Texsox

Let's see Rush believes Fox is wrong for not taking medication. I guess all that counseling Rush was ordered to attend about abusing prescription drugs is working. So far no one has accused Fox of exaggerating his condition. Whether he was on or off the drugs he would seem to be portraying the worst case scenario.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 12:02 AM) You should know first and foremost that I suffer a lack of both. So what do you have to lose? My youthful innocence in an evening of drinking as you relive your previous screen name . . . Seriously, South Padre Island is a great Spring Break spot. You really should plan a trip.

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 11:20 AM) Insignificant? Not sure I would consider this insignificant. Annulments are given out WAY too easily by the Catholic church. As much as I adore(d) my late FIL, I still do not understand how he managed to get one after 30 years of marriage and 4 kids. According to the kids, you pay enough you get one. Without knowing (or wanting to know) the process, I am not sure how true that is. It is insignificant (that is too harsh a word, but I'll use it) if the person views marriage as something more legal than religious. The two people coming as one, etc. "What God has joined together let no man put asunder". Then the issue of an annulment becomes more important. I know in the two that I was involved in no money transfered hands. I think that goes back to the days when it took practically the blessing from the Pope and only the wealthy could go through the process. The Church has bowed to practicality a least here in the US. I hear even in strongholds like Ireland, when up until 1997 divorce was not allowed by governmental law, the Church is easier. One letter was difficult to write. They had a great marriage until they lost their first baby at birth. The grief, stress, and all the tragedy encompassed destroyed their marriage. It seemed like counseling would have saved it, but they both refused. Both sides wanted the annulment, and it sailed through, although not soon enough to allow the ex-husband to be married in the Catholic Church. He renewed their vows about a year later after the annulment went through. IIRC the ex-wife sent a gift. Classy lady. The second one got nasty. Infidelity, stealing family heirlooms and other personal property, and everything else you could toss into a nightmare. The cheater and stealer later fought the annulment to block the other person from getting married in the Church. That took quite a while and wore on both parties. Like Eye, I can't see investing all that energy to prove a bad marriage you are happy to be out of was in affect, a marriage. But clearing one's name is also important, no matter how obscure the venue.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 09:00 AM) When he testified in front of congress 3 years ago he had to be helped to walk he was shaking so bad. Apparently he did not take his medication then, and perhaps didn't take it now. It's to prove a point. However, calling his condition an act is disgusting and Rush has no room to talk about being on the "up and up" coinsidering he is a drug addicted hypocrite. For you to call his condition an "act" is worse, no? And I do think Fox shoulders the blame on this. He choose not to take his meds to show the severity of the disease. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Gotta agree with Steff on this one.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 07:26 PM) Yikes.. she's writing a letter back, and she's pissed. I know this will be hard to believe... but she's more vile and b****ier than I am when pissed. Because you are asking for advice, and because I have watched a couple annulments work through the Church, including two I wrote letters in support of, I can say this based on my observations, No matter what letters go through, it gets rubber stamped and granted. Gone are the days where the Church would try and keep a couple together. All this really does is allow the parties to get remarried in a Catholic Church. Obviously Carol doesn't need counseling. The person who raped and beat her should seek counseling, but you are right, why should she need counseling. Carol was the victim. Carol can waste some energy tossing letters back and forth, but why not spend that time with her new and improved hubby and just let that bad experience fall away?

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:48 PM) If you're going to be late to the party, call next time so we don't worry. http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=55130 Read warning and watch video Police are warning all men who frequent clubs, parties and local pubs to be alert and stay cautious when offered a drink from any woman. Many females use a date rape drug on the market called "Beer." The drug is found in liquid form and is available anywhere. It comes in bottles, cans, or from taps and in large "kegs". Beer is used by female sexual predators at parties and bars to persuade their male victims to go home and sleep with them. A woman needs only to get a guy to consume a few units of Beer and then simply ask him home for no strings attached sex. Men are rendered helpless against this approach. After several beers, men will often succumb to the desires to sleep with horrific looking women whom they would never normally be attracted. After drinking beer, men often awaken with only hazy memories of exactly what happened to them the night before, often with just a vague feeling that "something bad" occurred. At other times these unfortunate men are swindled out of their life's savings, in a familiar scam known as "a relationship." In extreme cases, the female may even be shrewd enough to entrap the unsuspecting male into a longer term form of servitude and punishment referred to as "marriage." Men are much more susceptible to this scam after beer is administered and sex is offered by the predatory females. Please! Forward this warning to every male you know. If you fall victim to this "Beer" scam and the women administering it, there are male support groups where you can discuss the details of your shocking encounter with similarly victimized men. For the support group nearest you, just look up "Golf Courses" in the phone book. For a video to see how beer works click here: Beer Demo QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:48 PM) If you're going to be late to the party, call next time so we don't worry. http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=55130 Read warning and watch video Police are warning all men who frequent clubs, parties and local pubs to be alert and stay cautious when offered a drink from any woman. Many females use a date rape drug on the market called "Beer." The drug is found in liquid form and is available anywhere. It comes in bottles, cans, or from taps and in large "kegs". Beer is used by female sexual predators at parties and bars to persuade their male victims to go home and sleep with them. A woman needs only to get a guy to consume a few units of Beer and then simply ask him home for no strings attached sex. Men are rendered helpless against this approach. After several beers, men will often succumb to the desires to sleep with horrific looking women whom they would never normally be attracted. After drinking beer, men often awaken with only hazy memories of exactly what happened to them the night before, often with just a vague feeling that "something bad" occurred. At other times these unfortunate men are swindled out of their life's savings, in a familiar scam known as "a relationship." In extreme cases, the female may even be shrewd enough to entrap the unsuspecting male into a longer term form of servitude and punishment referred to as "marriage." Men are much more susceptible to this scam after beer is administered and sex is offered by the predatory females. Please! Forward this warning to every male you know. If you fall victim to this "Beer" scam and the women administering it, there are male support groups where you can discuss the details of your shocking encounter with similarly victimized men. For the support group nearest you, just look up "Golf Courses" in the phone book. For a video to see how beer works click here: Beer Demo

Sheff, you look like an ass. Cashman, talk to your player so he knows what you are doing. He's costing you value.

Sometimes George Thorogood is necessary. One Bourobon, One Scotch . . .

Gee, how did Barack get my email addy?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 04:57 PM) There's no better way to sour me on someone's talent and creativity than actually coming in contact with their crappy personality. I guess that's why we haven't met in person?

Nice view of men as immoral pigs.

REI especially if I get to keep the gear.

OMG LMAO

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 09:15 PM) This has been stated several times by assbags in the media and such but I just don't get it. How in the hell can one be a "selfish player" in baseball? It's not like he's Jamal Crawford and jacking the ball up the second he gets his mits on it or anything. The only thing Alex Rodriguez ever did that was remotely "selfish" was accepting a 10 year $252M contract and who here could say with a straight face that they would not accept such a contract if one were offered to them? If ARod is so damn selfish why did he move to 3B and allow Jeter to keep his spot at SS even though Rodriguez is the superior defensive player at short? I also think about AJ and the crap that followed him. So far no one on the Sox has claimed he isn't a good team player.

The other route, btw, is to eliminate any benefits of marriage and treat everyone as individuals. I'm not certain that is any better, but could offer some interesting possibilities.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 06:10 PM) Go read every post I've made in this thread. It's crystal clear. Of course by not giving a direct answer, you can change it to anything you like. Great technique. It must be the money that the Rangers would never pay the Yankees if the Yanks trade him. It's the money that you believe the Rangers owe to A-Rod and that the Yankees can not change in any trades. OK, then allow me to be crystal clear. I ASSume* that the Rangers owe the Yankees as their part of the trade and must pay based on their deal, no changes. I ASSume the Yankees owe A-Rod his full contract, again no changes unless A-Rod and everyone (Union, A-Rod, MLB, Teams, etc) agrees. A-Rod made concessions to get the Yankee deal done. I ASSume he could make more, although I doubt he would. I ASSume that A-Rod doesn't have contracts with both the Rangers and the Yankees. I ASSume that any team taking on A-Rod picks up his contract and also owes A-Rod the remaining amount. He will not have three contracts. His contract is his contract and MLB and the players union has made it very clear that they will not tolerate anything that would lower the pay that A-Rod receives. I ASSUme the Yankees are free to send as much money as both teams agree on. Based on the players and their contracts, the third team may receive more or less money than what the Rangers are sending the Yankees. I ASSume that all parties must agree on this new trade just like they did the previous. That the trade must be in the best interest of baseball, etc. Of course you will nit pick and find something here that you disagree with. I patiently await. However, I'm going out for the evening and won't have an opportunity to play tonight. Have a nice evening.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 05:34 PM) As long as it's clearly stated that any two people can enter into a civil union, then I don't have a problem with civil unions. If its human rights, then it should be any two consenting adults. I mention the brother/sister thing because insurance benefits, under the current system, would not cover each other. i understand the next of kin thing from a tax/legal stand point, but it's not as inclusive as husband/wife. I do have a problem with Faith-base gay marriage, but I don't want to discuss that online. I'll bet we agree down the line. I don't think every faith has to marry anyone that wants to be married in their Church. I too would disagree if the law prevented Churches from deciding their own membership standards. If the government allowed a civil union there would be no pressure on the Churches. I think "marriage" or whatever name makes y'all happy should be thought of in two areas. The legal aspects and realities of our legal system and the religious covenant.

And how trusting some people are with our government. Iraq gets tough on crime and executes people for not following their laws and we have to invest billions of dollars and thousands of lives. The US executes people and that's a good thing

PA, I was thinking somewhat along your lines, and thought of this, If a couple isn't having sex, is their union/marriage invalid? The brother/sister thing is only true if they are having sex and possibly reproducing. It would seem, and perhaps I am ASSuming* here, that at their heart, all marriage debates assume that the couple would be having sex. If a company hires you, they must ASSume at some time, they would have to pay spousal benefits. Why should they care who those are going to? Their costs are the same and should have been budgeted. If they would claim, we thought he was gay/ugly/shy/celibate and would never marry, that's why we hired him, that would be an interesting debate. *I love that spelling

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 04:22 PM) Mainly because you kept stating that 1. the monetary amount could be changed if he was traded and 2. that the money did not follow him because it was paid to the Yanks, so I wanted to be sure that you were aware that you were wrong. I don't feel silly at all. Why would I. Exactly what I stated is exactly what is being done. Which money amount are you talking about? In a new trade with the Yankees, the amount that the third team receives to cover any of A-Rod's contract could be changed. They might receive Yankee money sooner or later than what the Yankees are getting. I still have not seen anything that would contradict that. What would not change is the money A-Rod gets and the money the Yankees receive from the Rangers as part of that trade. The Rangers will continue to pay as they agreed. I never disputed that. That is the cornerstone of my opinion. The money the Rangers owes to the Yankees can not change. But just because Soriano and Boone for A-Rod, Wilson, and 67 million passed all parties a couple years ago, doesn't mean A-Rod plus the remaining $$ will pass the same tests regardless of who he is being traded for. It may take more money, it may take less money. BTW, kudos for the ASSume earlier, I'm still chuckling. I remember that episode of the Odd Couple when Felix wrote that on the blackboard in court. The next day it seemed like everyone in my third grade class was doing the same thing, Great memory and added much needed humor in this thread. Another point, the deal was Soriano and Boone, for A-Rod, Wilson, and $67 mil. Would the $67mil stay the same if different players were involved? What if the Yankees sent two AA players? What if they sent Jeter and Giambi? Still $67mil? If not, then why would it be the same today before we even know what players are involved? Today, Trading for Dye would be one thing (great team contract) Trading for Park would be another (bad team contract)

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:55 PM) Boy.. you sure are a piece of work. Just because it says they are paying it doesn't mean they write an actual check and mail it to his house. Men who owe child support pay the state and they forward it on... doesn't mean they don't owe it or pay it to their ex's does it. Lame example but the only one I can think of at this moment. Is it hard to breath from so high up there on that horse... :rolleyes. Then why, with all that fan fare and bold red letters post that quote? It was already linked over and over again that the Rangers have to pay. No one disputed that. red and bold. You must really feel silly now.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:52 PM) and honestly, do you know of 2 straight guys that would pretend to be gay

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:50 PM) seriously though, aside from the social implications, what's to stop two guys, two girls, or two people in general from "getting married" simply to enjoy the benefits of employers, etc....? is this something that happens? ghre It happens for heterosexual couples, so a person should assume (or as one poster prefers ASSume , it would happen in this case as well. But if an employer is willing to hire you and offer these benefits, why should they care who you extend them to? Could you imagine an employer making a statement I don't approve of your spouse and thusly will not extend benefits?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:25 PM) In 47 states in the United States gay people do not have the same inheritance rights, do not have the same equal rights for custody and adoption of children, do not have the same spousal benefit rights, do not have the same testimonial privilege rights that heterosexual people have. Homosexuals are not allowed to serve in the military. We are a state that believes in equal opportunity for equal people. Just as how you can't fire someone for a physiological attribute (i.e. MS, pregnancy, cancer, race or skin color), and how you can't fire someone for a religious conviction, you shouldn't be allowed to fire someone based on their sexuality, especially given the massive amounts of evidence showing that, in many many cases, sexuality is a trait and not a behavior. Well said my friend.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 02:10 PM) Ta-friggin-da!!!! http://www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper...www.thebatt.com Texas will pay $67 million of the $179 million left on Rodriguez's $252 million, 10-year contract, the most cash included in a trade in major league history. The Rangers get All-Star second baseman Alfonso Soriano and a player to be named - but they also will pay Rodriguez through 2025. All the deferred money owed by Texas - $36 million, including salaries from 2001-03 - will be converted to an assignment bonus, which makes the money guaranteed against a strike or lockout. The payout schedule will be pushed back to 2016-25 from 2011-20. QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:18 PM) A big waste of time, and of no relevance, since the Rangers compensation to Alex has nothing to do with a deal the Yanks may or may not try to make to move him. This was posted several times in response to SS'er asking about it. Yes, apparently some things can't be explained. Not one link I have found states that payment is made directly to Alex by the Rangers. OK Steff, you win. This and every other debate we may have in the future. LOL you are priceless and I love you for it.