Texsox

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.

What you are promised in this country is a chance. You are promised a college education. You are promised as close to an equal chance as everyone else. You are even promised food and shelter if you can not provide it for yourself. Sorry if the accommodations are not to your liking. I believe it was mixed income. Improve the income (I know it takes work) and move back. I am one of the biggest supporters of these programs anywhere. But when I see someone who thinks of these programs as the end and not the beginning or even the middle, I am disappointed for the system. I would be applauding your efforts to get out, not your efforts to stay there.

A marriage as a team helping each other out. Wow, that is terrible. Marriage should be about hurting each other's careers. Dumping him would have appealed to more voters. To believe your theory, you have to believe that the majority of voters think she did the right thing staying together. I don't think that was the case.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 06:13 PM) a book he only put out because Edwards did so first. (i'm allowed to be a little bitter every once and a while right? lol) Everyone puts out books now.

A gift store down here has a plaque with a picture of Nolan pounding on Ventura's head. LOL I met Ryan at his restaurant and begged him to tell me the story from his point of view. Hilarious. He half expected to get his butt kicked, then he saw trhe look in Ventura's eyes and almost laughed. Ventura knew he shouldn't have rushed the mound, that it was a no win situation.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 08:29 PM) OK, I liked my Fat Elvis/Thin Elvis sig, but conformist sheep that I am I'm adopting the group sig. Good luck, fellow flabbies! No, I love the fat elvis / thin elvis. We should not all be in lock step.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 06:29 PM) Well, this is part of what really bothers me...but it isn't that I believe she stayed with him because she had no spine, but rather, that she stayed with him because she knew it was in the best interests of her eventual political career. Which I find extremely repugnant. I don't believe in their marriage- I think it's a sham and strictly a career arrangement for both of them. It's not that I believe they don't care for one another, but I think they each think of their political careers first and foremost (whether that is individually or collectively) their daughter second (I hope), and then whatever is left of their sham marriage. So fighting to save a marriage and keeping the family together is a bad thing? I wonder if you have analyzed the other candidates marriages, which ones are the best, which couples are the most in love?

Men crying is weak and knocks you out of the race. So if the Clinton campaign did decide that cryng would help, it was a damn big risk, and one I don't think she needed to make.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 05:37 PM) Nope. But the all time great teams win their championship no matter what. If New England was THAT good they would have won on Sunday. If you want to sit here and tell me that the 85 Bears or 89 Niners or one of the 70's Steelers teams were the greatest ever, I'd say that's debatable and you could at least make a case for them. This years Pats though? Nope. They lost when it mattered, they aren't one of the greatest teams ever, don't care what anyone says. So you are placing every Super Bowl winning team ahead of this Pats team on the All-Time list?

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 01:40 PM) you callin' me a liar? I'm 6'3" and have a football/baseball player frame. Like Colon, Kruk, Perry, etc. Honestly, my goal of 225 would mean I either lost my head or should be playing AA ball. We definitely need to include before and after pictures for proof. I believe you

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 6, 2008 -> 05:32 PM) This is actually the one thing I tried to avoid with my whole post on policy issues earlier. I can't honestly say that deep down somewhere buried that doesn't play into my decision, because I'm a geologist and not a psychologist. But I'd like to think that this is not something that bothers me. I've voted for Boxer, I've voted for Feinstein, I don't on the surface feel like I have a problem with voting for a woman, I feel like I have a problem with this particular one, and their history of policy. And I believe that to be true for many people, but the same behavior that would pass for normal from a guy tags her as a b****. Name another candidate that comes close to a description like that. The types of adjectives that are used to describe her is very interesting. I also think there are some people that wish she had publicly humiliated William Jefferson and divorced him during the Lewinski affair. What could have passed, perhaps, as conservative, Tammy Wynett, stand by your man, became a conniving tool to become President. She is judged differently as a woman, but isn't that valid? Is not sex a big part of who we are? What our identity is? There are differences between men and women, and not just under the hood.