YASNY

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 9, 2008 -> 02:09 PM) It's not a problem. Some people might say I have a problem with the LDS church and I do. Not the religion, but rather the church apparatus. The reason that I can't be involved in Scouting as an adult volunteer is that the LDS has basically said that they will no longer allow their churches to sponsor troops if they allow openly gay adult volunteers in Scouting. (LDS troops consist of roughly 20-25% of the BSA's enrollment IIRC) This church actively attacks a group of people and seeks to marginalize them from the society that I am proud to call myself a member of. They have the right to do so, but they should have to follow the law in the ways that they can and can not do so as a church. I'm sure the LDS church has plenty of lawyers that advise them on the legality of what they can and cannot do. You may be of the opinion that they are clearly breaking the law, but I highly doubt that you are actually correct.

QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Nov 9, 2008 -> 05:16 AM) What if he still gave Jerry the f***in' ball? "Jerry, I saved this f***in' thing for you, asshole. You god damned cheap Jew. Konerko rules!" Next day: 5 years, $60 million Even in jest, do not come close to posting this type of remark again. I hope I am crystal clear.

QUOTE (CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Nov 8, 2008 -> 06:33 PM) I think thats precisely what will happen. Their window of opportunity to win the WS is very small in that division. Yankees and Red Sox have the resources to reload every year.Tampa Bay can only seem to sell out during the playoffs. NY and Boston are in dense population areas with people with disposable income. Florida is filled with retireees watching every nickle. I know thats oversimplifying it but I don't see how some of these franchises survive. Tampa bay has finished in last place every year of their existance prior to this year. I takes time for people to actually buy into the idea that the team is good. That is what happened this year. Next year, they will have a groundswell of support early in the season and with season ticket sales. If they continue to win, they'll have decent attendance figures in '09.

QUOTE (Tony82087 @ Nov 9, 2008 -> 01:13 AM) Just a hunch, but if Quentin is sporting a .900 OPS in mid May, I think the Sox sign him long term. Again, just a hunch. I think that's a pretty good hunch.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 8, 2008 -> 07:48 AM) The scouting reports I have read have been all over the place for this guy. Some say at 19 he's already lost a lot defensively and is a 1b/DH at best with a Livan Hernandez body in the making. Some say he could even play SS in a pinch and can pitch. We will see. If he's only 19, I think its a longshot he makes any impact in Chicago for a while, but the White Sox may see this as an extension of their draft. Considering they ranked 23rd in MLB in handing out bonuses, maybe they feel this is a good gamble. They won't get him as cheaply as they got Alexei, ironically because of Alexei's success. All I know about this kid is what his agent said about him in the article. But, if he is in fact a top priority in Kenny's eyes, well I'm a believer.

QUOTE (Steff @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:29 AM) I did and I don't. If you CHOOSE to take advantage of this program you will be required to perform CS. I'm sorry but I can't be any more clear. And I understand what you said just fine and simply diagree and find it a bit premature at this stage of it's life to resolve problems that have yet to occur. As I said earlier, agree to disagree. Please. Okay, I must have missed something somewhere along the line. We will agree to disagree.

QUOTE (Steff @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:22 AM) I'm not requiring anyone to do anything. This is a CLEAR matter of choice. It's got nothing to do with the rich or the poor. If you take advantage of this program you do community service regardless of how rich or poor you are. I never said anything about anyone or their service being any more or less valuable than anyone else. You brought up the elitism. But you said you had no problem with requiring community service. I'm saying requiring it is fine as long as elitism is not not going to effect the implementation of said service.

QUOTE (Steff @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:04 AM) I call it looking at the glass half full rather than wearing blinders. Though I do realize that CS service for someone going to Yale (I know it's a stretch cause those "rich folks" probably wouldn't need this kind of thing) and someone going to IU would probably be different, but not because of elitism or unfairness but simply because of logistics and ability and probably many other factors which isn't unfairness.. it's life. IMO If the rich folks don't need this type of thing and are able to opt out of it, then they are given a choice. If the poor folks decide that they want to opt out of it, and not accept the assitance in return, then they should be given that choice as well. If you are going to require the needy to perform comm service, then you should require the rich to also. But then, you'd have the bleeding hearts saying that the rich shouldn't get assistance because they don't need it. But, is their service any less valuable than their not so fortunate counterparts?

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:54 AM) PA actually brought this point up in another thread. He said that his grandmother and her sister would really benefit from having some sort of legal union between them. The truth is, I think we need to get away from this idea of government sanctioned "marriage" as we would think about religious "marriage." The government really has no right to say what legal aged consenting adults you may enter into a contract with. Then basically, you are talking about a civil union if you are talking contract. So why not let a marriage be defined as religious union, and a contracted union be what it is but with equal rights under the law for types of union?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:52 AM) I know this is not what you're saying, but there are people like my dad who work their asses off and are still poor, which is why the use of the word "handout" all the time bothers me. Now, my dad isn't poor and neither am I, but it took a LONG time to change that. My parents still couldn't afford to send me to college. hey lostfan, I'm all for the working man. Anybody that is willing to get out there and work to better things for him/herself and their family, they need every break they can get. I don't begrudge them anything. The elistists have used and abused the working class for far too long in this nation. I just have problems with those that are not willing to pull their weight and expect government to take care of them. If you could afford to go to college after giving two years of service to our great nation, would have chosen to do so. I think you would have based on this post I'm quoting. But, if you decided to opt out you should have that right as long as your don't expect the taxpayers to support you because you didn't want to serve.

QUOTE (Steff @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:50 AM) I like the however. This is a plan not even fertilized yet and you're calling out the short end of the stick - as if giving back has one but that's a matter of personal opinion. We agree to disagree. If you don't look at the potential for elitism and unfairness being part of the equation, then you just have blinders on. GWB's "military service" was major liberal attack point, but he still served his country.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:42 AM) Or, as I have said before, why should sex, or the potential for sex, matter? If what we are talking about here are certain legal rights and benefits, shouldn't a brother and sister be able to enjoy those rights? Perhaps a parent and child? We are talking after all, two people who wish to enjoy the legal benefits and protections that a union allows. Why should anyone, especially the government, care who shares these benefits? Ok, I'm waiting for responses to our posts. Should be interesting.

QUOTE (Steff @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:30 AM) And I said I am ok with it. Well, after reading your response and considering it, I can't totally disagree any further. Required community service can turn into a lifetime of volunteerism. If Obama's girls are required to serve in the same way Joe the plumber's kids are, then this could be a good thing. However, if Obama's girls get the cushy "community service" and Joe's kids have to enlist in the military then it's not.

QUOTE (Steff @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:24 AM) Cause requiring them to give back would be terrible? As a parent even with the word.. gasp... "require" I'm fine with this. JMO But Steff, if its a requirement, and we will do this in return whether you think that is fair or not, it is not a choice.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:21 AM) So you'd be OK with the requirement based on tax bracket? If people are healthy and able to work, why not? They would then feel they were contributing members of society instead of just being catagorized as leeches.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:18 AM) Am I the only person that watched Obama in the debates? Seems like he mentioned it at least a couple of times that he would give college students the option of a tax credit in exchange for community service. I watched him, but I was so mesmorized by his eloquence that I didn't really hear what he was saying.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:17 AM) I kind of broached this a while back in another topic, but it seems appropriate here... Is requiring public service an acceptable action to place on people who are not paying federal income taxes, or people who are paying a negative income tax rate? Wait! Are you suggesting we make people work when they are being subsidized by the taxpayer. You barbarian!

QUOTE (Steff @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:14 AM) LOL. Love the oversight. There is still that word at the beginning ... Require. Not sure this is really an option.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:01 AM) I wouldn't be surprised if Kenny didn't do much this year. Maybe some peripheral trades, but nothing huge. For instance, if he can dump Javy, it might not be for more than some high upside, upper tier minor leaguers. that being said, ESPN is a bunch of morons when it comes to teams outside the I-95 corridor. What new?

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:07 AM) My point was to illustrate being "forced" to do something results in inadequate work/performance and people getting upset. I sometimes ramble and never check what i write on message boards, it may have come across poorly. And that is a valid point. I just saw an opportunity to make another point off of your post.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:05 AM) From the same website: That's acceptable to me, if they are given that choice. Emphasis on the word, choice.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:02 AM) While in college, as part of the requirements of being in my fraternity, each individual is required to do 25 hours of comm service per semester. Its not a lot and being done with it I'm glad i did it, but requiring 100 hours per year is ridiculous. In college, i was busy with 2 majors, often taking 18 credits per semester, was in a couple clubs and i tutored on campus (for money so that didnt count). Community service options are often limited to daytime/weekends. Often times we'd have people half assing it b/c they were tired, hung over, etc and it was obvious. That is a ludicrous amount of hours to force a college student to do. This is just an idea and I havent seen it anywhere before but from this website, so i dont know how much the Obama camp has even said about this, but this is just a terrible idea. Why would anyone want to be forced into serving? All that is going to do is frustrate people. People forced to do a task they dont want to usually results in it being done incorrectly, haphazardly, non chalantly etc. I have no problem with the encouragement to join such groups and respect each and every person who devotes themselves to such things. However, forcing people who dont want to do it, to do it, IMO, is ridiculous. Yes, but you CHOSE that being in the fraternity was worth the community service. You weren't forced to do it.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 09:49 AM) That. Oh I totally agree. Soxtalk would have been up in arms. No doubt.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 09:53 AM) He could help it out by telling people that his plans to raise capital gains will be suspended during our economic crisis and will be tabled for review later. Oh but that wouldn't be "fair".

Slippery slope, here. Gov't "forces" us to do community service for 50 hours. Wait, this isn't working, let's "force" them to do a hundred. Then, people get used to idea of being forced to do things by the gov't, and it keeps getting worse. I like the idea of helping volunteers who dedicate 1 or 2 years of service to the nation, in whatever form, get substantial assistance in acheiving their educational goals.