Texsox

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Oct 15, 2007 -> 07:12 PM) Yup, can't get more truth than that. As for Netflix: You get ONE DISC at a time unless you do the two disc or three disc at a time option. They don't look at it as "how it is packaged", they look at it as the physical disc itself. The only time you might get more than one movie is if it is a "flipper" disc. But even in those situations you will find that at times the rental companies get special discs that are NOT flippers, and they actually will get single flick discs. This is how the Universal Bela set was. If you want more than one flick at a time, you need to do one of the other options, but you pay more. If they do not list Disc 2 for rental how would you order it?

Is he ill? Why is he leaving?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 12:30 PM) Soxtalk ranks #51 on top 100 baseball sites. http://www.top100baseball.com/www.soxtalk.com.html We could be number one but our cheap ass owner won't pay for better posters. Poor Southsider been carrying this place on his back for years.

My last comments were more in response to Nuke's post regarding leftists. And I did not mean to disparage all the lapel pin wearers out there. Using Kap for an example. He has examined "why" and come to the conclusion that we should be in for the long haul, that the troops are needed in Iraq today, tomorrow, and probably for a while. I respect his position and his waving (metaphorically) the flag is wonderful. However, someone who believes supporting the troops is never questioning why we are there, never questioning what is being done, never questioning the leadership, is rather hollow. And, I'll point it out and save someone the typing. The opposite occurs on the other side when people decide the war is wrong without looking at why. But the knee jerk reaction of anyone who is against the war is also against the soldiers is false. Perhaps Nuke's view of citizens is because Nuke's employer demands total loyalty and he has no choice but to follow orders. He has to believe in his mission to be effective. I believe once again it is the check and balance, the fact we have civilians who are free to protest, free to vote for candidates that are in line with our views that has kept us out of some unjust, immoral, unethical conflicts. It has also kept us out of some places we probably should have been, but that is a different thread. By valuing our soldiers enough to say, this is not worth losing American lives, we support them far more than some flag waving rightly who is afraid to question, who finds it easier to stack body bags than question the government's actions.

I have never understood why waving a little flag and cheering as soldiers are sent into harm's way, no matter the reason, is supporting the troops while those that say, wait a minute, I don't think this is worth dying for, does not. I support the Troops first from a perspective that all human life has value. If we are going to send our young men and women into harms way, it better be a damn good reason, and just because the President says so, isn't good reason. I understand that there are times that violence has to be met with violence and would support sending Troops in those cases. I'll even pick up a silly little flag and wave it if it will make the soldiers feel better. But when I think our soldiers are dying needlessly, I will support them by working to bring them home and out of harms way. Whether they want to stay and engage the enemy not. I guess there are plenty of parallels to the death penalty, the ACLU, and comparative human values. And finally I treasure our freedom of speech and believe it should extend to soldiers. It's a shame when politicians and entertainers smear vets for profit and gain. Amazing the double standards out there. Where was Rush to defend Kerry?

I also thought death row inmates were under closer scrutiny. I assumed because they had "nothing to lose" and presumably represented a bigger risk to the guards.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 11:43 AM) 1. I thought she was just making an Iowa joke. Being a former resident, I recognize it. 2. Iowa's being first is not just precedent - there were a lot of reasons for it at first. Iowa was considered "middle America", it was politically centrist, it had an unusually well educated population (thanks to some of the best schools in the country), it had large rural areas but also some decent size cities, and it was geographically central. 3. I do agree that a better system needs to be in place, and Iowa doesn't need to be first every year. Great post.

Where do we draw the line? We draw the line at irreversible punishments. We can open the doors of a cell, we can not revive the dead. It is not a perfect reversal, we can not replace the time lost.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 02:37 PM) I am not saying I agree with this, but I think you missed my point. Its not placing more value on the life of someone who happens to work in the judicial system. Its placing a differential value representing the system ITSELF. Does that make it more clear? I understood what you meant. We agree. We then place something else into the equation other than the lost human life. What I am stating is best done with an example. L.C. is a 45 year old male who is killed in a shooting. His murder and the person who murdered him, would be treated differently if he was a custodian or a cop. There is some value to society in us doing that. I agree. But there is the sliding scale I am uncomfortable with. In deciding who is eligible for the dealth penalty, we look at who is killed, what that person has done with their life, and how they are killed.

Looking over the male/female and black/white statistics never leads to anything truly useful. For those that accept the death penalty, the answer should be, execute more people, which is unacceptable to the anti death penalty group. And the opposite, don't execute anyone is unacceptable to the pro death penalty group.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 02:19 PM) The genesis of the circumstances of aggravation that result in crimes against law enforcement officers (and fire and EMS personnel for that matter) is not about their life being worth more - its about protecting the symbols of law and order. Its judicial survivalism. When we take a life via the death penalty we are placing the criminal's life below the life they took. Trying not to be flippant or sarcastic with the next comment, but it would then seem we have now placed symbols ahead of human life. We have decided that someone who is part of the judicial process' life is more valuable and worth more protection than someone who is not. I agree there is some logic in our hierarchy or else it would not still be used. But anyone who claims it is simply one life for another is not be intellectually honest.

Once we start the death penalty, the sliding scale of human value bothers me. And it isn't just the criminals, but the victims also. A cop is valued greater than a truck driver. A cop getting murdered automatically places the death penalty on the table, not so with a trucker. And it isn't the value of the life taken, we also factor in how they were killed. A drunk driver does not face the death penalty, why is the person he killed valued less than a shooting victim? I believe that the value of human life is in the life, not what the individual does with that life.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 11:57 AM) Those who choose not to commit murder or rape or sell drugs or abuse the weak and defenseless ________________ Those that do. It's very simple really. Then God Bless

I'd be interested in hearing your hierarchy of human values? Which lives are worth less than others?

Yes, I am placing all human life on the same level. So sacred that men in government have the same rights to take that life as men on the street. If he was murdered before trial, would you not prosecute the murderer? There is no higher value that I can place than on human life. It is impossible to calculate, and therefor can not be placed in a hierarchy.

Congrats, you receive an A in spin today.

There is a reason that just about every healthy male who owns a glove is drafted by MLB each year. The baseball draft has the lowest predictive quality of the major sports. I don't know whether it is the long maturation process in the minor leagues, or the vast amount of talent entering the system but looking at the 25 man roster and tracing it back to country of origin doesn't say much.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 09:49 AM) I see a pattern here, but obviously, most won't. Care to share? I see a broader statement in this post that I believe most will.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 09:43 AM) Now see this is what I don't understand. When a person talks about how people should live their lives by Christian standards, it seems that you are expected to do that 100% of the time, at a 100% effort. You can't have any deviation from this, or you end up on the front page of the newspapers. The message and the efforts that are made, are never mentioned, only the straying into sin, and the hypocracy of the sinner. When a person stands up a moral authority on race relations, why is it that they are allowed to get away with using slurs and derogatory terms towards races, while other people and races cannot do the samething? Doesn't equality mean all people are equal? When did equal rights start to end with a *? Big picture, what is the big difference here? If we are listening to the message, and ignoring the messenger, why the continuing coverage of Larry Craig? If we are judging people by their actions, why do people like John Edwards and Al Gore get a free pass on what they do wrong, based on their intentions? Why is Jesse Jackson allowed to slur Jews and Caucasions, but is allowed to lead groups like Rainbow Push, while when Anne Coulter says something incredibly stupid and insensative, people are trying to get her fired? In the interest of fairness, it should be one way or the other, but it isn't. Why the gigantic double standards today? Why Larry Craig? His appeals, resignation, withdrawing the resignation, etc. is all new news. I think those that champion a cause are under greater scrutiny, not less. Al Gore's energy use, Edwards' charitable giving and speaker fees, Jesse's racial comments are all discussed and branded hypocritical as warranted. Not only do I think they do not get a free pass, they are given less of a pass than the average Joe for speaking out. Where I believe there is a double standard is how people in institutionalized power wield that power. This country responds favorably to underdogs and abhors bullies. Being rich and white in America is power and we expect those people to use it fairly and without bias. We still view minorities as unfair targets. This may be a situation where right or wrong, on or off, is replaced by a volume control.

Valuing all life as sacred and valuable is less hypocritical than valuing some more than others, which is what your position does. You make it seem as if death is the only suitable punishment. Life in prison values both lives. I do not believe our government is perfect and do not feel comfortable allowing the government to execute humans. We've sent people to death row who were innocent of the crimes they were accused of. If we allow executions, what could be considered cruel and unusual? Anything less than death could be considered better so all punishments would be allowed.

I think before it is over the money will come up to about even. I've read a couple articles that indicate the usual Republican donors are waiting and seeing before making donations. There could be a lot of late money for the GOP. That could actually help them. I can't see the regulars sitting out this election. And like it or not, some people donate because they do not like the opponent. If the Dems nominate Clinton or Obama, there will be plenty of "anti" money coming out. Way more than say Edwards.

I guess this depends on what scale we are measuring him. I am not an expert on every candidate, but is there another candidate who gives more of his/her time, talents, and treasure than Edwards to any pet cause? He may be the best out there in this regard. And yet he gets slammed.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 08:21 PM) I don't know, I've always been partial to "Afternoon Delight". I just LOVE how bad that song is, sound effects and all. Both would be great songs to play on midnight at the oasis, especially if you left the cake out in the rain.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 06:02 PM) it's probably because CNN didn't have pictures of the other GOP candidates of them looking like someone tightly holding their scrotums.... OMG you are right, even the pictures choices are so one sided.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 02:27 PM) Is it really wrong to expect someone like that to give up some of their earnings? What would you thyink about him being taxed higher?