bullets13

Remember when the braves sent saltalamacchia, andrus, feliz, Harrison, and beau jones to texas for mark teixera? This could end up like that, except teixera was at least a proven all-star, and at the time one of the elite in the game. Here we are a few years later, and Harrison is a good starter, feliz is a great pitcher (when healthy), andrus is the face of the organization, and salty provided a few years of decent service. It could be that in 2-3 years all of these prospects will have a major impact for the braves, and the stros will have a 30-something 6-hole hitter batting .265 hitting 20 homers a year.

Awful move. 3 top prospects for a pretty good bat. And Gattis only has two years in the majors, but he's almost 30 years old. It's not like he's some 23-year-old future stud with a ton of upside. He's 28, and likely not going to develop into much more than he already is, although his numbers might improve a little joining the American League and playing half his games in Houston. But at his age, two years averaging 20 homers a year is not enough for two top prospects, much less 3.

Minus Eli. Eli 3-4 years ago, sure. And as good as Wilson is, he's also more of a product of the team around him. He's an elite game manager.

Because I don't have access to Obama's 8-year total yet. His general totals based on the graph Smitty provided with the original link are actually lower than they were a year and two years ago, so it's not like the number is constantly rising. In my original post I believe I allowed for the number to rise a little, but say I was wrong, and the amount of people who receive benefits under Obama double what happened under bush. 30 million new, vs. 15 million new under bush. I still maintain that they both failed, even if Obama failed much worse.

I agree, but that cuts both ways as well. I think most of your radicals on both sides (not all ultras either way are radicals) are perfectly okay with the government enforcing morals as long as they fit their belief systems.

conservative with policy would be fine. ultraconservative with views on social issues will not work, though.

I'm referring to more of the social issues. I actually agree with you, at least to some extent, on lower taxes and smaller government impacts, and moderate republicans would too. but what many on this site want (and many in most ultra-conservative areas) is someone who's going to come out very outspoken against homosexuality, abortion, and be supportive of Christianity to the point where they'd violate the constitution to spread it if they could. There's no doubt there are some states where a person like that would take a majority of the votes, but a moderate republican would also take the same states over a democrat. Take Texas, for example. Our state would vote for Smitty if he ran for office. There are plenty of people in this state who feel that the more conservative a candidate, the better. That being said, it wasn't like Romney or McCain were in danger of losing Texas because they weren't conservative enough. The republicans could run out a monkey in a 3-piece suit and Texas would vote for him as long as he followed the red agenda. And consequently, there are many states that go the same way for Democrats. But I can guarantee you that ultra-conservatives who put a lot of stock in their conservative views of the social issues that I listed above will struggle in the battleground states in todays society of acceptance.

I've read enough of your posts to know that you're not stupid. we often don't agree on here, but I don't believe you if you're trying to suggest that Obama won because he was an ultra liberal. That being said, elections are not won and lost by the extremists on each side. But if the swing voters chose to go far left over moderate right the last two elections, I don't see how bringing in a candidate that's much farther right is going to help bridge that gap.

most definitely obamacare. and many with amnesty. that being said, these landslides had nothing to do with a majority of America wanting ultraconservative politicians and policies, and the republicans would do well to remember that. If not, it'll be 1994 all over again. Gain a bunch of seats in the house and senate and some governors due to voters being fed up with the president, and use it to force ultra conservative policy that will turn the voters back against them.

you have this completely backwards. They encountered their landslides this past election WITH their moderate stances.  The Right is not going to gain votes by becoming more conservative.  Its funny to me that ultra-conservatives always think this is the answer.   The ultra-conservatives are not going to vote for the democrats because the repubs move to the left a little, but plenty of moderates will be happy to move to the right a little to meet the republicans somewhere in the middle. 

A true conservative will not beat Hillary. It's going to take a moderate. Be mad about it all you want, but the voters who make the difference are not the ultra-conservatives in the deep south, and getting an ultra-conservative candidate is not going to attract the fringe voters the Republicans need to make up the ground in swing states to take back the presidency.

you can find the numbers in a lot of places. this seems like a site that you might like, though. Look under the "food stamps" section. it requires a little math, though. "FOOD STAMPS – In January 2005 roughly 25 million people participated in SNAP. About 17 million participated in the program in 2001. Under Obama, individuals on food stamps grew from 32 million to 47 million. Read more at [Hidden Content]" So if it was 17 Million in 2001, and 32 million when Obama took over(the righty website notes the 8M increase of those receiving benefits in Bush' first term, but fails to mention the 7M increase in his second term), that's an approximately 15 million increase under bush. It has then gone to approximately 47 million under Obama, ALSO a 15 million increase. Of course, the site I provided, they try to downplay what happened under Bush and highlight the problem with Obama. But you can do the same math using "Factcheck.org", where they show the same numbers, while trying to make Bush look bad and Obama look good.

nah. they just want to prove a point to Obama. and both sides are stupid when it comes to continuing down the same road.

Republicans haven't even settled into their majority yet and are already trying to pass bills that will decrease their chances of regaining the presidency next election. Maybe one day they'll learn.

The number of food stamp beneficiaries increased by 14.7 million during Bush’s two terms in office, which is slightly higher (at this point) than the number of new beneficiaries since Obama has been in office. As of right now, Obama's numbers are up aabout 14.5 M from where he started, depending on the month, and will likely continue to trend upward throughout the remainder of his tenure. If Obama leaves office with the numbers up 16M, some republicans will try to use this as evidence that Bush did a better job in that regard, at only 14.7M. I'd say it's evidence that both failed.

Horsehockey. Maybe 122... but definitely 127.

I'm pretty happy about this matchup.  I used to hate NE, but I've gotten to where I respect Brady more and more.  But Luck is probably my favorite non-cowboy.  I picked NE, but i'll be pulling for the Colts.  Whoever comes out of this game is who i'll be rooting for to win the super bowl.

the seahawks are the easy pick.  still, it won't be surprising to me either way.

Big Ten > Pac 10 > SEC

I would say both. After the first drive, OSU dang near shut Oregon down, while the only thing keeping OSU under 60 was their turnovers. But they definitely got outcoached as well

Why no kneel?

That was part of it, but Oregon was badly outplayed, turnovers and all.

I honestly thought Wisconsin tanked against OSU to get them into the playoff. And they may have, but OSU was going to beat them by a lot anyway

Oregon deserves to lose. OSU has outplayed them badly. Without the turnovers, this game would be as bad as what Oregon did to Florida st

OSU may or may not have deserved to make it in, but there's now no question as to whether or not they were good enough to get in