Texsox

QUOTE(knightni @ May 1, 2007 -> 04:06 PM) Headin' to the RnR Hall on Friday. Hope it's worth it. isn't. At least it wasn't a few years back. Set your expectations low, you won't be disappointed. And no Rush

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ May 1, 2007 -> 11:35 AM) She was shaking in anger???? LMAO Sure a girl wouldnt like that song. Uh Carol, he was 18 years old when he did this, in college. Lets not go overboard on what happened in a dorm or frat in college when they were 18. I am sure that a lot of things that people did in college at 18 through say whatever is not going to go on your resume. People need a reality check. Yep, there should be a 100% pass on all college behavior. This is the one time that you can treat humans like garbage plenty of time to act human later. I can't wait to you guys have daughters. You will be so much cooler than adults now "Hey man, sing that one where you stick your dick in my daughters ear, I love that"

I am 6'1" and the shortest of my friends growing up. I never really thought twice about someone being tall unless they where over about 6'10" or also very muscular. Keith Van Horn in a leather trench coat is still the most intimidating human I have ever met. I didn't think twice until George Gervin started an NBA development team in town, now I look twice in case it is someone who once was famous.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ May 1, 2007 -> 03:00 PM) "I said, 'Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill! I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth! Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL!! KILL.!'. . . !" You can get anything you want . . . damn kids will have to google this one.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 1, 2007 -> 02:05 PM) Personally, I think/hope that either way, we haven't seen the last of BA in this organization...because if we have, then we're in real trouble the next few years when our vets start walking. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Based on the current roster, I agree.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ May 1, 2007 -> 11:20 AM) I think the lyrics are hilarious, and almost everyone who ever went to college participated in stuff like this or joked like that... I'm certain Soxy and Queen rapped like that all the time . . .

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ May 1, 2007 -> 12:04 PM) I dont know, maybe you should post this poll on WSI and find out? i keed i keed

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ May 1, 2007 -> 10:02 AM) Hackney's /thread

I've been reading a number of suits from the government not fulfilling treaties. One big payout and let's end this system. No way it will last another 150 years, or at least no way it should.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 1, 2007 -> 01:29 PM) Its been time for that for a long time, but since the American Indian community is not considered the slightest bit important politically, no one wants to step up and make any changes. Its kind of a shame. Circling back to the topic of government waste, the BIA is but one example. they are an extreme case, but there are plenty of other agencies that are just piss poor at doing their jobs. They just eat money. How do you think a private company would do to fulfill all these treaties, provide services from school to police to monitoring leases? And if a treaty is not followed who gets sued?

Wow, one stupid mistake. Well if we ever restate the draft no need to pucker up and kiss the guy next to you, just write a twisted, sick, violent essay and you will be released.

Missed the voting amendment and which form is used.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 05:34 PM) 82 inmates at Gitmo completely cleared of all charges...but the U.S. is unable to let them out, because a lot of countries don't want people back who have spent 5 years being "interrogated" by the U.S. The U.S. also indicated that of the 380 or so people still held there, only 60 to 80 would ever be put on any sort of trial, the rest will eventually be released. I can't believe on a planet this size, we can't find a place for them.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ May 1, 2007 -> 12:42 PM) I didnt read the article, I was just wondering if this guy is the same height as Bin Laden. Isnt Bin Laden abnormally tall? binny is 6'4" this guy is "over 6 foot"

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 1, 2007 -> 01:00 PM) well on the bright side, we should get a solid seed in the tourney...

This must be local. Focus Factor. FREE?! It must be good! I've been using Focus Factor since we introduced it two years ago and wouldn't work a day without it.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 1, 2007 -> 12:29 PM) BIA is tasked with a lot. Too much, even if they were good at it. But they aren't. On one hand I was surprised we have this huge agency for 1.2 million people, but our nation made a lot of promises through the years. Has there been any discussions with dissolving the agency and place the Tribes in the same systems we are duplicating? HUD, etc.? From everything I've just read, we could have the greatest people in the world working for that agency and it wouldn't work. Time to figure out a way to get them off the reservations or make the reservations economically viable.

BTW, NSS72, the government has already taken your advice, The Trices already have an option to accept direct fundign and provide the services themselves, at least in some areas. Linked Good article. I'm not certain how this reconciles to your 10% reach the tribe's number. Are you counting the police forces in the 10% or the 90%? Schools? Weather forecasting? Lease management fees? Required Weed Control? I am amazed at all the BIA is tasked with. Every treaty and agreement going back 150 years must be observed? I thoght it just handed out checks like Public Aid.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ May 1, 2007 -> 11:41 AM) people still use IE? I've run into a number of sites where IE works much better. As much as I like Firefox, and before that Netscape, I use IE more now than a few years ago.

Since we are a rather self selecting sample (sports junkies) I shouldn't have been surprised with the early results. I wonder what the average fans would say?

Best of luck to him.

Take the absolute cost of something. The government tacks on waste from too many regulations and inefficiencies. Private industry tacks on profit. Either way money is diverted from the end purpose and hurts the tax payer. We demand the government buy American, that increases prices. We demand the government write specs that allows the most companies to compete, that invites waste. If we could eliminate the waste without spending it on profits, we all win. Imagine calling the IRS and getting a call center in Malaysia. A private company needs to buy a desk. They go to the store, find one they like and seems like a good price, and buy it. Later if they see one for $20 less, no big deal, the saved $20 in time and effort. We demand that the government write up specifications for a desk and have companies bid. Someone has to write the specs and evaluate the specs. Why don't we allow the government to act like a private business? Instead we demand the waste then complain about it. We demand they spend $2 to save $1 Using NSS example in the BIA, when it is reported that the private company is sending more money to the Native Americans than before and the owner just bought a $10,000,000 ranch in Idaho, we should call it an American success. But wouldn't the taxpayer now demand the company send even more to the Native Americans? Would we really be happy knowing he bought that ranch with our tax dollars? I believe we should carefully look at some programs and have private not for profits run the programs with clear benchmarks. Allow them to be more nimble.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 1, 2007 -> 10:31 AM) I am not quite sure if you understand what government spending really is or not. Pretty much the vast majority of it is the US government paying people to do work at a much higher rate than anyone else would do it for. If you want to cut spending, you are pretty much going to cut government jobs and move them into the private sector. Plus there isn't an absolute rule that makes ineffeciencies the profit margin. I don't know where that came from, but isn't a rule, and it doesn't have to be even an actual occurence. The simple thing would be to make it a rule that a certian percentage of savings are given back to the taxpayers. Also doesn't surprise me that the reports that agree with privatization, you would label as "biased". I guess you borrowed from our evil conservative playbook by dismissing anything that doesn't agree with your point of view as biased. Funny, I want the government to borrow less and that makes me an enemy of conservative values I didn't dismiss any links because you didn't show any. When some company produces a report on how they can save the country millions and provide a better service, I dismiss it. But conservatives take it hook line and sinker? I don't think so. At least not any conservatives I know. It's something different and we need to proceed carefully. But being cautious with change must now be a liberal attribute. The reports I have read are either by pro-government groups or industry groups looking to move in. Plus, much is theory and predicting the future. I asked for a link where the public received more for less. Let's build on those successes. I am certain their are some programs that could be privatized, but not all. If you only answer one question, where will the profits come from? The government has inefficiencies. Private companies are motivated by profit, the more the better. Either category does not directly help the tax payer. You've always preached that higher wages are better for our economy. So which is better, higher paying government jobs (Inefficiencies) or lower paying private jobs and profit? I think a better solution is looking at where we are demanding waste in the form of excessive requirements, getting benefits more in line with private industry (less days off for one), and focusing on the desired results, not the justification. I also fear corruption in private industry. The Enron Department of Energy? QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 1, 2007 -> 10:40 AM) In the case of BIA and other agencies that are so far gone (if I recall, their last director quit and said there was no fixing it), I think you literally abolish it. It's actually not doing ANY good for ANYONE, including the Indians. They get a small sliver of the money they were intended to get, and then get all kinds of buearacracy, corruption and administrative B.S. to deal with just to get that. What I would do - take an amount of money equal to about 3 years' of the BIA's budget. Allocate it to the various tribal authorities on a per capita basis, and tell them to do whatever they see fit. Further, give all the Indians on the reservations the option to either own their land on it outright, or join their tribe's community if that's what they desire. Either way, they get some sort of land equity, and a chunk of cash. Then abolish the reservation system, and they are now part of society. The transition may be harsh, but it would be far better than the current nightmare they live in. Some of the BIA money may also have to go to the States and localities to deal with the burst influx on services, then veil it down over a number of years until it's nothing. I agree with your ideas, the current BIA system isn't working. I assume that once we gave them the money, "they" could distribute it anyway they want via whatever system they desired? That way we wouldn't have to follow up and have any agency expenses seeing if the money was used. This is how the inefficiency creeps in. Taxpayers demand that the government isn't just giving away the money and having it wasted. Someone discovers that tribal elders built themselves a retirement home for themselves and didn't spend it on the poorest residents. So we demand independent accountability and studies and etc. So the tribes are now creating a system to track their expenses and reporting to who?" Some government agency who has now sprung up to be certain the tribes are being fair and honest with *our* money. The system is screwed.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 1, 2007 -> 10:06 AM) The Bureau of Indian Affairs, to take an extreme example, is so inefficient that only about 10% of its funds actually make it to the people they supposedly serve. It would actually be far more effective at this point to just send each tribe a head-count check and call it a day. At least then SOME of the money would be put to good use. 10 freakin' percent?! Great example. You are the private company taking over. Should the government have any oversight on how you spend the money? Or do we just hand over the tax dollars and trust you? The public has demanded more and more accountability on how our money is spent. We demand multiple bids on all purchases. We demand meticulous record keeping from these agencies. If we turn this over to a private contractor, should we also drop those requirements? The level of record keeping we demand of our government is beyond what private industry requires. Perhaps we need to put in place policies and procedures more in line with private industry. QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ May 1, 2007 -> 10:19 AM) Tex, what kind of profit do most companies make? I'd be that for most corporations, they are happy with making, say, 10% or 20%, depending on the industry. Some more, some less, some none at all. How many make 90%? Not too many I'd guess. How about charities even? Charities that only get 10% of the money to the target audience are usually considered substandard and can't get certified or approved by their various watchdog groups. Earlier someone mentioned 10% waste, if that is the same profit a private company wants, which is fair, we evened out. IIRC Indian Affairs has seen their budget cut while the demands for record keeping etc. have stayed the same. Doing all the paperwork, etc, is required, sending them aid is not. Perhaps that is the problem. The legal requirements cost $X and those have to be funded first. I agree that there are inefficiencies in out government, but there are also inefficiencies in private businesses. How many people in this conversation are working for private companies and getting paid to post?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 1, 2007 -> 09:59 AM) How many links do you want? The US government is the most ineffecient business entity in the United States. Google "government inefficiency" and tell me how many links you come up with. inefficiencies = private profit. If we are spending the same and receiving the same service, we have not netted anything. I have not read an unbiased report where it has been privatized and the public received more bang for the buck. We net a benefit when we pay less and receive the same or pay the same and receive more. We don't net a benefit when we pay the same and receive the same or less service. I've read reports of "$500 coffee makers" that appear as inefficiencies until you learn the coffee maker is on a U2 spy plane with special shielding so it avoids detection. So which is better for the US and the economy? Thousands of workers earning higher wages via the government or fewer workers, earning less, and a private owner earning more? The same private owner who will pay his suppliers less, etc. If we need government debt to fuel our economy, how does this reconcile with that?