kapkomet

JD.

A quote from the above posted link: And that is a huge issue, IMO. If you get guys you know you can sign, you use less resources on what amounts to legal crap.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 03:46 PM) And what happened to Dye? He Dyed. Duh.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 03:47 PM) I think the most interesting to me is how few people there are in the middle. Although, this is a very lovely example of a bimodal distribution. Ha. Stop that statistics junk, missy...

QUOTE(Felix @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 03:30 PM) To me, the only difference between a person that is spiritual and a person that is religious is that the religious person is just a member of an organized religion. Past that, I consider them the same thing. If you're truly interested in how many people belong to an organized religion, then yes, I think you're probably right in the grouping that you've chosen. If you're interested in seeing how many people believe in any sort of god, then spiritual has to be grouped with religious. No it doesn't. Religion=something humans created to try and connect with God. Spiritual=something God created and humans choose what to do with that belief, which can include "religion". Loosely translated, of course.

QUOTE(Jim Spencer @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 02:50 PM) Sounds too much like our Shortstop now. EEEEEEEEEEyup. I really don't want to see UriKbe anymore, like ever.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 02:16 PM) On things that are better at a massive scale, yes, that is why the citizens on this country formed a government. So if not the government, how about employers? Or how will you have someone making $8.00 per hour afford even catastrophic insurance? It depends on how things get structured. Really, if you look at it, employer costs of health care is a hidden tax, in a sense. But, some companies choose to pay more on behalf of their employees as a "wellness" benefit. If a person is making $8.00 an hour, they're going to get caught in the existing safety net anyway... and the taxpayers will pay for it anyway as it exists TODAY. (this is very generic... but generally, this is the case)... especially if you're an illegal immigrant, oddly enough.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 02:08 PM) Whaaaat? Where did you get that idea? The taxpayers are all paying now for uninsured, the working poor, the indigent, the workers whose employers will not offer that benefit. I'd like to see a better system. So far in this thread there is one proposal, making employers responsible and your snarky comments assuming my views. Ok Tex, you almost always take the side of having government fix everything, including health care. You've implied before (not in this thread) that there's not enough done to provide health insurance for all, so the next logical leap is to have our government do it for us. Who are you kidding? Sheep in Wolves Clothing, or something like that. Unless it's Tom DeLay. Now HE'S the Second Coming, not Obama.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 01:04 PM) How about, not me? Right now, all my peeps have insurance thru their respective spouses. I have had one guy work for me the last 15 years who didn't, and for him I purchased a catastrophic insurance policy with a high deductible. He breaks a wrist, he is stuck. Gets in a car wreck and is in the hospital for weeks, he is covered. Cost ME about $500 a month. That's something that should be looked at is "catastrophic" health insurance. As opposed to going to the doctor for every little sniffle, and charging it to insurance, that could be an alternative to drive health insurance costs down (that and tort reform). I know I'm extremely blessed on my health benefits, as I probably have the best package I've ever seen where I'm at (and I've seen a lot of packages). However, some of the shift should be on the individual and a way to fix the system... not have our government do it for us.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 03:40 AM) Instead we are paying tax money for health benefits through Medicaid, CHiPs, and other health care for the working poor programs. Tell me, if one of your employees found out he had a tumor that needed to be removed, who should pay for it and do they have the resources? According to you, we all should. The government should say where we get treated, when we get treated, and who treats us. I'm sorry... not in my country. I would rather keep that choice, thank you. Oh wait, now I will hear that most people don't get a choice. I personally think there are ALWAYS choices. It's what you choose to do ultimately.

This "fair tax" thing is the stupidest, most insane pile of s*** I've seen for a while, and there's some nice turd piles laying around this election. Does ANYONE of these people know how our markets really work and what causes our economic prosperity? (Hint: you don't allow the government to gain control of ANYTHING it wasn't designed to).

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 10:08 PM) My vote was serious, even if my beer quip was (mostly) not. I voted 'Nope, not at all', because I do not consider atheism to be a religion. But that doesn't mean I begrudge anybody's right to practice their faith as long as it doesn't abrogate anybody else's personal freedoms. I come from a staunch religious family whom I very much respect. And I have immense respect for anybody who can walk it like they talk it and who refrains from using their faith as an excuse to attempt to legislate morality for the nation or to codify and condone bigotry. My wife is also a trained scientist, but she does maintain a belief in a divine agent, and we don't come to blows over it. We also pay through the nose to send our kids to an Episcopal school because it is a top-rated school for academics and because my beliefs shouldn't automatically be my childrens' beliefs. If their schooling also gives them a solid moral footing that's great. It has taken me a lifetime to figure out what I think of religion and the existence of a divine agent and my kids have the right to take up that same journey. I readily tell them I don't have the answers to questions of faith and I encourage them to listen to the minister at chapel as intently as they do their classroom teachers. At 8 and 9 years old, they are learning to recognize hypocrisy when they hear messages of hate and discrimination dressed up as faith belief (the Episcopal gay unions/gay ministers schism plays itself out in miniature in parental debate in the parish), and I am proud of them for it. Brilliant! (Seriously). That part of your post I really cannot empahsize enough. I can't STAND IT when our government legislates that sort of stuff. It's hypocritical, and burns me (hence why I say all the time that the so-called conservatives need to shut up when it comes to gay-marriage.) Do I think there are consequences for said choices? Yes. Am I the ultimate one to judge? No. And my government sure as hell isn't either.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:51 PM) I wonder what the odds of seeing a Rowand-Owens-Fields OF, from right to left, are for 2008? Did I just see KC pass us up in the standings? BLECH.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:49 PM) I'd suggest that Bush had less control than most Presidents do over his own policy - and amazingly, I think that was by his choice. But, I think Rove was only one of a number of strong actors around him that influenced most of his moves pretty heavily. Exactly. You're giving Rove way too much credit. They actually pretty much do run things by committee, I think. That's why it seems like it is so "exclusive" to so many people... they run a very tight ship, and most don't like that.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:43 PM) And that may be the sadest commentary of all. He was arguably one of the ten most powerful men in the world. His control over President Bush seemed absolute. OOOOOOOOOKaaay... that's taking it a little too far.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:10 PM) What is the deal with Texans? Are you from outer space or half lizard? My skin almost melted off as I dropped off my rental car at DFW. Today's pretty warm, I'll give you that. And you should have warned us you were coming. The least we could have done was poor a beer over your head to cool you off.

This ought to be interesting. /popcorn

QUOTE(Soxy @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 08:10 PM) I think there are probably many, many, many more self-described Christians or religious people here than the other. And I think that some of those posters are not anti-religion itself, but rather anti the way religion is often manifested. That's a very good observation. You're on a roll the last couple of weeks.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 07:20 PM) You mean picking a candidate from each party, and reviewing the material on their sites? So each week, we'd have one GOP candidate highlight thread, and one Dem candidate highlight thread? Sounds excellent. I'd suggest we start with some of the minor ones first, since they might drop out by the time we get done. Yea... would it be better to do a compare/contrast or just a straight "impressions" of a Dem site and a GOP site a week (with the stances they are taking...). At least this way, maybe we can all really read up on the stances of folks (unless they don't stand for anything, like Obama... )

So based on this conversation... and in the interest of SERIOUS debate (not snarkiness, as I am most of the time as are a few others)... how about we review a GOP site and a DEM site a week for issues and debate them? I promise, I'll try to stick to the topics and not get snarky. Thoughts?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 06:43 PM) Since the Cubs claimed Pods they were the only team the Sox could trade him to, the deadline for a deal to get done was today at noon. The deadline has passed and no deal was made therefore he can not be traded for the rest of the season. Ah, got it. Damn. I was hoping that little piece of glass was gone.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 06:53 PM) Kap, I have no issues with you. You weren't exactly the admin that I was speaking of. I never said anyone was "picking on me"...please, I'm a grown up. The only complaint I've ever had about soxtalk is that certain demographics and groups are protected and others aren't. And up until 3-4 people forgot how to read, I fully accepted that Soxtalk was a business and if Jason and Alex, et al wanted us to act a certain way I would. That's why I take breaks and try to stick to being funny (well, trying to be). I've always provided apologies when I've been out of line...There's probably 20 people that have one from me saved on their fridge at home. But I don't need to provide a justification statement. Ok, that's fine. I wasn't asking for a justification statement - it's just that one paragraph/sentance was just a bit sensitized, IMO. That's all I was speaking to. I know the point you're making, but I'm not seeing where people are jumping you, you bible thumping crazy.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 06:09 PM) He can't be traded anyway. "CAN'T" or "WON'T"? What did I miss?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 06:23 PM) You know one thing that I find fairly amazing? It's that the media and others have managed to spend so much time wondering if Obama is all style and no substance...but have spent essentially no time asking the same question about the Republican candidates. I'll give you a beautiful example. Obama, as shown earlier, has pages and pages of policy reccommendations. Even some of the small scale stuff gets touched on. I'm looking through the "Fighting poverty" page, and he's spending time on increasing small business loans directed at minorities, expanding Pell grants, increasing support for ex-offender programs, etc. Quibble with the ideas all you want, at least they're there. On the contrary, stumble over to something like Rudy or Mitt's policy page. Rudy's entire policy page is that 12 point speech he gave a few months back. Obama has more details on Veterans Affairs than Rudy has on his entire policy page. Rudy's page doesnt' even mention health care at all. His health care plan, which he presented a week or two ago, was basically a tax cut for people who buy the most expensive insurance packages, and the slogan Socialized medicine sucks! Romney's issue page is better than the vacant page @ Rudy's, but it's still mostly just video, and doesn't include 1/10th of the detail Obama's does. Balta, read what I've been saying about the GOP candidates, and you will see that I have been saying the same thing for months. I can't stand the GOP candidates. None of them. They are pitiful, pathetic, unsubstantiated morons. In all seriousness, I like Obama better then any of the GOP candidates from purely a charismatic standpoint ( holy s***, did I just say that???). I have two exceptions as far as issues, and they are big ones. Health Care, and Iraq. Also, I don't trust him for some reason - that's more of an intangible, honestly. And because of that, as of this time, though, I wouldn't vote for him... Oh, one more thing... Obama's site is a LOT more in depth then it was when I looked at it last. So I have some reading to do.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 06:02 PM) Seriously. Do you not want to have a serious debate? Or do you just want to make sure that threads descend into snark? Because if it's the latter good job, keep going. Oh, I'd say a little of both, simply because it's about all I get on the other side of things. I'm a glutton for punishment and snark.