Texsox

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 12:21 PM) I fundamentally agree with "one person, one vote," but find it troubling that Britney Spears' opinion on who should be President holds as much sway as someone with a PhD in Political Science. Take heart, most studies reveal the "Britney Spears" of the world do not vote as much as the "FlaSoxBaltas" of the world.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 12:24 PM) I was going to use this for the last one but it works here too. Frank Zappa Watch out where the huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow. Topic: Black AC/DC Yes we're back in black . . . mugged

QUOTE(BigEdWalsh @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 12:20 PM) Sam and Dave Well don't you ever be sad Lean on me when times are bad When the day comes and you're in doubt, In a river of trouble, about to drown. Hold on, I'm coming. Hold on, I'm coming. Next topic: snow Clapton When your day is done and you wanna run; cocaine. OK, the other snow

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 12:13 PM) You're right, my point needs to be amended: Problem: Budget Shortfalls Democrat Solution: Raise taxes to record levels. Don't worry about how it will take money out of people's pockets and slow down the economy. Don't worry about it driving away business and investment. If we can add just a few more social programs, all we be well. Republican Solution: Cut taxes. Everyone knows that cutting taxes = more taxes always no matter what. In the mean time, we'll spend billions fighting overseas and borrow money from China to pay for it all. The only programs that should be cut are stupid liberal hippy programs, like education and children's health care. How can it possibly go wrong? That's pretty much it. And since our government favors compromise we get all the Dem spending and cutting taxes.

QUOTE(BigEdWalsh @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 12:01 PM) Strawberry Alarm Clock Give mankind on, Turn your mind on, Sit with the guru, (guru, guru) Meditation, ooh. Next topic: radio I forget who sang it but: I play the radio on southern station 'cuz southern belles are hell at night Beer

QUOTE(YASNY @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 11:53 AM) Okay ... I'll give you that point. But this is exactly what's wrong with the nation right now. Too many secrets that are strictly for reasons of agenda. National security is one thing, political agenda is something entirely different ... and unacceptable imho. Agreed.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 11:35 AM) You don't require proof to decide what candidate to vote for? What do you use then? The biggest smile? The best commericials? The biggest promises made? Again, look at Edwards and his charitable donations. Kap still calls him a hypocrite, others claim it proved he is as good as he claims. The people that are pro-anybody and the people that are anti-someone look at the same "proof" and believe it supports their point of view. And we do this on a personal basis as well. Do you make your spouse prove every statement they make? We accept people as being honest or not, and make judgments based on that. If Kap tells you something, do you ask him for proof? No, you have decided he is credible, honest, and you accept that statement.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 11:26 AM) The record is extant. It's just a matter of her backing up what she says. If what she claims is fact, this should be a no-brainer. But it is not a no brainer. They are Presidential records that Bush and Clinton have to approve to be released and both parties have agendas and reasons for not wanting that stuff released.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 11:16 AM) The hard core Republicans and the hard core Democrats are not going to decide who is our next president. And yes, you are correct. I will NEVER vote for Hillary. I may vote for a democrat, but not if it's her. I was mixing groups in that post. For any voter, if they require "proof", I doubt they will vote for that candidate.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 11:03 AM) Yes YOU rejected her claim. That doesn't mean the mindless throngs will do the same. If she's going to throw that out there, she needs to back it up. No, people need to decide if she should back it up. They have the choice to accept or reject the statement. Some people will reject it regardless of "proof". Witness Edwards and his financial returns and donations to charity. That "proof" clearly didn't change minds of hardcore Republicans. And we all know no matter what "proof" she produces, attendance lists for meetings, memos, etc. the hard core Republicans will reject it and the hard core Dems will slurp it up. I would suggest that if the candidate requires proof of everything, then they do not have the credibility with *you* for you to vote for him/her and it is a mute point. There is nothing that Hillary could ever produce that would get yours and Kap's votes.

And I think this is the reality for most trades. No clear winner or loser. Certainly the really lopsided, obvious trades are the minority. This one is interesting because it is pitcher for pitcher and can be evaluated easier. The take this off my surplus and give me that to fill a hole trade is much more difficult to evaluate.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:55 AM) If she wasn't claiming to have been more involved, then it wouldn't be an issue. That fact is, she's using her supposed influence during Bill's time as a reason she should be considered qualified for the presidency, yet won't let the record become public. I understand that and I also read it is up to President Bush and President Clinton. So if it is pro, Bush can block and if it is con, Bill can block. Seems like a nice cozy situation to just release nothing. And I rejected her claim, believing that First Spouse, no matter how "involved", is not a qualifier for President.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:50 AM) Because he is the biggest hypocrite of hypocrites (in both parties) in the presidential field. And I can't stand that trait. I look at his charitable contributions and think he's less hypocritical than a lot of people in the field. Where do you put Rudy G.?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:41 AM) Yea, because I'm sure he's some nutjob wacked out Republican and all. GMAB. Edwards is a class pig. Period. Because his wife doesn't like the neighbor? Wow. It seems of all the candidates he's the only one that puts his pocketbook where his mouth is. I believe he really has tried to help the poor. But to believe he must go over and hug any poor person is crazy. But your standards are your standards.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:45 AM) She is the one on the campaign trail claiming all of this experience from her work in the White House and all of the meetings she sat in on etc. Without the records, who knows. Which is up to her husband and a rival Pres to jointly release. So pro and con get blocked. Sounds like a nice cozy relationship. I've pretty much discounted any claim of experience from being First Lady, so it doesn't mean much to me. Well perhaps she knows where to tell Bill to stand at state functions and which spouses are fun to hang with.

Bill, look I ran for president, put up with all the campaign b.s. and Won! Just so I could give you the power like you like! Sorry, I don't see anyone doing that, at certainly not Hillary. I see Hillary telling him to shut up and take the other spouses to tea. In fact, I could see her using, in part, her position to humiliate the former President in that way. Hmm, that just may be something I would like about her.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:17 AM) Nice. "I thought he was supposed to be for the poor people but does he ever socialize with any poor people? He doesn't speak to me." This guy is the biggest fake in the field. Kap, would you go over and chat with him? GMAB and take off the partisan glasses. Plus did you notice most of the quotes were from his wife? Would you send your wife and daughter over to the crazy gun toting neighbor who chases people away from his fence? There are better things to criticize him over.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:17 AM) That's just it. She won't authorize the release of her records to see if what she is claiming she did in the White House is true or not. Instead all we have to go on is hearsay, and what her and Bill have to say. The records would clear that up really quickly. I thought we were talking about the Presidential records? I can't believe she has that much official authority. National secrets, etc.

On one hand you say she hasn't done anything, on the other you claim she was practically a co-President with Bill. I'm not a big Hillary fan, but I really don't see her allowing Bill to have much involvement. Look at the adjectives that Kap used, is that the kind of person that would win as President and then turn over the reigns to her husband?

all they can do is their best all the time. the rest is out of their control.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:12 AM) Amen. For the information age, people as a whole are more stupid then ever before. QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:13 AM) I disagree and I'll tell you why. But first let me get back to this Jerry Springer episode. Pure comedic gold.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:13 AM) I disagree and I'll tell you why. But first let me get back to this Jerry Springer episode.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:03 AM) In this order: NY Yankees Boston Red Sox Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, California, United States, North America, Western Hemisphere, Earth Chicago Cubs good list.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:08 AM) San Antonio would only work if a stadium was built between there and Austin. Like New Braunfels or San Marcos. But I don't think Tom Hicks and Drayton McClane will allow it. I think Portland is probably the best bet outside of Fremont. I think the drive from Austin to SA wouldn't stop fans. Put the stadium on the north side and they would be fine. I don't think they need to go all the way to San Marcos. Maybe near the outlet malls?

Sometimes the margin of difference is so small, it doesn't matter.