it, what does it matter what you agree about? The Republican Congress has added handout after handout after handout to bills to benefit either their contributors or to try to help their re-election chances in the past few years. See, for example, the explosion of Pork, or the fact that they're cutting taxes at 5-10x the rate they're cutting other programs, or the Medicare drug company bailout bill. Has this triggered a mass defection from the party? No. Has this triggered a significant number of primary challengers for the people who are writing these bills? Maybe one or two, but certainly nothing organized. Has this triggered a decrease in support for Tax cuts until we can reduce the deficit? No. Aside from "agreement", what has it done? You can sit around all day and say "yeah we agree the deficit is too high", but when you say that and still vote and campaign for the exact people who made the deficit too high, then the agreement doesn't really do anything.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 10:06 AM) Wait we are expected to believe Bill Clinton at his word now? Yeah, I think I will pass and wait for him to be proven or disproven. George Tenet did testify to that same thing under oath before Congress already, so Clinton's statement just goes along with that. Can I say that same thing every time Mr. Bush says something?

By the way, because it looks like Maggette's foot injury is significantly worse than was advertised, it looks like the Artest/Maggette deal we mentionned yesterday is dead in the water.

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 09:19 AM) Not sure why the Celtics would want anything to do with Tim Thomas Expiring Contract?

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 04:48 AM) Wite, if Drew Bledsoe was the QB of the Bills in 2005, do you think Mularkey would still have a job today? He probably wouldn't, but going with Losman who was totally unproven was the straw that broke the camel's back I guess. A guy like Rivera probably makes sense here. Drew Bledsoe would have done horrible as QB of the Bills in 2005. Buffalo gave up 43 sacks last year with 2 quarterbacks, one who is significantly more mobile than Bledsoe and one who is somewhat more mobile than Bledsoe. Dallas gave up 50 sacks, and I think they have a better O-Line than the Bills by quite a bit. Bledsoe would have spent half the game on the ground if he was still in Buffalo, just like he did the year before. Going with Losman was the right decision. Quarterbacks take time to develop, and when you first put them into a game, they're going to struggle. Some more than others. That team had a decent shot to do what the Bears did last year, but their defense fell apart, which was the real problem. They went from being one of the top defenses in the league to one of the worst defenses in the league in 1 year.

Link

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 03:27 AM) More here Eventually someone else will pay our bills Bush's legacy will be over a trillion dollars in additional debt. And this is from the fiscally conservative party? :headshake :puke Bush has already compiled well over $2 trillion in debt. At the end of 2000, the debt was something like $5.7 trillion, and it currently stands at $8.1 trillion. Bush's legacy will more likely be something like $3-$4 trillion in additional debt, not 1 trillion. Source.

QUOTE(False Alarm @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 08:16 AM) kenny's a shark. The more time goes by, the more I'm starting to agree with you...a couple years ago, people were underpaying for pitching, speed, and defense. KW built his team on that. Now, people are overpaying for pitching and for prospects, and KW is trading away pitching and prospects to get better bats. He just keeps seeming to move ahead of the trends in order to find value. Right now, no team wants to trade prospects because they "Could" develop into something (take a look at the Angels or Dodgers for Example). KW is trading prospects when the value of prospects is very high, and he's using that to build his team.

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 05:32 PM) Mrs. Alito's exit in tears guarantees her husband's confirmation...without a filibuster, and without a whole lot of acrimony. Interestingly enough, the press accounts of her leaving don't refer to her as "Mrs Alito", they refer to her as Martha-Ann Bomgardner.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 04:53 PM) Some team should be drooling who needs an OC. As long as Mularkey's family situation, whatever it may be, allows him to coach again, he will be a hell of an OC like he was in Pittsburgh. That was the most fun I have had watching NFL games, was when he was our OC, never knew what crazy play was next. I'm finding it very odd that the Bills' last 3 coaches were all very good coordinators, and at least the last 2 have gone on to be very good coordinators somewhere else after being fired.

1 year, $2.1 million for Millar, in case you wanted to know numbers. Another $500k possible with performance bonii.

QUOTE(Spiff @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 02:58 PM) And he won't be rusty this weekend when he plays for the first time in...3 weeks? His decision making isn't that great, I saw him force the ball in the red zone against Atlanta and give up a pick, then get lucky when Carpenter fumbled. Then he just threw up a wounded duck against the Packers that got plucked easily. I agree with you on that one...I thought it would have been a good idea to give him at least a quarter against the Vikings to try to keep building a rhythm. I think the key to Grossman isn't Grossman himself, it's knocking a Safety or two farther away from the like to guard against the threat of a deep ball. If all you do is push back the safeties, and maybe get the linebackers thinking pass every so often, it'll massively increase the holes for Jones et al. Grossman can do that. This team isn't going to beat anyone on offense, but the Ravens and Bucs didn't beat anyone on offense the years they won the super bowl either.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 02:52 PM) I thought we cut income taxes, not corporate taxes. That was the 2nd round of Bush tax cuts, and probably some of the 3rd and 4th also...that was the one a few months after 9/11 where the tax package gave something like $100 million to Enron after they were already bankrupt, etc.

After losing the site repeatedly during the playoffs last year...if we can fix it, I'd be in favor of it. Is there any way to move some of the long-running threads and keep them active? Like the General thread's in AJ's bar?