Texsox

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Mar 28, 2007 -> 07:33 AM) Kinda like campaign finance reform? That's still a pretty weak reason. In the history of our society we have never needed this law, doesn't that make you stop and wonder why we need it now?

In a strange ironic twist, items that they may have been trying to pass iin "the dark of the night" have a spotlight shone on by picking this bill. An educated public is our best defense against poor leadership.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 09:25 AM) No, actually, I'm jaded by my hatred of the man. There are plenty of guys on the Cubs I'd be happy to have on a team I rooted for. Zambrano though, is just one of those very hateable people that I couldn't ever root for. Bonds, Canseco and Sheffield are in the same category. Just my feeling on the matter.

In almost any other area you can be held liable if you accuse someone "knowing it is false". There was a recent article on I believe it was CNN where a neighbor kept reporting their neighbor for anything and everything, trying to get them to move. Every claim was proven false, from child endangerment because the kids were outside "naked" while dad washed the car to minor code violations. If there was no recourse, people could just keep harassing someone for looking a certain way. I'm for protecting someone who makes a report in good faith, but there should be some protections from racists who will report every middle Eastern on the plane every time they fly. Or, "hey look at those idiots in Iowa Hawkeye jerseys, f*** them, let's claim they were making terrorist threats, we can't be charged and they will get kicked off the plane." Like anything, there are always unintended side effects that have to be thought through.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 02:31 PM) 1. If these are important, then they should have been passed in a bill (or bills) for funding agriculture and/or disaster relief. If they can stand on their own merit, then why the earmark? 2. Of the last 9 items (everything from the $1.2B for dairy farmers on down), I see about 4 that are even worth spending money on. The rest is garbage. The only reason I could think of regarding #1 is the time and effort to pass so many separate bills. Regarding #2, it's dangerous to look at a one line description and passing judgment. A couple look suspicious to me, like the sugar can coop, but the others seem reasonable. I know the Western State ranchers have been having problems with grasshoppers and Mormon crickets and it's a shared cost between them and the government with the government picking up the smaller chunk. IIRC it's like 75% rancher 25% US. I like helping more than pikcing up the entire tab kind of solutions.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 11:56 AM) Personally I would have told the guy to go get help as well... And I'll bet you would have also gone the extra mile and offered to help find him help.

Zambrano = Rodman The average Sox fan who hates him now, would love him later. But I don't see him in a Sox jersey next season. As always, he has a Yankee feel to him. Of course every guy about to cash a winning lotto ticket feels like a Yankee to me.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 08:12 AM) And I have the second degree burns on my hands to prove it! Fitting from a second degree computer Now I have to go Wii, second cup of coffee and all.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 08:11 AM) At any rate, I think with the introduction of a bill like this Boltin' Joe won't have anybody on either side of the aisle to sit at the lunch table with. I also think social programs should also carry a price tag, not just overseas social programs.

I think of the three, BAs upside is higher, but his basement is lower, and he's proven that. This is a safe pick eary versus a gamble on ehich player will show up. The best place for him to play his way into the starting lineup may not be on the 25, but we will see. A lot will depend, as noted earlier, on how often he gets penned into the lineup and if he'll get to take an AB or two. Ninth inning Def sub may not help in that regards.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 05:48 AM) I'm responding in this thread from my toaster oven.* The theory is most Mac owners don't know a computer from a toaster oven. Thanks for proving it.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 06:07 AM) Cute. I guess all that preaching about it not making a difference which side did what was made in a glass house. I am glad to see we are back to crimes mattering though, all though I am sure that will go out of vogue about the time of the first investigation of a Dem, as usual. And you are right about one thing, the phrase is hypocrite. 8 years ago all that mattered was their wasn't a reason to even start investigating, not that a crime was committed, and now, not so much... Whatever. It doesn't surprise me at all, and I don't expect anything more from here. I'm honestly not following your logic. The Dems aren't suppose to investigate anything now because they disagreed with the GOP investigations then? How about the GOP should welcome the investigations because they did the same thing? Why didn't the GOP investigate this with the same vigor as Whitewater and BJgate? It is a circular argument and would paint both parties as bad. Go back and read what I wrote. I thought the GOP should investigate, just as I believe the Dems should. That's part of our system, and I don't have a problem with it. I've also written that I don't believe, based on what I read, impeachments are warranted. So I don't see where I've been hypocritical in this. You seem to be for the GOP investigations and against the Dems, or am I misreading your point? And I am certain the GOP will be back to their special prosecutor loving ways as soon as the tables turned. You know this goes back and forth.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 10:32 PM) If that was directed towards me, it doesn't make much sense. I've been against the Iraq war since the beginning. If it was just a generalization, you may be correct. I'm sure most Americans don't realize how much money it's costing. But most Americans don't realize a lot things. It was a generalization. One of the problems I see with running deficits, for whatever reason, is it makes it much easier for politicians to spend money. We aren't actually paying for this stuff, with interest, someone else is when the economy grows. Other people will be paying for this. I want our leaders to be accountable for spending this money, and the best way I see that is having a vote that states, we need to raise taxes to pay for this war. The cynic in me would like their kids to be the first to enlist, but I realize that is wrong on many levels. I was for a version of this war and realized it was a now win vote. Vote against and later discover WMD, bad decision. The what ifs were pretty serious. I don't have a problem with anyone who supported invading based on the intel that we were believing. At this point, no wmd, no Saddam, 4 years of hell for that country should be a deterrent to the next country to try and f*** with us, so let's bid adieu and bring them home with a victory parade. Mission Accomplished!

Welcome to the 25 and may I add,

Roy Orbison thought it was Clapton as well, they never told him the truth . . .

Finally. Of course if people had to actually pay for the war it might hurt support.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 03:57 PM) "indefinitely"... Keep drinking the Dem koolaid... you're right up there on their talking points. Well what word do you prefer? in·def·i·nite /ɪnˈdɛfənɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-def-uh-nit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1.not definite; without fixed or specified limit; unlimited: an indefinite number. 2.not clearly defined or determined; not precise or exact: an indefinite boundary; an indefinite date in the future.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 05:54 PM) The uber-ethical Dems have proven that they are exactly like the Repubs they lashed out at for so long. It comes as no surprise to me. To be honest, I full expect a legitmate attempt at an impeachment trial of someone soon. Heck how many times did we hear Cheney was being indicted already, and that was before they Dems had any power. But you keep telling me how evil the Republicians are, and how just the Dems are. The uber-ethical REPs have proven that they are exactly like the DEMs they investigated for so long. It comes as no surprise to me. To be honest, I do not expect a legitimate attempt at an impeachment trial of someone soon. Heck how many times did we hear Cheney was being indicted already, and that was before the Dems had any power. But you keep telling me how evil the Democrats are, and how just the REPs are. It was ok for the GOP to launch investigation after investigation and spending hundreds of millions on special prosecutors, but wrong for the Dems? I believe the phrase would be hypocrite. Of course I am being snarky. It was a great strategy by the GOP. Launch a bunch of fruitless investigations, then when the Dems start to investigate something that may be tangible, call it politically motivated. I applauded both parties for investigating wrong doings and fulfilling their constitutional powers. I believe impeachment should be the last result and only in the most heinous of cases. As I've said in several threads, I do not see anything that would rise above my bar but do not think it is good that already some people are attacking any Dem attempts are fulfilling their responsibilities.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 02:08 PM) So what record on impeachments can one be referring too? So now you would have the best of both worlds . . . If the Dems start impeachment proceedings, you can say they are no better than the GOP when they went after Clinton. Call them hypocrites, etc. If the Dems don't, then you can call Bush's terms as more ethical or whatever you want because no one was impeached. Nice. I'm not guessing if that bird in your hand is dead or alive.

What percentage if our Troops would you want to pin down indefinitely in one area of the world? I'm with Balta, we would need a draft to accomplish this and be able to respond to an attack from another country.

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 02:59 PM) I was thinking it might have been a very slight concussion because on Saturday I couldn't stand up for too long without getting dizzy or a little nautious. If you start thinking that the GOPerheads around here are making sense, see a Doctor right away.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 01:53 PM) How many successful impeachment trials has the Bush admin had? Same as Clinton IIRC.

Doesn't sound like a concussion, so that is good.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 11:49 AM) I might have had a couple beers before penning that email. Really?

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 26, 2007 -> 01:17 PM) but FlaSoxxJIm, i thought the United States was an immoral country founded by white male oppressors? every move we have made throughout history has been evil. we are the cause of all the worlds problems. Yep, that is how the GOP wants people to think of Liberals. You've learned the lesson well.