southsider2k5

Ordonez

My 1992 #23 Robin Ventura jersey, and proud of it!

KICK ASS, I wish I had been home to see it! Congrats Frank 400 YES!!!

Damn, CW. You beat me to that. There is a very good reason for that actually, while it is against the Geneva convention it is illegal to show pictures of POW's (which is what the outrage was over, not dead Americans), it is NOT illegal to show pics of dead combatants. bulls*** the definition of a soldier vs enemy combatant vs whatever is in this adminsitration emrely whatever it wants it to be from the lies that were told in a constitutionally mandated speech to the fluid and convenient redefinitions of whatever is the public relations need de jour, there is no moral or ethical or legal consistency going on here the neat little "it serves this administration's purposes today" distinctions are falliong on deaf ears in this country let alone the rest of the world Rumsfeld said it, it got published in the Chicago Tribune, and I haven't seen anyone argue with it.

Hey SI, This was in the Chi Trib today. This is a good sign. Microsoft Corp. flipped a switch amid the darkness of a jobless economic recovery Thursday. The beam of light--the software giant's plans to add 5,000 jobs--represents a nearly 9 percent increase in the Redmond, Wash.-based company's employment. More important, it's a sign of confidence from a leader in an industry that's spilled hundreds of thousands of workers onto the unemployment rolls since the tech-heavy Nasdaq collapsed three years ago and helped plunge the larger economy into recession. Increased hiring--the last step in any recovery--is what will lift the U.S. economy out of its slump, but businesses have been timid about taking the risk of adding workers. Microsoft's decision to add jobs despite slowing annual sales growth is one of the first such major moves. "Psychology can mean everything," said LaSalle Bank chief economist Carl Tannenbaum. Businesses "need to go from looking at investment in human resources as costs" to seeing them as long-term investments. Ironically, among the reasons Microsoft is staffing up is to sell more software that helps businesses cut costs and, in some cases, eliminate jobs. That's been part of the paradox in an economy where businesses continued to rack up productivity gains even during the recession of 2001. Businesses still are focused more on cost cutting than growth initiatives. "It's still a difficult climate [in which] to win business," said Michael Gorriaran, general manager of Microsoft's Midwest District, which includes Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Clients want technology that returns their cost of investment quickly--within three months to nine months, he added. Gorriaran expects only "incremental benefit" to the Midwest region from Microsoft's plans to add 5,000 jobs worldwide during the current fiscal year, which started in July. All but 1,000 of the 3,000 to 3,500 new jobs slated for the United States will be in the Puget Sound area, where most of Microsoft's research and development is based. Another 1,500 jobs will be added abroad, likely in sales, analysts said. The hiring announcement came at the company's daylong annual meeting with analysts, where Microsoft said it planned to boost research and development spending 8 percent, to as much as $6.9 billion, including the cost of equity compensation to employees. Microsoft's R&D spending increase puts the figure within its historic range when measured as a percentage of estimated sales, or about 20 percent--the same percentage as last year. The decision to ramp up R&D is likely to provide a dash of cheer to the high-tech sector. Since late 2000, tech companies have struggled with the devastating economic fallout caused by the bursting of the dot-com bubble, the drop-off in telecom investment and the slowdown that eventually widened to the U.S. economy as a whole. But because Microsoft's situation is unusual in a number of ways, it's far from clear whether the move holds implications for the broader economy. Not only is it tethered to the boom-and-bust technology sector, but Microsoft enjoys near-monopoly market share in a broad swatch of the market for operating software. As the Federal Reserve Board has tried to spark the economy through repeated interest rate cuts, consumers have responded by maintaining spending on everything from big-ticket appliances to little luxuries. Corporations, by contrast, have largely remained on the sidelines, cautiously refraining from expanding production capacity or upgrading equipment. And it is those large-scale capital expenditures, rather than the less-concentrated spending of consumers, that are considered key for a real upsurge. The nation's capital stock--the value of all equipment, factories, warehouses and stores--grew by $100 billion in the 12 months through the first quarter, or about 1 percent of gross domestic product--the slowest rate since before World War II, said economist Mark Zandi of Economy.com. The net value of all information technology equipment still is declining because businesses are not replacing old equipment quickly enough. "Businesses will start to invest [in equipment] again before they begin to hire in any significant way" because hiring adds fixed costs such as health-care benefits, Zandi said. Investment should accelerate by early next year in response to the recently enacted bonus depreciation allowance, which allows businesses to write off their equipment faster. Rob Enderle, analyst at Forrester Research, said Microsoft is smart to beginning hiring in advance of a recovery, when talent is cheaper. "One of the risks is having too few people when the market starts to come back," he said. "The only way to know what's going on in the market is to have more people out there." Zandi said Microsoft's hiring announcement may prove to be "one of those first baby steps by businesses toward growth." "There's a complete lack of confidence," he said, "almost a mirror image of three years ago" during the boom. "It takes one company in each industry to say, `It's time to step up and expand and grow and I'm going to take the risk,'" he said. "It's like a light switch going on.

Hey I already started one!

http://www.msnbc.com/news/940748.asp?0cv=CB20 Man is Bmr going to be bummed when he gets to Vegas

They do... we gotta win this one to get to ten!

Lets get Hawk shaved!!!!

That is as obvious as saying that Maggs is the best RFer in Chicago!

Carl Everett

YOU CAN PUT IT ON THE BOARD, f*** YES!

Bandwagonner

anyone who WORKS with money you dumbass motherf***er. bankers, economists, loan officers. reading, its a skill asshole Hey man, calm down, i´m studying to become a economist. And without them what would be your wealth. Hey from one who has been there, good luck. What is your focus? My focus is more microeconomics, rural economics, regional economics too. I like Macroeconomics also. I´m working on a paper that talk about profit optimization of water resources, by charging the use of water trying to eliminate the lost of water, here in Brazil. I did a lot of research in historical econ. Good stuff. That´s the worst part in my course of Economics. It´s good to read but i prefer read it like a normal book and not must book to prepare yourself for a test, do you understand? But i have already read a little bit of Marx and Adam Smith. You gotta read this books to be a Economist!. What you do 2k3? I actually work in the commodities markets in Chicago. I actually worked on the trading floor of the options exchange for 3 years, and now I work for a brokerage that trades futures. The last true bastion of supply and demand

anyone who WORKS with money you dumbass motherf***er. bankers, economists, loan officers. reading, its a skill asshole Hey man, calm down, i´m studying to become a economist. And without them what would be your wealth. Hey from one who has been there, good luck. What is your focus? My focus is more microeconomics, rural economics, regional economics too. I like Macroeconomics also. I´m working on a paper that talk about profit optimization of water resources, by charging the use of water trying to eliminate the lost of water, here in Brazil. I did a lot of research in historical econ. Good stuff.

anyone who WORKS with money you dumbass motherf***er. bankers, economists, loan officers. reading, its a skill asshole Hey man, calm down, i´m studying to become a economist. And without them what would be your wealth. Hey from one who has been there, good luck. What is your focus?

SS2k3 There was a report written called "Terrorism 2000" before 9/11 put together by a large group of law enforcement agencies and in this report it states that it is likely that planes will be used as bombs at national landmarks. Cheney never read the report. But I forgot, it was Clinton's cock that got us into all this trouble. Also, the morning of the event. Bush was told by NORAD that the planes had been hijacked. He told F-16's to stand down and LET THE TERRORIST CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON. He ultimately let a few fly but made them fly from the furthest base so there was no chance of them stopping it. It was not intelligence that Bush was using. He had clearly defined FACT that the planes were hijacked. Chimpy McCokeAddict simply didn't do anything about it. There was no CIA involvement the morning of 9/11. NORAD had told Chimpy that the planes were hijacked and Chimpy didn't do anything to stop Al Qaeda. Don't blame that on anybody else than Bush. He could have saved the lives of the people in the Pentagon that died but he didn't. It may help if you check out a chronology of the day's events and see the time schedule of when NORAD gave Bush the facts and he refused to act. Also, the CIA told Bush BEFORE the State of the Union that he should not rely on the uranium claim because there was not much backing it up. But Chimpy had it tossed in. Again, Bush doesn't have to take responsibility for his actions and he makes Tenet jump on the grenade. If you look at the Cheney energy commission papers that were just opened, the "f*** Saddam, we're taking him out" and the comments that Wolfowitz made that "WMD were just the cause that we could mobilize the most support around" as the reasoning for war in Iraq then that is the administration lying to us plain and simple. I guess it's just coincidental that Halliburton gets a huge no competition oil contract right after and we can't find WMD. Cuz of course, American motives are always pure. Maybe I wasn't clear on my rant. I am assuming that the hijacking had already taken place. In a Sept 10, 2002 frame of mind, we are supposed to shoot down planes full of innocent people based on our intelligence, but we are not supposed to believe the same intellegence sources that say Iraq has and/developing WMD's. That to me is a double standard. You either have to trust your sources or not. As to Bush, I did vote for him. But if there is evidence of him covering up intelligence to go to war, he should be indicted. I am not one of those people who believes in different rules for people I vote for, vs the "other" guys. And I did support the indictment of Clinton, but it wasn't solely for the reason of lying under oath. I believe he essentially committed treason by the selling of our nuclear secrets to China, but that is a different story. I also am not ignorant enough to believe all of the broad generalities that get painted with. Of course American Presidents do what is in their best personal interests. They always have. I seriously wish that we would start impeaching every single President who breaks the law to do it. Too many people use the excuse that Clinton did the samethings, or Reagan did the samethings... f*** that. The law is the law. Punish the wrong doers and we might start to be able to restore this country to what our forefathers were envisioning it as. And lastly on a personal note, please don't reply with inflammatory stuff with me. I am perfectly willing to hear your opinions and what facts you back them up with. You seem to be an incredibly smart and perceptive guy. But when I see that, it instantly makes me want to tune out what you are saying, and it becomes a struggle to listen objectively. I do try not to reply with the same kinds of posts as all it does it make an intelligent discussion degenerate into namecalling. I understand some people can't handle that, and aruge away with them. But just as a favor to me, please stick with the meat of the post. Thanks Apu.

Steve Stone negative? Only compared to Chump Carrey. I'll take Steve Stone's insight over Chimp Carey's ANY-f***ING-DAY! His insight sure, but the post was inregards to announcers being willing to take their own players to task. Stone hardly ever does, Chump Carrey NEVER does.

youd still get loans. its called generosity. oh wait, from a species that invented the atomic bomb, generosity is a damn rare thing So people would just give money to people for no reason, just because. That didn't happen in biblical times man. Try reading your bible a little closer. There has ALWAYS been incentive for lending. Otherwise it would not happen.

OK, this has been bugging me for a while, and I am going to let loose. How come so many people are applying two completely contradictary standards to the intellegence finds of 9-11 and Iraq. With regards to 9-11, I am not sure what everyone wanted us to do with the intellegence. If they had all gotten together and said OK we THINK there is a CHANCE of terrorists hijacking planes and crashing them into targets, what were they supposed to do when it happened? I have heard people suggest that we should have shot down the planes. Tell me in a Sept 10, 2001 state of mind, that many if any people would have supported the United States killing its own citizens, based on intellegence. THE VERY SAME INTELLEGENCE sources that we we're now supposed to NOT believe in Iraq, because some of the claims and sources turned out to be wrong. What would the outcry been if we had shot down one of those planes (or even all 4) based on this intelligence, and it turned out to be false like the Uranium report? But we are expected to not use these same agencies when they say that they think Iraq is pocessing and/or developing WMD's. Can you imagine the outcry if we had treated the intellegence the same as 9-11's, downplayed it, and then had somewhere, maybe even a US target, attacked. I just don't understand how this is a linear line of thinking. We should have done something on one hand, yet on the other we should not have.

Damn, CW. You beat me to that. There is a very good reason for that actually, while it is against the Geneva convention it is illegal to show pictures of POW's (which is what the outrage was over, not dead Americans), it is NOT illegal to show pics of dead combatants.

I don't think he is any kind of a secret to the AL's hitters...

Oh but you are wrong... http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/6498706

233 Americans should not have had to bury their children either for Bush's lies....But I guess, Dubya just needed that oil really really badly. You should check out the documents made public from Cheney's energy commission in March 2001 after the Judicial Watch lawsuit forced them to be open. It explains a lot of corporate oil plans in Iraq if they have the oil. And we're going to bury them? Last time I checked, we're not over there fighting...just the last 10% of the high school classes and the testosterone crazed whackjobs that like murdering...and the kids who needed the educational grants that they get from the military. But Iraq caused 9/11 so all should be forgotten. The US government has lied to us numerous times before, so why is everybody so apt to lap up the bulls*** that they are spewing now? Agreed. Where is the chemical bombs? Where is the nuclears bombs? The iraqs are mad at the soldiers in there because the amercican government just want the oil, stop with this BS of Saddam is the devil and that's why Bush should kill him. Bush just thinks about the money and oil, he took control of Iraq because of their oil's wealth he would get in there. Bush and Blair are liars. This coming from someone in South America? And if Bush was out for just oil, he would have gone after Saudi Arabia instead -- they have far more oil than Iraq. Whats with the zenophobia? Heck many forgeiners are much better versed on American forgein policy, than most Americans. It is affecting them directly, instead of getting their info second hand with the slant of the American media.

Because they still save 21 million and I can't see anyone taking on all that salary and Giles. The Yanks wouldn't even do it. If you take on Kendall with Giles and pay Kendalls entire contract you should get him for free. Gammons said that the Pirates would be willing to pay part of Kendalls contract or at least I thought I heard him say that. This is just more speculation on my part, because I don't see a trade of Colon coming, but here is another trade idea. While we are talking about trading Colon why not trade him to the Cards. They are more despert for pitching and utilmatly probaly would be willing to give up more for Colon. I think we could potentially get Drew, Harron(SP)(He is there young pitcher they just brought up), Journal, and maybe even Kline. I think Kline may be a little to much in that deal but as I said you never know what a team would give up in terms of getting a huge need. While the Talent isn't as good as the giants deal, we would still be getting talent. Especially in Drew who would fill our need in CF and as a LH power hitter. I don't know 2 much about the 2 young pitchers except they are the the top pitchers if not players in thier system. And of course Kline is one of the best LHs out of the bullpen. Hey maybe we could add Koch to the deal to make sure we got Kline. Personally, I can't see the Cards trading anyone out of their bullpen, because it is incredibly thin, and filled with a lot of injury prone guys such as Isringhausen, and Eldred. Plus they have zero big time prospects that it would take to get a guy like Colon.