FlaSoxxJim

Here's hoping it's a grreat one! And, Soxy, no Birthday shoutout to Noamy?? For shame.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2006 -> 08:45 AM) When I posted this, I was thinking it had Flaxx written all over it Flaxx has been busy with job interviews and putting out work-related fires, but is nonetheless excitited by this improbable and extraordinary discovery.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Dec 6, 2006 -> 11:40 PM) Do you mean Fay Wray? She died. Yup, and sorry for the misspelling. Sadly, you were about my only hope on here for pegging the source of those two "whatever happened to" lines.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Dec 6, 2006 -> 10:12 PM) Whatever happened to the REAL Honeycombs? The ones that were big. Honeycombs' big. Yaeah, yeah yeah. It's not small. No no no. Honecombs' got a big big bite. Big big taste AND a big big bite. Right! You'd be proud to know that a band of mine in college did a great thrash version of that. And the Light Brite theme song too! Whatever happened to Saturday Night, when you dressed up sharp and you felt alright? What ever happened to Fay Ray?

QUOTE(bmags @ Dec 6, 2006 -> 07:56 PM) you guys think david crosby was the father again!?!?!? His liver may not work, but his li'l swimmers sure do!

Rats. I thought you were selling uppers.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Dec 6, 2006 -> 05:31 PM) I'd really like to know why people voted for certain candidates. I was promised a cushy Ambassadorship.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 6, 2006 -> 05:38 PM) I did it all for you, Jim. Enjoy it. If only I'd have known about that razor wit. . . Hey, can I change my vote?!?

Mod-given right. damn, that's witty.

I would just like to take this time to tell the 1.63% of registered Soxtalkers who voted in the election how proud I am of their great dedication to civic duty. I sure hope the pollworkers were able to handle the turnout and the lines weren't too long.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Dec 6, 2006 -> 12:00 AM) New LCD flat-panel monitor with 1280x768 resolution = $110 Seeing Britney's backdoor stubble = priceless I may have to gouge my own eyes out for just imagining that vision.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 5, 2006 -> 05:46 PM) Let's do that. The winner of this election is Prez, then we'll put the other 4 in for a VP vote. Any objections? I object! I'd have run for VP. Don't have to do nuthin' hardly but grimace and snarl a lot and shoot a friend in the face every now and then. QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Dec 5, 2006 -> 05:49 PM) well, apparently that would HELP my campaign *Oh yes, I went there I think the top two should hand pick VPs and then run again...that might change the results. That's a Hallibut..... since Jim in Florida is the only one that will get a fish joke. I did indeed get it, and I even provided the obligatory *golf clap*>

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Dec 5, 2006 -> 11:47 AM) Anything I could say would probably be considered inappropriate though...so I will just remain silent. I won't. I read it so it MUST be true!

I don't care about spray-on condoms.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Dec 4, 2006 -> 05:51 PM) Nope. I dont feel bad for her at all. She made a small fortune, and is laughing all the way to the bank But then the bank is telling her sha can't come in until she puts on some FRIGGIN' PANTIES!!

And then when you go to remove the spray condom and realize it's ripping off a bunch of short and curlys with it. . . Yeeeeaaaaaooowwwcchh!! And, are thare really that many people that are completrely bewildered by proper comdom use? And if so, will thos braniacs be able to master this thing?

QUOTE(Soxy @ Dec 4, 2006 -> 10:45 AM) I don't have a digital copy of it. But if I scan it in, I will post a copy of it. She's a real cutie (with a Santa phobia). My kids were that way, but it was the helper elves and not Santa that freaked them out. Yes, from a very early age, they had a problem with Subordinate Clauses.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 4, 2006 -> 09:00 AM) Good discussion. Does anyone see the similarities between the Patriot Act and the first amdendment, and things like gun registries and the second admendment? To me they both take chisels to the amendments and chipaway at them little by little. I do see that they are analagous to a degree, yes. The difference for me is that responsible gun registry legislation would be built from the ground up as a way to ensure that Second Amendment protections are guaranteed (eg, by requiring warrants to access the registry and only then to access that portion relevant to an investigation) as opposed to the Patriot Acts which were built from the ground up as a way to skirt the protections of the First Amendment. I realize both could have the potential for abuse by the wrong Executive powers. But all of our SoxTalk candidates are above reproach so I'm not worried.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Dec 3, 2006 -> 05:32 PM) This isn't a list of who owns guns. This is a list of who purchases guns. There is a difference there. Why is it ok for the government to track a credit card's purchases but not ok for the government to track a list of gun purchases? We already do the former, but not the latter. Again, a national gun registry can be created in a way that would not violate the spirit of the second amendment. It could be inaccessible without a warrant, for example. Your ideas on registration that does not compromise the Second Amendmant closely mirror my own. NorthSide is polling real strong in Flaxx County, but He's taking it on the chin on the gun control issue. Oh, the suspense!

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Dec 3, 2006 -> 03:43 PM) I think that sums up the clarity of the 2nd Amendment and my position on it I don't get it. What do a couple of bear arms have to do with the Second Amendment and the right to . . . oh, er wait. . . PA – For those who like their candidates to be men of few words and fewer thoughts!

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Dec 3, 2006 -> 03:42 PM) Out of principle, Jim, I will respond in my thread. PA, looking to bring back "Separate But Equal" Over there I go.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 11:51 PM) Let me say this. As a former law enforcement officer, I would love to be able to support registration for the very reasons you mention. It would make cops' lives that much easier, and probably even get more criminals off the street. The only problem is, registering specific weapons is almost exactly what the framer's sought to prevent (short of an outright ban). The main purpose of the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting or self-defense, but about keeping power out of the hands of government. This may seem an archaic concept in the modern world, but I think Mao's quote still works even today. Its an important check to protect our freedoms. I just can't abide it, despite the obiovus advantages you rightly cite. I don't know if the other candidates are still browsing this thread, but if so I would love to see Rex, Tex, and PA chime in on this question. With only four official debate topics there are lots of other platform planks that are not really being addressed. NorthSide has really impressed me throughout the debates and the whole campaign cycle. On taxes and environmental issues particularly, I'd say he'd be looking like my guy. He's likely to lose me over the gun control issues, but 'd like to give the other candidates a chance to shoot themselves in the foot on the issue as well before I make that decision. I'm not so rabidly anti-gun that I want them all legislated out of owners' hands. And although it's not my cup of tea, I respect the right of people to enjoy responsible and regulated hunting. From an animal population control perspective many hunting activities integrate well with conservation and wildlife management needs, so that isn't the issue. The issue is one of pursuing sensible gun control that does not conflict with a reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment. I don't believe that gun registration infringes on the rights of The People to a well regulated Militia any more than any federal registration requirements infringe on our right to privacy. Perhaps we need to examine how such records can be used and under what circumstances they can be accessed (such as after a weapon is used in the commission of a crime that can't be deemed part of a private citizen's activity to ensure the security of a free State). The Constitutional framers themselves knew their job wasn't finished once the Bill of Rights was penned. Just 10 years after the Second Amendment was drafted, President Jefferson in his first annual message to the nation said: "We should at every session continue to amend the defects . . . in the laws regulating the militia." Five years later in an annual address he again noted the matter of rogue private militias: "The criminal attempts of private individuals to decide for their country the question of peace or war, by commencing active and unauthorized hostilities should be promptly and efficaciously suppressed." I am of the opinion (open to debate) that the well regulated state militias of Articles I and II of the Constitution and the Second Amendment, under the command of the governor of each state (per Jefferson's 1811 clarification) are clear reference to what we now call the National Guard, not the backwoods private armies that pass themselves off as bastions of security for the free State. I do not deny even these entities the right to keep and bear arms as American citizens according to the laws of the land, but I also do not believe that gun registration and restricting certain firearms abrogates those rights either. So,what do the other candidates have to say about this? The all-important FlaSoxx vote hangs in the balance!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 3, 2006 -> 08:57 AM) So much cooler to be assassinated than murdered. Damn, that is my new career goal, to be assassinated. Look who has presidential delusions of grandeur. I hear there is a revival of Our American Cousin coming to town. Should I put you down for balcony seats?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 3, 2006 -> 12:12 AM) I know you don't know Flaxx personally, but if I had to guess, he's probably not living the luxorious life you're trying to create an example of here, so I'm not sure I buy your argument, EM. There are some people who get screwed. I agree with that much, but where I do disagree is that the government should handle it. But is it a social responsibility for companies to foot the bill? I didn't take any personal offense at Evil's speculations, I get his point. But you are right, we live quite the austere life. Well, I must confess we did buy a new sofa – 13 years ago. It's kind of starting to stink a bit now but you get used to it. Never in our lives have we ownd new vehicles and we bought our first TV that wasn't a castoff from friends this year. No HD or flatpanel, but it doesn't have a hanger for an antenna either so that is something. The point I was trying to make is that we are not talking about shiftless layabouts falling through the cracks. We are talking about the playing field changing at the state and federal levels and making thousands of salaried exempt positions at places like Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission where OPS "state temps" now do most of the work. My wife has since gone into teaching bacause of all of this, and one way or another we will maintain health coverage, but not everyone is so fortunate. The kickerfor the state OPS folks is that their legitimate complaints about being used to work full-time jobs (40+ hours, supervisiory duties, etc. – much the samething UPS got sued over a few years back if you recall) may be about to backfire. Rather than the state admitting they have been abusing the system and figuring out how to extend benefits to loyal employees who deserve them, there is now legislation pending that will limit the weekly work allowance of OPS workers to 25 hours. So as bad as it was with no benefits, now folks are going to have to figure out how to cobble together other gigs to survive. Opting for a conservation science career has only become a "bed choice" because the value of these hardworking, intelligent people has been marginalized at levels well above their sphere of influence. On the broader national healthcare issues, I agree with those who say that you don't point to flaws in existing socialized programs and say that is reason enough to not earnestly explore nationalization possibilities here. Having some of the world's best doctors doesn't mean much to the 50 million Americans with no coverage.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 2, 2006 -> 08:13 PM) How is that arrogant? I'm not saying being an academic is a bad thing. I'm saying that if you require certain benefits and you choose a career that doesn't offer those benefits then you've made a poor choice for yourself. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with that is it is divorced with a lot of reality that is out of control of the employees – particularly for government-funded work. As one of several first-hand examples I can give you, take my wife and the half-dozen people in a Florida Water Management Distrct estuarine research lab where she used to work. My wife has a doctorate in biological oceanography, and otherss in the group had Master's or doctorates as well. Initially they were full district employees with full benefits including health. Then the district gets slashed top doen by Jeb Bush small government crusaders and they cut all but two of six positions in the lab. On paper. so it looks like part of a lean and mean government agency. In truth, they just shuffled everybody else into OPS (Other Personnel Service) positions and they continued to do the same work. Except that OPS positions are at-will temporary positions and do not come with benefits, retirement, or paid holidays. But, Florida can wave their sheet of paper saying look how streamlined we are and look how many full time exempt positions we've managed to trim. But my wife was the one that made the wrong descision, huh? I'm going through something painfully similar now. I got the ol' Ph.D. thang and I'm doing fine in academia at a private research institution (including health benefits), until federal funding for broad ocean science takes a big hit for a few cycles and the institution decides it needs a reorganization (currently happening). My gig is being reorganized out of existence at the end of the year. I may slide into something else at the institution, but as a fall-back I've started moonlighting at what should be a dream gig for me – working on an exotic species inventory project for the Smithsonian. Friggin' Smithsonian, a place I dreamed about working for since I was a kid. The kicker, however, is that due to federal funding cuts, the once-salaried position is now a contract position with no benefits. And all that is bad planning and wrong decisions on my part?? Arrogant and divorced from reality.