Texsox

Another great example of why hate Hillary, how many other candidates do we judge by their spouses?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 11:25 AM) I'll believe this when I see it. Gore Vice President Gore He has the experience for the job.

At some point, I'm just not going to care who did use them. The next step will be pissed that Thomas didn't use them or maybe we win in 2000

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 10:55 AM) I know, it's just funny when you use Aussie slang. You should start calling me out when I use American slang, so that way its not just a one-sided relationship where I make fun of you all the time. What was funny is I thought buggered had a more sexual meaning.

Even before we start, a couple other winners Southsider2k5 -- Biggest Hoosier Heads -- Biggest Boozer

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 10:57 AM) Mods --- Please delete the above post. I forgot to include the link (I just happened across it) and now I can't find it to edit it in. If I do, I'll repost. Never mind. Here it is Serious anti-US-Israel bias in the article. Not saying he's wrong, but there is plenty fo scary stuff in there, except that it may be in retailation for high oil prices, I like that. Stop their porn until we have

I see you point, but you are missing mine. You have an opinion about their marriage. Do you have an equally strong opinion about any other candidates marriage? It is not as much what someone's opinion is to my point, but the fact that people have such strong opinions about Bill and Hillary's marriage. You are not the only one that talks about it. People fault her vigorously yet give Rudy G and three wives a pass. That is one of the questions that NSS was getting to in this thread. Why Hillary? and by extension, why Hillary and not the other candidates. BTW, I noticed that in the ten plus years since Monica-gate, there have not been any more whispers of cheating. Do you consider that at all? Perhaps they have repaired their relationship? You find fault that they are committed to helping each other succeed. Perhaps that is a bit old fashioned but I like seeing the spouses support the candidate. It's a rough job as President and having family support, I believe is important. I've been pointing out the double standard that people seem to have with the Clintons. Imagine if the Clintons adopted an African baby. I bet it would get much different treatment than McCain. There would be whispers of it actually being Bill's kid. Reporters tracking his travel schedule during the conception time frame, etc. And that one is easy to answer why Clinton and not the other candidates And as far as looking for Bin-Laden I think we employ people much better at this than the President. They work at agencies like the CIA, FBI, NSA, various branches of the military. So I don't think our efforts to track down Bin Laden were seriously impaired. And which candidate is not making decision on what is best for their career?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 10:46 AM) Cone on Tex. It's not being talked about because the violence and such is down. Makes sense. We're only interested when there is violence. Seems like some people were blaming the media for only reporting the negative (violence) and not the postive. You know, just sayin'

I'd love a floor fight, the speeches will be amazing and embarrasing. Fights, stuff tossed.

Best voter story ever. But image if this was another state, say Florida, and it was say the 2000 election. Wow! That would be very interesting.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 10:02 AM) Which is better with the added mortgage, box or using an H&R Block type of place? The seasonal employees at H&R etc. IMHO are live "boxes". They use the same flow chart kind of process that the box uses. If you really want or need advice, you need to go a step or two up from those people.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 08:40 AM) Why would McNamee keep those syringes/physical evidence? If him and Roger were cool before, then there is no reason for him to keep those syringes/physical evidence unless he planned on turning on him at one point. Couple theories Clemens is guilty McNamee was going to blackmail Clemens with real / faked "evidence"

Box When I had international income and gobs of business expenses, it paid to have a textax specialist handle my returns. Now I can just open the box and away we go. Thanks for the tip SS, I didn't realize it imports from last year, I guess I will stay with what I did last year.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 08:05 AM) But your basic principles for going to war have not changed. The reasons why we were told we went to war changed. But your basic stance that you want to benefit as many people as possible has not changed... Being fiscally conservative has not changed at all. The people who are saying they are is the problem. I have noticed that this seems to be a pretty reasonable growth of people. It always seems like censorship breaks down by age groups. Younger people more against it, older people more for it. I use to believe that unions benefited the majority of workers, now I believe it is the minority of workers. Like the fiscal stance, it isn't the need for unions that has changed, its the unions themselves. Sort of. I am talking about major things. Abortion, what it takes to go to war, death penalty, rules for the economy etc. There is a basic set of principles that make up these things and they really don't change as life goes on. I see your point and it all makes sense. On the biggies, I've flipped on abortion and the death penalty, multiple times. Not certain if this is major, but school vouchers or some form of public funds to private schools is another area I've changed positions. I am thinking that everyone crystallizes their opinions and beliefs at different stages of their life. Perhaps youthful idealism gives way to cranky reality. Perhaps some items occur at different times. And what are your thoughts on the difference between personal beliefs and how an elected official votes? For example, I would like to see abortions extremely rare and only in very specific cases, generally involving rape and the health of the mother. Laws that brought us closer to that would fit my view of an ideal world. I also believe it would be disastrous public policy here in the US to greatly restrict abortions, and if elected, probably would vote with the pro-choice group. Is that the kind of position flopping you would object to?

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 07:44 AM) And where did Rudy's candidacy go? Nowhere. It seems like you're really twisting words here. It was hardly mentioned, if at all. That was my point. Rudy's campaign went nowhere, but not because of his divorces. yet, with the Clintons, it's an issue. HOw is that twisting any words?

Tis the season . . .

Colbert - Stewert - Conan Can't even use the >, Shades of preference is basically my list.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 06:15 AM) My wife and I live for the weekend diet backslides. It's the carrot on the stick that makes you do good the rest of teh weekend. And as far as that other Sunday guilt. . . yes, early in my wayward youth I ran smack into that age-old Christian Conundrum – e.g., the thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning. I like how you moved your sig to the center. Supporting our candidates

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 03:45 AM) I don't. You're drunk

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 7, 2008 -> 03:45 AM) It's 3:45 am and I'm the only one logged on. Weird. Finally everyone here agrees with me. I don't.

It's 3:45 am and I'm the only one logged on. Weird. Finally everyone here agrees with me.

I find it interesting that this has slowly fizzled as we lost interest. It may be a microcosm of our societies interest in the war. We still like Nuke, hell most voters want him for a drinking buddy. (I'm running too, and I have sand just like Nuke) But we're not talking much about the war. Which probably means no candidate wants to really talk about the war. I wonder if this means Bush's policy of limiting some aspects of media coverage is working? Or Not. Anyway, How have you been Nuke?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 11:20 PM) As far as updates, I think everybody updating on their own more or less weekly would be fine. Like I said earlier, tend to be really good on keeping to a diet Sunday night through Friday afternoon, but then I'll usually cheat and eat something more satisfying on the weekends. It's not the best, but the Sunday morning guilt usually straightens me out and I am good again through the next week. To accommodate my scheduled weekend lapses I do my weigh-ins on Friday morning. But I think everybody should do their own thing as far as reporting. In the beginning of the year, I was also putting in 50+ miles on the stationary bike every week, but work has gotten more hectic and it's been harder to find the time. Next week I'll try to eas back into that routine but only try for maybe half of that so I can fit it in. Perhaps the Monday weigh in my stop the weekend backslide. Ever think that Sunday morning guilt is something else? perhaps PA and I thinking of you I too kid because I care . . .

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 11:06 PM) There are some people on this board who could lose that just by eliminating their egos. First off, wrong board for teal Second, I was just about to post that about myself

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 10:36 PM) Ok, if you want to talk semantics, even though you know exactly what my point is, fine. I'll be extremely careful in every word I type just to prevent you from taking my words out of context or distorting the obvious meaning of my post. I believe- just me- I'm not saying you should, or you do, or that anyone else should or does, but I believe that the two of them are working as a team to further their political careers. NOT their marriage. But their political careers. I believe their marriage is a sham- something put forth to appease the conservative voters who would struggle to vote for a divorced or separated woman (whose ex-husband happened to be an ex-President). I think they have basically agreed to stay together formally for each other's best interests, not for love or because they believe they can work it out, or anything else. Not even for Chelsea. I could be wrong. I could be entirely off base and nothing could be farther from the truth. But this thread was started as a question asking us to explain why we dislike Hillary Clinton, and those are my reasons. Your point is, and it gets to the heart of why some people hate Hillary. You *know* why they are married. Name other candidates that you *know* that well? There are many reasons that couples stay together after affairs, and not all of them are running for President. You also have added the quality of the marriage as a reason to vote for or possibly not for someone. At least in the Clinton's case. Within a healthy marriage the partners should be working to help each others career. So at least in this case, they have a very good marriage, even using your theory. Yet, you find fault in that. Perhaps they do have a crappy marriage in some aspects, but even the area that they do well, you're comfortable labeling a negative. And you are not alone in that. As you mentioned other people share that opinion. And repeated enough, it becomes another "fact" about the Clintons that "everybody knows". It's as if she is the only woman in America that has stayed with a husband who cheats. We accept other reasons in ordinary people's lives but in this case it's because she's a lesbian who wants to be President. It's amazing in this race the Family Values GOP had a many times divorced candidate in Rudy G and the Dems have a candidate that kept her marriage together. The candidate that received the most negative about it is the one that chose marriage over divorce. Now it seems the preferred value is divorce. This may signal a major turning point in our attitudes.