Texsox

QUOTE(kapkomet @ May 1, 2007 -> 09:30 AM) IF the government were ran like a real business, it would have shut down years ago. Of course we'd see benefits - it's been proven time and time again. links?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 1, 2007 -> 09:17 AM) I am for lower spending, but that is a completely different story. There are times when spending is need though... Heck I would be in favor of closing entire governmental agencies, and privatizing many others. Having the government run anything is collosal waste of funds in almost any case. The duplicity and other ineffeciency of the US government has been estimated to be as high as 10% of spending. If done in the private sector with a profit motive, those are cost savings that would be realized, because the incentive is there to realize them. I'm not convinved that we would net a benefit. Is government waste less than or greater than the profit that a private business would feel is justified? I think we have expanded the government beyond what should be funded and perhaps those areas would be privitized, but agfain, I'm not convinced we would see a savings at the same benefit level.

I was thinking about Jordan and Pippen and how their defense was amazing night after night. Someone asked MJ if he could have stopped himself. All he could do was laugh.

Forget who owns the debt, it's a problem no matter what. My biggest worry is we have lost sight of why we pay taxes. We have broken the link between expenses and income. The public is beginning to believe the only way we have a healthy economy is to borrow money. We believe that someone else is going to pay the debt and the interest. I am all for lower taxes, but lower the spending as well.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ May 1, 2007 -> 07:30 AM) Tex, why do you keep saying things that 1) has no relevance at all to what SS is saying, and 2) saying that the deficits are growing when in actuality they are starting to shrink back again? It's interesting, really, that almost all of us that are "fiscal conservatives" are madder then hell at how our government has handled spending, and you keep running around in the hyperbole world of "wooo hoo free stuff" when none of us are advocating that and furthermore hate the thoughts of it. It's a FACT that revenues coming in to treasury right now is at an all time high, and it's a FACT that it wouldn't have happened if the tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy. Let's just print more money to cover this stuff - that works - oh wait a minute, that's called introducing a great depression - something that the Democrats would like to see because it means that the evil capitalisic society can implement more government controls! WOOT! It's becoming obvious that this is all about straw man's arguments for you and not truths. The reason that our deficits are high is 100% the overspending, not the tax cuts. It's also a bad problem that foreign countries hold our money - but it's not about the tax cuts, it's about trade imbalances. I would argue they would hold even more of our money if it weren't for the stimulation that our economy has had as a result of the early 00's tax cuts. It's the gap between spending and income that I object to. If Bush wants to cut taxes, fine, cut spending. Fact is we are borrowing money from foreign countries and giving it to the citizens in the form of tax cuts. If that is the only way to support our economy we are screwed when banks stop loaning us money. Sorry if my posts go beyond what SS posts. In the future I will confine my comments to SS posts only. If I can keep up the pace, damn he posts a lot. Kap, As far as the hyperbole,.how many times have you posted IT"S BUSH"S FAULT IMPEACH IMPEACH!!!!!!!!

Six years later, the deficits continue to grow, with no end in sight, because it's the way to stay in power. Eventually *we* have to pay the bills, with interest. We avoided one problem and a far worse problem is looming on the horizon. When the world stops loaning us money, and that will happen, we will be in a dire situation. We are building a country that we can not afford. We are looting our treasury and voting ourselves these gifts with no plan to pay it back. We are not maintaining any relationship between collections and expenses. We have split those two things in our minds. We have become a debtor nation. What makes you more prosperous, paying interest or collecting interest? Whoo Whoo Freee Stuff!! But keep laughing if it makes you feel better, it is basically like whistling through a cemetery. Isn't it ironic that it's a Dem that thinks we need to come closer to balancing the budget and a Rep who thinks we need to borrow trillions from foreign banks.

I'm ripping up some Rock and Roll cards. I hope you were practicing some line.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 10:16 PM) LMAO. The irony is tax receipts are at an all time high. If he doesn't cut taxes, we might still be in the Depression from thinking that only rate cuts would have solved the potential crisis that was the Clinton recession plus the biggest terror attack this country has ever known. With the bubble that developed after the irrational exuberance stock market, there was no telling how far things could have fallen without restoring confidence in the economy. And silly me, I don't believe you restore confidence by taking more money from people who are already shaken to the core. If you think you could have balanced the budget after 9-11, you are kidding yourself. I wish I could laugh, but I'm not buying the GOP koolaid. Spending is even higher. If the only way to maintain our economy is by borrowing money from China, God help us all. Nope, you restore confidence by buying people stuff. We pay taxes to stimulate our economy, not to pay for our government. Right Drunk sailors in the White House Weeeeeeeeeeeee!! Free stuff!!!!!!!!!!! Act a little sad and they will give you stuff. Don't worry out kids will be paying for all this, plus interest. In case you didn't notice, the USSR collapsed under their debt. I guess I forgot what fiscal conservative means anymore. It use to mean not spending a bunch of money. Now it doesn't matter how much we spend as long as there is a deficit.

fourth with one small caveat, if you are also using Vista and like CNN videos, it aint working.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 09:11 PM) GWB CERTAINLY is not a fiscal conservative, and that's hugely why we are in the problems today that we are... Iraq War notwithstanding. I believe all the professional GOPers have abandoned conservative fiscal policies in favor of giving the American public what they want, a free lunch. We demand that they borrow money and give it to us. I don't blame them, it's the way to get elected. And I give him a partial pass because of the Iraq war. I just wish he had come on tv and said, hey, we're in a war and this is not a great time to be cutting taxes.

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 03:34 PM) hell no, he hates us. Emmit was plenty pissed at the Cowboys when they cut him loose. Things change, I hope it does for Frank after he hits 600.

And retire his number at the same time. BTW, I wonder at the end of his career if he will sign a one day contract to retire as a Sox player?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 02:33 PM) Which is why they are trying to find a big name guy to step to the forefront. Once they get the attention they need, then they can establish their principles with the general public. First they need someone with a good reputation. That seems like the correct strategy. They have to avoid character issues and grab the values that the GOP has abandonded (fiscal conservatism) and avoid the special interest pandering that caused the Dems to lose their backbone, and we have a winner.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 02:25 PM) And I think a third party may become viable, if as I said, its not starting at the top. It can't be a party about a person. That makes sense, but I can't reconcile that to America being a celebrity society where flash and appearance is more important than ideas and vision.

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 01:50 PM) It shouldn't. We are loading this on an older computer where it will run. We load it from the A:\ to the computer. After that the diskettes are put to the side and not used again. After that point, we run through the setup and then run the program. That is why this is so confusing to me - why will it run when we save the files directly from the diskettes and then run setup but not if we save the diskettes to a shared drive, copy them to our local drive and then try to run the setup file on them? It's been so long since I loaded a program from disks. Is this a DOS based program? Let me see if I understand the way this installs. All the disks are written to a directory and then you install? or is there an install shell which sequentially calls for them?

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 01:21 PM) Can anyone think of a reason why a program will run if and only if it is loaded using floppy disks? We loaded all the diskettes onto a CD and tried that way (since my work computer doesn't have an A:\ drive). It will load up, but when you try to run the software you get an error saying the database is already open. The IT guy and I tried to solve this for a half a day before giving up. It is bugging me because it doesn't make sense. Why should the media the program is being loaded onto my PC from make any difference? At some point is the program trying to read the "A" drive? If the program makes a call to a non existent drive, it may shut down as an error. Try renaming the CD drive. Off the top of my head, it is the only thing I can think of. OK not the only thing. Could it be that when switching from one floppy to the other the install programs closes that database? perhaps putting them on separate cds and renaming the drive may work. OK, more than two. You have checked that the program and floppy disks are good? Isolate all variables so you are working with :known to be good" stuff. Why do I feel stupid telling this to an engineer who is far smarter than I?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 01:23 PM) There will never be three viable parties in this country unless it's for a short short short period of time. See: Bull Moose, La Follette's Progressives, Nader, maybe. I could see a third party wiping out the Dems or Reps, probably the Dems. At election time, both parties dive to the left and right, leaving the middle wide open for a viable upstart.

I wish it would happen that way. I see a small group that will be the swing vote on everything. Perhaps they will act differently than everyone else we send to Washington, but I'm thinking the new party will work harder at representing "their constituents" by pointing out the great projects (pork) they have brought to their district in hopes of getting more of their new party elected. It is pork grease that lubricated the wheels of congress. No matter what, two of the three will be needed to pass. The only time I see the DEMs and REPs getting together would be to figure out a way to eliminate the 3rd Party and bring things back to "normal". There will be even more pressure to keep the party votes in line or else a three way deal would be necessary, something even harder to do.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 01:03 PM) I know what it's like. I hate having paparazzi following me everywhere thinking I'm the Pits. fixed

More and Pics here

No matter how well the team did or didn't play, the place was fun. It was entertainment. Something I haven't seen again at a mlb facility but I see in unaffiliated and minor league parks.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 11:18 AM) I'll believe it when I see it. This could very well be a guy worried about getting booed all year, so he is just saying all of the right things. QUOTE(RockRaines @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 11:27 AM) pure politics. Now the blame is soley going to be on the Sox when we cant match the offer. And I applaud Mark for being PR savy enough to do that.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 10:48 AM) Damn, I feel bad for Brandon... Hopefully he gets his stuff straightened out. The kid always went out of his way for people on Soxtalk, and I wish him nothing but the best. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It has been so easy to pull for him.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 09:07 AM) So I guess that means the people who didn't believe that this could weaken a structure enough to make it collapse were wrong. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18392684/ It's all part of the cover up of the government's continuing conspiracy regarding 9/11