Rex Kickass

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 10:57 AM) The Victors? Seriously though man, just economic hard times, whats the story? I admire people who have the guts to go out on their own. I worked for a travel agency that went belly up yesterday. I don't own anything, let alone a failed business.

So my business went down in flames today. What songs should be on my iTunes playlist today? Let's start: Sly and The Family Stone - Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)

I just lost my job, can I have some stimulus pls? Kthxbye.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 03:03 PM) I thought this was a non partisan issue. Prop 8 did not appear as a Dem or a Rep on the ballot. Obama won California so this was not supported by Dems? And the LDS position seems rather conservative, so the Reps did not also? Show me the partisanship? I am not a member of the LDS Church and have no idea why or why not the have their opinions. You believe it is over Health Insurance and other such issues, I suspect it is something else. But this is not about their beliefs. This is about an attack on Churches who place their beliefs in action. My local Church happens to support unions. Our Church staff are members of a union. I'm certain some conservatives would love to take away our exempt status. We campaign for a living wage, not just minimum wage. I'm certain some would fault us for that. We campaigned door to door for a sales tax increase to expand our community health clinics, some would take away our exemptions for that. We campaigned against the death penalty. Again, someone would want to take away our exemptions. We campaigned for single member districts instead of at-large for our city council, we wanted all of McAllen to be represented, not just the business and "rich" areas. Again, by your rational, we should have lost our exemptions. So this is a real issue for me, not some theoretical issue. I'm not some hypocrite that sits in Church and then does nothing. Words without deeds mean nothing. So if you think you have to harm me to get what you want, then that is your decision. But that places us squarely on different sides on that issue and that is sad. I would find it hard to support groups who are trying to harm me. Involving yourself as a political organization does not make you partisan. The Sierra Club is non-partisan. The ACLU (who I believe should also have their tax-exempt status revoked) is non-partisan. Prop 8 was about the rights and responsibilities of thousands of people in California. The LDS actively sought to remove those rights from Californians who were not involved with the LDS and did so to the extent that they violated the spirit if not the letter of their 501©3 status. I'm sorry that you can't understand why I might be a little upset about that. About your church, did your church endorse from the pulpit? Did your church encourage its entire congregation to specifically do "everything they can" to ensure its passage or defeat? Was it a coordinated effort that was part of your church's hierarchy? If so, then yes they should lose their tax exempt status. There are all sorts of avenues the LDS could have used to get to the same goals about this proposition. Instead they chose to do something different and violated their status. You would find it hard to support groups who are trying to harm you? How do you think any gay person feels right now about the LDS? As a tax payer, by allowing tax-exempt status to stand, I am supporting the LDS. And they're trying to harm people like me.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 01:57 PM) I'll bet the protests would never materialize if it were mosques, CAIR or LaRaza that had funneled lots of money in support of it. I think I would be just as pissed, thanks.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 11:14 AM) Switching gears slightly, is the strategy of openly battling Churches and hurting their membership, going to help or hinder gay rights? When tens of millions of Christians feel their tax break is being threatened, will they cave in or fight back? I see pros and cons. I hope the Sundance Festival is harmed by Hollywood's actions, plus Redford is a putz anyways and it would be nice to see his baby destroyed because of a boycott by Gay Rights groups. I'm generally an advocate of turning the other cheek. But we aren't talking violence here. Sometimes I think the only way other people may possibly understand the effect of actions like this is if they were to suffer a similar loss of something. The LDS apparatus wants to deny a section of people the right to share heath insurance, lose hospital visitation rights, and a number of other rights and responsibilities intrinsic to the bulk of their congregation. The apparatus is willing to assume the mantle of a political organization to do so. They should have to follow the law that other political organizations follow. I'm sorry that you feel that religious organizations should be exempt from following tax laws, but the laws as they stand should be equally applied.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 10:17 AM) This was probably the least followed rule in the past election. Or in 2004. And it should be enforced. Across the board.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 08:28 AM) CNN reporting (no link yet) that DHL will DISCONTINUE US OPERATIONS, laying off some 9,500 people, including their hub in Ohio. Yikes. Good for FedEx and UPS, really bad for those 9,500 people. Given that most of DHL's operations were already outsourced to UPS, it sorta makes sense. They aren't discontinuing US Operations to my understanding, they were discontinuing point to point domestic delivery (US to US service).

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 09:59 AM) This would all be so much easier of there was a clause in the Bill of Rights clearly stating that these rights do not apply if you join a Church. Your tax status does not abridge your freedom of speech.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 09:41 AM) My core belief in this is not whether I agree with their stance, I think most anyone who has read what I've written here knows I do not. But I will defend their right to do that. The "Church" is actually the people. Human, flesh and blood Americans. They have joined together and formed a Charity that is recognized by the US government. We do not seem to have a problem with the NRA, Sierra Club, Green Peace, ACLU, The Task Force, Amnesty International, and others doing the same thing. They all support a specific belief system. I see no difference in an NRA magazine, a Sierra Club protest, or a Church service. It's people getting together and trying to influence society. And there is no restrictions on what the podium looks like at a Green Peace meeting or a Church meeting, that is unnecessarily clouding the issue. Why should a Sierra Club member in Illinois care about what happens in Alaska and the ANWR? Why should an ACLU member in Iowa care about a housing discrimination case in New York? Why should an NRA member in Idaho care about a city in Mississippi banning certain ammunition? And why should a Church member in Utah care about California sanctioning something they believe is wrong? How many groups that took the opposite view should lose their tax exempt status? By taking away the tax exempt status from the Americans who donate to these groups, for disagreeing with the government, or getting involved, we are punishing people for being advocates. Not to get theological here, but each organized Christian religion interprets God's word a little differently. For some it is your thoughts that are the key to heaven. For others it is your words. For still others, it is your actions. For the people who who say, "I don't need to go to Church, I do not need to read the Bible, I am a good person, God sees the good things I do". Well then, you would be agreeing with Churches like the LDS Church, Jehovah Witness, who believe they have a call to action as their key to heaven. That it isn't enough to just say the words, they would be hypocrites if they did not put their beliefs to the test and act upon them. Similar to a Sierra Club member who simultaneously writes the checks, talks about the need to protect the envirnment, then tosses their trash out their Hummer while 4 wheel driving through some protected wetlands. I do not agree with many of the groups that have tax exempt status, but I just cannot advocate punishing people for exercising their rights. I certainly can't agree with punishing them for daring to disagree with me. Rex, Wouldn't that be the same sort of discrimination that we are fighting about? Donations to the NRA, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Amnesty Int'l and the ACLU are not tax deductible. They may be non-profit organizations but they are by definition not charities and do not benefit from tax exempt status. If the LDS Church would like to be a political lobbying organization like these groups, that's great but they should have to follow the same tax codes as these groups.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 9, 2008 -> 08:42 PM) lol, my brother's friend e-mailed this to him, and since he's color-blind he couldn't read it so had to ask what it meant Yeah, what does it mean? Because I am color blind.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:30 PM) I typed this as I was rushing out the door. I just reread it and come off as a jerk. Sorry Rex for the tone of my post. 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.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 06:26 PM) We're going to disagree. You want to take away someone's tax break because you don't agree with them. Well I don't always agree with the ACLU, AARP, NRA, Sierra Club, but they all get involved in trying to promote the changes they want to see. Taking away their tax exempt status is a nice way to raise taxes on people who get involved in our communities, and that is just wrong. It's the old, I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. I don't know why around here you have to be a f***ing athiest to get involved in government. These are Americans also. Deal with it. We all have our agendas, we all want change, and this is just part of the process. What you are suggesting is if someone dares take on the government the government is going to punish them by taking away their tax status. So if the Sierra CLub dares try to stop development in a National Forest, take away their tax exempt status. If the AARP takes on teh government over Social Security or Meicare, take away their tax exempt status. Sorry, that is wrong and I'm shocked you would evenb suggest it. I am suggesting that the LDS Church should act like a church, and not fund initatives in states outside of its own power base and actively work on a political campaign to altar a state's constitution. Our constitution separates church apparatus from government apparatus. By doing what the LDS did in California, they violated their own tax exempt status provisions. If they want to act as a political organization, fine. That's essentially what they did in California this year. But they should have to deal with the consequences of those actions, including no longer being treated by the state as a nonpolitical organization. They made as a church, actual in kind donations to campaign groups behind the initiative and had the following letter delivered to every congregation on June 29, 2008. You can't endorse from the pulpit. It violates your 501 c(3) status. If Mormon leaders wanted to go out and speak independently about this, that would be fine. It's perfectly legal to do so. But what the LDS did is such a clear violation, its ridiculous.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 9, 2008 -> 10:42 AM) Through almost no fault of my own, I have become Crazy Cat Lady. I had a cat and my wife had a cat when we got together, which wasn't so bad. Now, however, my wife and daughter feel the need to rescue every stray cat on the east coast of Florida, so we now have 5 cats. When I was real little, we had between 12 and 20 cats around the house. All strays, they would just congregate around our house. We had one indoor cat, if I remember correctly.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 4, 2008 -> 01:44 AM) Snakes on a Plane? I mean, I could understand. No, no, I mean if I'm on a plane and I'm watching a movie, it'll make me tear up. In fact, I think when I went to Nicaragua last year, I believe I almost cried during "No Reservations," "Hairspray" and an episode of "Everyone Loves Raymond"

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 9, 2008 -> 08:14 AM) You are right. Which is why I came to the conclusion it is hard to be an I. He needed that party support to get elected and reelected. He needed party support to have any influence on committees and such. The candidate is always beholden to the party. Perhaps that is one thing we could improve in our government. Our elected leaders need to be loyal to their party before being loyal to the people and entities in their districts. It's not hard to be an I. It's hard to be an I who wants the benefit of a being a D or an R without doing the things that come along with that.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 8, 2008 -> 06:33 PM) He pretty much votes along the lines of the Democrats from what I can tell, so there really isn't even much of an incentive to try and get his seat. Lieberman supported a GOP for president and spoke at their convention, if a Republican did this to the GOP they would likely do that same thing to that senator (some type of retribution) that the Democrats are doing to Lieberman. One thing to keep in mind is that Lieberman is still going to vote with the Democrats on most issues, which is why he is almost always added to the Democrat vote count when considering getting to 60 to stop a filibuster. Except he argued against having 60 Dems in the Senate all fall. He's no longer able to be trusted if I was in the caucus. Things like seniority and chairmanships are based, to a large extent on party loyalty and benefit for the party. If you cut a deal to stay in office with the people in your caucus after you lose your party's primary, you owe them. You owe them loyalty. You owe them, at the very least, saying nothing at all if you can't support your caucus' candidate. But to do what he's done is unforgivable in party politics.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 06:21 PM) Are you talking about Lieberman or Sanders? Sanders is a socialist, not an opportunist. The Democratic Party knows they couldn't win the seat that Sanders runs for, so they choose to support him.

It appears that the county board of elections transmits the numbers to the state. And there was an error in the transmission. The county registrar called in vote totals on Tuesday night, and those totals from the county did not match in the state's official count. I would assume in this case that the state does not have one centralized location for data to be sent to for computer security reasons, I'd wager. http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2008/11/0..._funny_business

Given how hard the LDS got involved with this campaign, they should lose their nonprofit church status.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 03:26 PM) It has to be hard to be an I It's easy to be an I. It's hard to be an opportunist when all your bets don't pay off. He's a schill for whoever will possibly get him his next advantage. Lose an election? Refile as an independent. But then cut a deal with his caucus so he doesn't lose seniority and still wins the election. He embraces nothing but what's good for him. And what's good for him is the back bench in the Senate.

So what happens in Congress after an election? Jockeying for position, that's what. Sen Reid (D) of WV has decided to return to the back bench, giving up his chairmanship of Senate Appropriations. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15409.html Sen. Lieberman (I) could be finding himself without a caucus. He's threatened to leave the Democratic caucus because it appears the Senate Dem leadership is going to pull his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee from the Senator after actively campaigning against Obama and other Democratic senate candidates. The offer that Lieberman finds so unacceptable is a different committee chairmanship and retaining his seniority. However, although invited to join the GOP, Lieberman hasn't done so because McConnell has no ranking position in a committee to offer to the Senator from Connecticut. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15401.html Seven time felon Senator Stevens of AK may be causing a serious fissure in his caucus. There are a number of fellow GOP Senators who actively want him expelled from the caucus, something that McConnell may or may not be resisting. Could we end up seeing a new minority leader in the next two months? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15392.html

QUOTE (Steff @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 12:58 PM) ".. we will name him Sparkles..." That was the only funny line in the whole show. That and Palin switching to a British accent.

This is what made Tuesday so great. We got a candidate elected whose biggest controversy is whether or not Americans should perform community service in exchange for a tax credit.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 12:10 PM) you mean the community service hours? Yes. 200 hours is 5 work weeks. And the compensation would equal roughly $20/hour.