Texsox

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 11:07 PM) According to you, we all should. The government should say where we get treated, when we get treated, and who treats us. I'm sorry... not in my country. I would rather keep that choice, thank you. Oh wait, now I will hear that most people don't get a choice. I personally think there are ALWAYS choices. It's what you choose to do ultimately. Whaaaat? Where did you get that idea? The taxpayers are all paying now for uninsured, the working poor, the indigent, the workers whose employers will not offer that benefit. I'd like to see a better system. So far in this thread there is one proposal, making employers responsible and your snarky comments assuming my views.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 04:35 PM) All thought I will say a few days like that will explain a lot about Texans. Think of the old scrambled eggs/drugs commericials That's one good thing about my job, June and July at the beach. Cool Gulf breezes every night.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 11, 2007 -> 02:08 PM) Have a good time all the time. That's my philosophy, Marty. Mega cool points for identifying the quote WITHOUT Googling. I would have made the same guess as PA, I guess this one is worth eleven points?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 12:51 AM) Perhaps I mis-speak when I say morality cannot be legislated, and I really mean morality ought not be legislated. Cartainly laws can and do have moral weight, but they should not be based on relativistic moral positions (e.g., I'm a racist so I'm going to push for a new set of Jim Crow laws even if my position is not representative of societal mores.). Aren't all laws based on morality?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 14, 2007 -> 12:32 AM) Firstly, anybody who believes that science has "proven" anything - ever - doesn't get science and aren't really adding to the discussion. Which I believe was my original point that started this. Thank you. It takes some degree of faith to accept unproven, and can never be proven, information.

Noooooooooooooooooooo it's too soon. I was hoping for the late September collapse. It's all a Sox fan has left, watching Cub fans in misery.

I always liked him.

Damn he's almost as old as FlaSoxxJim

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 04:27 PM) OK, we all raise prices en mass, then the people just end up paying for their healthcare thru higher prices. How much extra would I need to generate to cover the 'charges'? $200 per employee? $400? $50? If I had to add another $2000+ per month to cover this so-called 'free health care', I would have to add about $16 per invoice to cover it (at a $2000 cost). That would be about a 5% increase, just for that program. not to mention that all of MY costs are goign to go up as well from whatever suppliers of mine have to pay the fee, so my prices have to go up even more. Figure at least another 5%, probably closer to 8%. This would also be an overnote jump once the plan is implimented, so we would just end up being like the gas stations, raising our prices dramatically in one day. Those $40 business cards now cost $45. The $350 mailing job now costs almost $400. And not just me, the corner convenience store raises the Pepsi price from $1.35 to $1.50. That .99 hot dog special now costs $1.12. The new tires for your car just went from $400 to $440. Someone has to pay for it. Eventually it will be consumers, but the government is just trying to use business as the tax collector. Instead we are paying tax money for health benefits through Medicaid, CHiPs, and other health care for the working poor programs. Tell me, if one of your employees found out he had a tumor that needed to be removed, who should pay for it and do they have the resources?

So we can decide morality for the nation? My views should be rejected because I go to Church? How about anyone that drinks beer shouldn't be allowed to force their views of alcohol laws on anyone? If you own stocks you shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion on financial matters?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:33 PM) Well, of course, none of this is testable even if it iis imaginative. Once something falls out of the realm of the testable it is no longer of concern to science. And that is exactly my earlier comment, although much better presented. Once I better understood the scientific process, and believe it or not, it is used in the behavior sciences as well , I started to understand the limits of our "proven" knowledge. We can not reproduce a primordial soup, there is just too much stuff there that we can't control and test. Like many debates in this country that become faith-centric (abortion, capital punishment, etc) both sides quickly reject all things on both sides, and that is a mistake. I believe science is about unraveling God's work and discovering his process. In the end, if there is one, science will bring us closer to God, not further away. Sadly, at that moment, I could believe that neither side would believe what has been "proven" because they are still fighting. But bottom line, because we can not test the beginning of human time, it currently is out of the realm of science, yet some still believe science has "proven" evolution *and* the beginning of time. That is not the case, may never be the case, and if you believe in the primordial soup theory, it is by placing your faith in an untested theory.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 04:46 PM) OOOOOOOOOKaaay... that's taking it a little too far. How so? How much influence do you think he had on President Bush?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 04:37 PM) No serious answers yet? Religious, but not in an organized church sort of way. I don't think most of them have the right idea anymore. Way to institutionalized based on how I read the New Testament. Regular attendance. Regular Bible reading. As a condition of my employment, I have to agree that there is a power greater than myself, and I do so without hesitation. I guess I am one of the religious wackos that run around here.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 04:38 PM) The world might hate him, but he is a master at what he does. And that may be the sadest commentary of all. He was arguably one of the ten most powerful men in the world. His control over President Bush seemed absolute.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 10:11 AM) Do you guys really think the Playboy airbrush artists couldn't make Brit look like the Brit people always fantasised about? Those people do wonders with average looking women on a daily basis. You do know that NOBODY in the magazine actually looks like you see, right? You bastard, next you'll tell me there is no Santa and that deficit spending doesn't work . . .

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 10:27 AM) Perhaps you have no idea how government works. That threshold will be so low that the only business not qualifying would be a lemonaide stand. If every business has the same cost added, how would that put you at a competitive disadvantage? You would add the costs on, just like your competitors.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 12:51 PM) Oh, it's ok. Obama is the Second Coming. It's Hammer Time Tom Delay '08 Join me Kap.

Yes, there are a number of people who have created their own religious denominations around here that exactly fit their interpretation of the world. It works nicely for them. No outlay of time or effort, just to continue what they have always done. BTW, I am describing beyond the usual suspects here. Including those posters that only occasionally jump into a conversation.

There is certainly a larger group of atheists, anti-religious posters, than regular Church goers. Certainly the social conservative groups is much smaller than the liberal social group. I tend to avoid these threads, but found an interesting conversation with Jim and stuck around. I think there can be civil discussions, but I agree with PA in some of these threads the gloves come off way to fast and miscommunication is the rule.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:43 AM) Not in my lifetime. And that means not in yours, either, old man. imho the wrong dole was nominated . . .

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 13, 2007 -> 09:11 AM) Hillary won't be beat by any of the GOP doofus's running. None of them have any guts to take her out politically. too much neg on her side both both Dems and of course GOP. The first female pres will be a Rep.

QUOTE(spiderman @ Aug 12, 2007 -> 09:11 PM) Not really familar with his politics, just wondering then why he cares about the GOP race then.... For those with a party preference, there are two candidates you want to see on the other ticket. A. Someone easy to beat. (Which is why the GOP has been hyping Hillary for years) B. Someone you could see yourself voting for. (which is why I care who the GOP nominates in case above works for them)

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 11, 2007 -> 01:43 PM) I remain proud of the Darwin's Bulldogs. And I fundamentally disagree with Tex in equating faith in the existence of an untestable divine agent with faith in the scientific process as a means to critically examine that which testable. These are polar opposites. I too have faith in the scientific process. It's as solid as it comes. But there are some things that can not be tested, can not be duplicated. The origin of all matter is one such thing. Some people believe that evolution has passed a scientific gold standard of "fact". There are too many gaps in out knowledge to do that. When people fill in those gaps with untested information and guesses, that is faith. If there is a planner, divinity, God, or whatever someone chooses to call it, then science is really the process of understanding the methods that the planner has used. No threat to people of faith, in fact it is a welcome process that unravels those mysteries and moves us closer to that divine being. As Ben Franklin said "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy".

I wonder if the $503,000 winning bid is legit. Would you rather have Bonds Homerun ball or this bottle for 1/2 a mil?