Texsox

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 02:02 PM) I guarantee if there were a draft instituted a lot of war supporters like you would change their tune. All through history wars have been fought by a nation's immigrants and least advantaged. Kaps best contribution will be paying his taxes and cheerleading.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 01:03 PM) So every person who is "for" this has to go enlist? OOOOOOOkay. Kind of what I was thinking. But, how about shouldering more of the financial burden?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 11:01 AM) If you give me stock, no, I would not owe taxes, until I sold it. I don't think. Because how could one determine the gains? With the ball, if you use it as collateral, you are essentially realizing some sort of gain from it, so I'd then think that it would be taxable at the value which was collateralized. You would owe in the current price of the gift. Then down the road if you sell, you would also owe on any gains. This is out of my sphere, but isn't this were a lot of the barter systens fell into trouble? I "give" you something of value like professional services and you "pay" me with another non cash item. An explosion in this would take out a lot of money from our tax system.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 11:01 AM) But that's on them, not us. That's my point. We gave them the opportunity, and if they squander it, the presence of the troops did not cause them to destroy themselves, they did. OK. But why should we destroy ourselves to help them? How much do we owe them at this point? We cleared out those WMD, removed their dictator, and have tried to play referee to a feud that goes back millenniums. I know war hawks don't like comparisons, but we've been down this path before, why repeat it out of stubbornness? And I was reluctantly for the war before I was against it

What is the "community table"? I have a guess and it sounds very cool. And kudos for b eing involved. We made a terrible mistake in this country when we started sentencing criminals to "community service". We all should give to out communties in some way. Either time, talent, or treasure.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 09:53 AM) Old Person + vehicle + confused + football game = fun for the whole family They managed to continue the game with one goal post. Sounds like some intelligent, sane, coaches who didn't get to anal. I am almost amazed.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 10:56 AM) Nah, seriously, I get your point - but at the same time, how much do we have to hear that we've totally ruined Iraq and our troops are making things worse from (specifically) Harry Reid, Schmucky Schumer, Mrs. Bill Clinton, John Frankenstien Kerry, Bill Richardson, Barack Obama, et. al.? They run for the camera every day to tell us the exact same thing. Enough to where we stop sending people to die for a country that won't help themselves?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 10:06 AM) Except if it was a stock or other similar investment, you don't pay taxes for owning it. You pay taxes when you sell it. Which is why I find this tax thing pretty stupid - its not cash, nor is it real estate - so I really don't think it should be taxed. The gift tax does suck. But it was abused, and the loop holes were closed. There should be a difference between an asset that is being used immediately like a home, cars, or cash, and one that really only has value when sold. But, as I type this I thought of a situation, How would your opinion change if he took out a loan and used the ball as collateral? "Leased" the ball? Also, if I give you stock, wouldn't you owe taxes? That is the difference between this and stocks you've bought.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 10:45 AM) If this forum were an actual room, I think we'd need to put a scarecrow in the corner, dress him up and put "DEM" on his chest. That way, every time someone gives some ridiculous hyperbole and assigns it to a non-existant, fictional caricature of a Democrat, we can all just point at the straw man and say, "Look at the silly straw man!" And of course, we'd need to do the same for the GOP, so that Sqwert would have someone to pin stuff on. Thank you. Much better said than what I was typing, BTW, it will be riddled with bullet holes from Nuke

Meh. Doesn't work in this version, doesn't work in yours.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 09:55 AM) It's REALLY difficult to figure out where this stuff came from. If it was crated and marked ( like so much stuff I found when I was there in 2003 ) then it would be that easy. This stuff, however, had no markings of any kind. Iraq was, and to a large extent still is, a massive weapons bazzar. Sidebar: Rent Deal of a Century with Chevy Chase, funny stuff, basically mirrors this.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 10:05 AM) I'll take the meat heads over a bunch of flower tossing leftist pussies who sing Koom Bah Ya and "Give peace a chance!" while a country that is on record as saying it wants to wipe nations off the map implements a crash program to develop nuclear weapons. /rolly If you were a middle eastern country how would you factor in the largest mega-power with nuclear weaspons and a track record of wiping governments off the map?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 10:01 AM) soft and cuddly? Where do you get this stuff? Why do we have a category for non-deadly? Because the more tools the cops have at their disposal that are less dangerous (for less dangerous situations), the better, don't you think? Or would you rather we go back to when they just carried a gun and stick? Sorry, I wasn't clear. Why call it non-deadly? Why not less-deadly? Why not just call them weapons? I'm not saying get rid of the tool, I just find it funny how we sanitize stuff and put on these labels. To paraphrase; Balta states that the weapon can be deadly, and you reply well non-deadly doesn't mean NON-deadly. I guess it depends on how you define "non". I'm going to guess that the term was coined by people manufacturing these weapons to help sell the weapon. Who isn't in favor of non-deadly methods? It sounds way better than "weapons that kill only some of the time". Stupid side trip down a linguistics and marketing lane. Carry on.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 09:45 AM) Can somebody please explain this: Basically he was given an asset and needed to pay the taxes due. If I gave you and item worth $100,000, you would be responsible for any taxes owed. Just like on a game show, the contestants have to pay taxes. Perhaps thinking about a stock gain. Or if an employer decided to give you a house instead of paying you?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 09:00 AM) Good god with that definition, peanuts are a deadly weapon, and should never be served to anyone, because someone might die from them. Do we call peanuts, non-deadly? Why do we have a category called non-deadly or non-lethal? I believe it is to make people believe the weapon is soft and cuddly and not as dangerous as it is. And why would the police want to make something warm and cuddly?

Over a career History classes, learn the text book Algebra, learn the text book Pols req'd courses, learn the text Intro Soc, learn the text Intro to Psy, learn the text Phil, learn the text

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 03:59 PM) Balta, you are wrong on this one. The phrase "non-deadly weapon" does not mean it 100% will never kill anyone. I like how society mislabels things. I'm not certain what better label we can come up with, but isn't it weird that Balta would be wrong for pointing out that "non-deadly" is deadly?

And there has been the introduction of prime time news magazines, and an expansion of the "Meet the Press" style shows. Again more depth.

I thought we were talking about "the media". The networks have partnered with on-line sites as well and expanded their offerings. MSNBC offers more "depth". cbs.com same. I believe we are much more critical and more careful consumers of news than our grandparents were. That has led to a perception that the news gathering of their days was better.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 01:27 PM) That's not depth - its breadth, which is the opposite of depth. Hundreds of reporters and hundreds of sources on the same story, I should have been more specific. Plus we now have access to foreign coverages as well. You also can search hundreds of news papers, getting local slants on news from out of your area. There is so much more depth that is delivered to your (door) computer.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 12:09 PM) If you want to really dumb it down....If you go to class on a regular basis, and put forth a minimal effort, you should be fine in college. Clearly there are always exceptions to the rule, but I would say 8/10, if you attended class every day, you will be fine. But think about your classes. How many are based on the textbook? How many do the tests come directly out of the text?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 11:58 AM) Politico Another example of the liberal media trying to make Thompson look bad. I guess he must really be scaring them. Sad they just won't let the American public decide and report on that.

I was thinking about my courses and what we are covering, and more important, what we are required and tested on and came to the realization that 90% of my formal college education is reading and knowing about 45 books. That's really it. Each course has about one book, you read and regurgitate.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 10:06 AM) Yes. Unless of course there is something shiny and loud the other way. No way - not even close. Depth has been abandoned in favor of surface-level treatment. In some ways, yes. Depth is probably the most dramatically changed. More stories to begin with. Hundreds more reporters, hundreds more sources. Way more stories. Stories stay in the news for weeks, not a day or two.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 09:35 AM) Technologically, yes. More willing to expose wrong doing, not willing to look the other way. Digging deeper. Able to build on each others' work more efficiently.