FlaSoxxJim

Where can I write in "Barney Rubble is a tomato face" as my vote. Nothing wrong with innocent drunk online posting – even if it only makes sense to you at the time. Waking up the next morning (or afternoon maybe) and looking back at the posts and saying 'what the hell was I thinking' is a whole lot better than looking at the unattractive stranger in bed next to you and saying, umm, 'what the hell was I thinking...'

Have fun, be safe, Happy B-Day USA!

Beyond the deferred money, it sounds like they are not going to see eye to eye on a DSC. Have other teams adopted that as well (I don't know), or is it just a JR thing. It worked the way it was supposed to with Jordan (who actually came up with the idea IIRC), but obviously caused friction with Frank. I'm not even saying that the DSC is a bad idea, just that when the organization portrays an offer at 5/70 mil or whatever, it can actually be something quite different than that with DSCs and incentive-laden crud and on top of that to defer much of it. If Magglio is too rich for our blood so be it, but if we lose him because of all the hooks in the offer I'd like to know that.

I can take or leave the rest of the article, but he's got it right over the frustration with "Jerrynomics". If the organization wants to make a serious offer, friggin' do it. If not, don't posture with the "we did our best" party line when everybody knows whetever deal was offered and rejected wasn't anywhere close to straight up?

Have a Good One Heads!

Really a bite in the ass, their very vulnerable bullpen just called on and all. I really thought they were going to suspend it and finish tomorrow, but I guess it's a crown control thing up against another sellout crowd for the night game. I think we would have done it, or at least threatened, if the game continued. But that's baseball, ain't it. Let the team get ready to pound Rusch (sp?) tomorrow and we split the season series. GO SOX!!

I only have the radio today (Fox out here went with Yanks/Mets, maybe they'll switch over now that the game's over). But how close was Sosa to missing that catch on Crede's flyout? I'm starting to fume over it - if he missed it it's at least a tie game and two still on. Oh well.

That's what homeowner's insurance is for.

"A mob is an ugly thing... and I say it's ABOUT TIME WE HAD ONE!!"

Damn you ShamMe! :fyou

There would be rioting in the streets if they did that.

Sac fly Timo. Nother run!

PK!!!

Wuertz

About time we got on the board! Way, Jose! What the hell Pauly, tie the sucker up with one swing here.

Strikes out the side. Maybe he's settled in.

'taters.

nother delay...

It would be good reading to do, and truth to tell I'd be more interested in reading others people's takes on it than doing much writing or active research on the subject. Don't know if anyone will bite, but I'd go along for the ride. your quick points are well taken, except that the leaders of the Nazi party in it's heyday didn't walk it like they talked it either. For being the party of the worker, they were decadant, hedonistic, lap of luxury priveleged people. But again, your point is well taken. The point can be debated both ways, and for now it is a stretch to try to equate either party to the Nazis. Lead arguments for the GOP would be attack on personal liberties and suppression of free speech, Imperialistic leanings, America first without regard to consequnces, and near-official backing of a state religion.

We'll just debate this in circles so there's no point. You've seen the "opinions expressed here are not necessarily the views..." disclaimer on talkshows, websites, etc. My spewing of my tofu-eating, Birkenstock-wearing, soul-damning leftist liberal ideas on this site does not constitute endorsement or agreements of these ideas by management, only that they condone free expression. There is a difference between a contest submission by an individual and an official campaign piece approved of by the campaign and its candidate. If we get to the point of case-by-case debating who more closely resembles the nascent Nazi Party (years prior to 1938) in words, deeds, and ideology – the Bush II Administration with all the attendant PNACers firmly entrenched or a prospective Kerry administration or any past Democratic administration - it would be an interesting discussion. Very one-sided to be sure, but interesting.

I'll just tosss this grenade and then get out of the way. We all know it is very likely that Baby Bush did get a girl in Texas pregnant and then got her an (illegal) abortion – much as 'Number One Public Citizen' Larry Flynt has asserted and claims he will publish proof of. IF that is the case, then Bush is only pro-life when it is convenient, and when it is someone else's problem. This has been heatedly debated here before and doesn't need to be again. But for all the Bus***es at the end of the debate who said, 'well, so what?? can't someone change his opinion/make a mistake/make youthful indisretions/DO WHAT ALL YOU MORRALLY BANKRUPT DEMS AND LIBERALS DO??'... If it's shown to be true, he didn't change his opinion and he hasn't come clean on the issue. He was publicly anti-abortion back then too, but apparently had a change of heart when he was in the hot seat. Morality, 'family values,' etc., at least nominally, are a core part of the GOP platform. When they get caught with their pants down the cry foul, because there are Dems behaving just as onerously (and certainly there are). But it's the GOP and their partners-in-slime the Religious Right that stump with moralitty and values high on their platform agenda. When they start to walk it like they talk it their integrity will be less at issue, but it doesn't seem like that is happening soon.

That quote/caveat is central, and I said as much. However, the intent of the campagn schedule is more like... "The campaign is asking conservative churches and churchgoers to do everything they can to turn their churches into bases of support WITHOUT (WINK - WINK - WINK - WINK - WINK - key sentiment there) violating campaign finance laws or jeopardizing their tax-exempt status." As far as being worried about November, it is obviously the Bush Reelection campaign that is quite rightly worried. They have taken the vote of the Christian Right for granted and, despite the absurd and unfounded statements from the Bush camp that "the level of support is at record levels," there are credibility issues and a concern by much of the Christian Right that the Bush Administration doesn't have it's best interests at heart. Hence the 11th hour threat by Bush to wipe his ass with the Conststution (re the proposed gay marriage ban ammendment), the continued attack on women's reproductive rights, etc. Gotta convince the Uberchristians there is still room in the busy Pax Americana agenda for good ol' fashioned repression dressed up as morality. And gotta do it by November.

The argument suggests a botton-up potential violation of Separation of church and state. Therefore it's not part of the present debate about the propriety of TOP-DOWN courtship of the churches - INITIATED BY A POLITICAL party and possibly getting them to cross the line into illegality (as per the posted article). I'll give you the lead-in to the article again: The schedule does make overtures about pushing the line without crossing it, bending but not breaking the law, and if all the churches manage to do that then the mobilization strategy has worked. Because it's a hard line to toe, the IRS sent a remined out to the parties to be careful. As far as Jesse Jackson - He's come up before here in argument counterpoints and I've had to claim ignorance of the details of most of his activities. I followed him a lot more closely when I lived in Chicago, and now only get national snippets. If you or Baggio or anyone has news stories that show his CHURCH BODY lobbying for the Democratic party or partisan candidates and using church funding to do so, post it and it will be the basis for a discussion with merit. As the article above states, "individual church members are free to lobby church acquaintances on behalf of a candidate," as long as church resources are not used to support a political campaign. In regard to Jackson, I don't even know if he is the pastor of a church congregation (Vince??). I really think his name gets tossed around, as it has here, as a hasty attempt at a counterargument whenever the unsavory and incestuous relationship between the GOP and the Religious Right is touched on ("Well, uh... what about Jesse Jackson? He's a minister and he's political..."). Again, it's difficult for me to follow him closely so if I am incorrect please put me right. As far as jeopardizing the tax exempt status of any of his organizations, he has been in the hot seat before that I know of but not for political lobbying and not is association with a church. His non-profit Citizen Education Fund (CEF) was accused of violating its status when it apparently took money to lobby for minority investigators in their 2001 push to buy Viacom. As far as his other organizations, the visibly politically active ones are FOR PROFIT (Rainbow/Push Coalition, NRC, Keep Hope Alive, and his wife's Jacqueline Inc. fall in this category). His Push For Excellence, Push Foundation, and CEF are non-profit, as was Operation Push when originally founded. None of these represent a church and thus none are relevant to the discussion at hand. Again though, the point of te article was that the GOP is the one initiating the push to get conservative churches to flirt with infractions of church/state separation for the sake of the party. I challenge you to find and post news stories suggesting the Democratic Party at the national level has mounted a similarly ethically questionable campaign (now or in past elections) to push churches toward potential church/state infractions. Then we will have a valid comparison and not just an offhand remark that the "does not meet the proper agenda" and was ignored.