NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 04:04 PM) And it might never have happened had Bush not ignored the attack on the Cole or Richard Clarke's requests for a principals-level meeting on Al Qaeda in 2001 either. There's plenty o' blame to go around. Should Clinton have done more? In hindsight, absolutely. Should Bush? In hindsight, absolutely. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 04:12 PM) You mean Wednesday, or is there something I missed? It's Tuesday for season ticket holders (like me). Wednesday for whitesox.com folks. 17th to the Public.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 04:04 PM) This commission was a f***ing joke. True that. Lots more heads should have rolled, including some in the executive branch.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 04:01 PM) Bush bashers seem to forget that 9/11 might never have happened if Clinton had a set of balls. Apparently, the only time he used his balls was with White House interns. Why is it that every GOPer on this board seems to think that if you bash Bush, you must have loved Clinton? I think Bush is a pretty lousy President. I think Clinton was a little better, but I'm no fan of his either. I'd love to see just one heavily-posted thread on this board that didn't involve a "Bush Sucks" post followed by a "Clinton Sucks" post (or vice versa).

I was dragged kicking and screaming through cursive writing in elementery school, because I thought it was incredibly stupid. Having two kinds of writing seemed pretty damn useless to me. Waste of time. It was always the one thing I got low marks on. So what do I think now? Same thing. Waste of time that was. Haven't used it since. The only thing cursive I've written since 3rd grade is my signature.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 02:11 PM) Carter was perhaps the most well-meaning man to have been President; didn't make him a good President, though. I'll see your Andrew Johnson and raise you James Buchanan, NNS72! Buchanan was not nearly as hateful as Johnson, who wanted to make it official US policy (no joke) to exterminate all the Indians and send all the "negroes" (term at time) back to Africa. Plus Johnson was impeached, because of any number of crooked scams he ran out of his office. I'll stick with Johnson.

QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 02:32 PM) They're the opposing party. While Bush 41 was not a very good politician, he does not deserve to be on a list of worst presidents by any means. Agreed. I think Bush 41 was not too bad, and certainly doesn't belong on any "worst" lists. Better than his son so far, I believe.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 01:41 PM) It would depend on how it got to 9%. If it got there because it was at 15% but then the labor market had "Shrunk" due to the survey excluding people, it'd be pretty darn irrelevant. Here's the thing to put this in perspective. Due to population growth, immigration, etc., this nation adds roughly 100,000-150,000 people to its work force every month. About a million or two a year depending on the year. Yet the size of the work force has declined dramatically over the past 10 years. These 2 metrics simply do not match. I do have a question - I don't see a classification in the unemployment numbers released specifically for retirees. Is that segregated out? I'd be curious to see that number, and see if that has materially increased over the years.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 01:34 PM) Common sense will tell you that the number not in the labor force will continue to rise, and probably at a faster rate as the baby boomers grow older, have more health problems and reach retirement age. As for the unemployement percentage being irrelevent, if it was 9% would that still be considered irrelevent? It's relevant - its a telling measure. But it only tells a small part of the story. You have to take in the whole picture, and unemployment (the published number) is only a fraction of it. For me, the number shows trends. When used that way, it can be a leading indicator. I think there is strong evidence that if an economy is growing in jobs at a healthy rate, you get an arc effect: unemployment starts by dipping as people get jobs, goes back up again as more people return to the workforce because of the new jobs, and then (if the economy can sustain the growth), if goes down a second time, and its more accurate the second time around. I think we are about to see the spike. If the economy can stay strong, we'll return to a downtrend in that number later in the year or next year. I can't find links for the books (those authors never want to publish to the net), but I've read this perspective in more than one semi-recently published text.

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 01:01 PM) Did anyone here by tickets for spring training games?? I bought some Jan 18th and still haven't receiverd them. Just wondering if thats the norm. I got mine earlier this week.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 12:54 PM) Cutting the rate of increase in the budget is being called massive budgetary cuts in the press, when in fact the real $ amount of the budgets for all of the sectors is going up, just not by as much. So I figured if the rate of increase in unemployment filings has been cut, that must mean that there has massive increases in hiring... yeah for wordplay! OK, now I see what you were getting at. And I actually agree, I think there is definitely good new jobs growth. But I still maintain the unemployment number is highly misleading, as it is really only a leading indicator at best of real employment levels. See Balta's threads - I pretty much agree with him on that subject.

QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 11:34 AM) Say it loud, brother! Again, WTF are you two talking about? What budget cuts, and what does that have to do with my statement?

QUOTE(G&T @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 12:09 PM) Unfortunately my understanding of economics is essentially nill. My question is what sectors are these jobs in? Are these all manufacturing or government or what? It's great that people have jobs but are incomes generally higher or lower? There is some debate on those questions, particularly the last one. Different economists have different views. Many of them say the unemployment number is pretty irrelevant, and doesn't measure much accurately. I happen to agree with that (though I am certainly no expert, I just agree with their points). With jobs being created as they are, I'd suggest that you will see the unemployment number actually go up again soon, as more people enter the worforce (remember, the unemployment number only includes those "actively seeking" employment). Other economics folks agree with this, some don't.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 10:53 AM) But that qualifies as massive cuts in the budget... What does budget have to do with anything? Did I miss something?

QUOTE(kevin57 @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 09:59 AM) They may not sell out, especially if they wind up having another I agree. I predict that unless they are in contention for a playoff spot well into September, the Cubs will have a number of games late in the season not sell out. I can't say they'll necessarily draw less, because the extra capacity will give them a bump for the big games. But I'd bet there will be fewer season ticket holders this year, and their attendence percentage in August and September will be much less than last year (again, unless they are in contention). Even Cubs fans has a breaking point. I know quite a few that are embarrassed by their team's management in recent years.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 10:40 AM) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...idHyI8&refer=us Can we be a little more forthright in the thread title? They didn't fall - they rose. They just rose less than expected.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 9, 2006 -> 09:31 AM) Time for a real head-scratcher: Now, is it just me, or is there something really wrong about allowing DeLay to sit on the committee investigating Abramoff if, by definition, that means Delay is also supposedly being tengenitally investigated??? I'd post this as a thread outside the Dem only thread, but frankly I've become convinced that nobody on the other side of the fence even cares when such blatant abuse of authority is revealed any more. Wow. 1. That's pretty ridiculous. This brings conflict of interest to a whole new level. 2. I'm starting to think that the GOP is becoming less and less well-managed. I mean, this was an idiotic idea, politically speaking. It has press nightmare written all over it. The Prez Admin was so good at keeping the GOP running like a well-oiled machine during Bush's first term and his re-election, but since then the Congressional GOP is looking about as inept as the Dems, in terms of keeping the ship right.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 10:15 PM) What was the "real" reason then? Oil? I dont think so. No, oil was probably around #4 on the list. Not a primary driver. Come on Nuke, you know the reasons as well as I do 1. Gain an anchorhead in the Middle East for the spread of democracy 2. Bring the war on terror to a neutral site, instead of all over the globe 3. Gain a military rampart in the Middle East 4. Oil

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 08:18 PM) One thing that just blows my mind here is the fact that Jimmy Carter, of all people, was taking cheap shots at Bush. Who the f*** is Mr. Malaise to talk about anybody? He is THE WORST President who ever took up residence in the White House. Go work on the drywall at one of those houses you like to build and leave being President to someone who actually knows how. f*** you Carter! Carter was pretty bad. But I'd contend that neither Carter nor Bush were the worst. Andrew Johnson takes that cake by a landslide. Bush, however, has now surpassed Carter in my mind as the worst in my lifetime.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 08:58 PM) Or anyone else who opposed the war. I take issue with this. I was opposed to the war, and it had nothing to do with any thought that Saddam was anything other than a maniac. I was against the war because he was a militarily impotent maniac, making him no more dangerous than any one of a few dozen other dictators out there. There were much larger dangers out there that deserved our attention. And WMD's were quite obviously not the real reason for the war. People who didn't see that were duped.

Image

QUOTE(Balance @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 04:36 PM) A-frickin'-men! Too many people in my neighborhood just throw their trash on the street, never mind that there are plenty of garbage cans within a block's walk. Is it so hard to carry your potato chip bag that far? I could go on, but I need to keep my stress level down. In general, I think cops don't go after things like littering because there are more important things to do. This is certainly true, but they aren't doing those things either a lot of the time. Its also true that doing little things like ticketing litterbugs and getting out of the cars to actually talk with people go a LONG way towards making communities safer, and more likely to help out the police on more serious crimes. But they have to market those efforts, too. Have the chief or superintendant or whomever get on TV and say, "listen - we are tired of the trash on the streets. Our beat cops are going to hand out tickets for littering like they were coupons for the local grocery, and its starting right now." And then do it. Guaranteed, littering will be lessened (not entirely prevented, of course). The ultimate fix, of course, is for parents to teach their kids to value their communities, their neighbors and their environment enough to not do that. But that's a pipe dream, I suppose.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 03:31 PM) Or he could be another Deepthroat. Maybe Ahmed Chalabi WAS Deepthroat.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 03:21 PM) And that's why I prefaced the source for what it was worth... It is interesting that an Iraqi general is now saying this, and that we could have the evidence under our nose, and not have translated it yet. With the gaps in our intelligence, it wouldn't surprise me if again we had all of the information and just didn't know it. It was one thing when right-wing blogs were speculating about this. I never really paid them much attention because of the source... Now the source is someone who would have been on the inside, the only question is whether he is trustworthy or not. This guy could also be another Chalabi.

QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 8, 2006 -> 03:04 PM) Here they come. http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/nati...-tax050208.html I'm all for doing more to stop littering, but this is not the solution. The restaurant isn't the problem - the lazy asses who litter are. Want revenue for clean-up? Tell the cops to ticket for littering when they see it. And tell the press you intend to do that. The combined effects should help.