Texsox

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 18, 2006 -> 07:10 AM) You want to go to Washington? hmmm, they are contemplating a trip together, spend hours on AIM, and can complete the other's sentences. Maybe there is some diversity in GOPland

QUOTE(whitesoxin @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 11:35 PM) I went to The Fray concert tonight at the Argon ballroom...that place is a great venue for a concert. The brawl room is still around? Wow. I would have thought the bulldozer got that one a long time ago.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 10:31 PM) my mom hates anal sex jokes..... seriously though, you wanna go camping? Every chance I get. Good to have you around.

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 10:14 PM) Yes it does. Actually the President does have special protections in that area. He also loses some protections in others. QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 08:55 PM) Rex, everyone knows he's kidding... but, it's not something you joke about, in that manner. This is supposed to be the "intelligent" presidential candidate, and he should know better. Everyone knows he's joking, yet people are trying to make it a bigger deal. Shameful no matter who is doing it.

I have zero respect for people like this.

And I would find that objectionable. Under the current rules it seems Unfair because they are married, and the marriage happened to be in the state he represented. Fair, bacause it is a federal pension and the federal government doesn't recognize those marriages.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 09:24 PM) I don't think congressmen deserve any pension on our dime, whichever way their dicks swing. Let them fend for themselves in ss like the rest of us suckers, or spend their own money on an IRA. plus, I have to agree with Evil on that. Put your money where your future is. QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 09:37 PM) They were partnered for 25 years IIRC. What kind of career did he have? Are we leaving this guy destitute? Hell, I don't know why that matters to me, but it does for some reason. I also have a problem with Billy Clinton picking up from Hillary. That seems wrong also. From wiki

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 07:56 PM) He was that Congressman who had the affair with the page back in 1983 and got reelected after being censured.... He died last week. He's legally married in Massachussets. Congressmen receive a pension and after death, their spouse is entitled to death benefits equalling 50% of the pension. Congressman Studds' spouse was denied this pension. Because Congressman Studds' spouse is another man. And whose fault is this? Bill Clinton's. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus...ecause_hes_gay/ Equal people deserve equal rights. Democrats or Republicans. I'm on the fence with this one with my concerns cutting both ways and just not over where they are legally married. Basically we are heading to a system that anyone could pick anyone else to pick up their benefits. Perhaps that is fair as those payments are built into the premiums. I'm leaning towards a system where each person is responsible for their own pensions first, and if they were being supported by another person, then some sort of survivor pension would kick in. And finally, and I'm reluctant to toss this in, they have been married two years. I'm not certain how long their relationship may have lasted prior to being able to marry.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 03:59 PM) Also, Tex, I didn't state any opinions other then to say what is wrong with all of us when it comes to joking about this kind of stuff, and not only that, the divide has gotten so bad that it's "acceptable" for this behavior. It's not. Plain and simple. My "manufactured outrage" was directed at society, not John Kerry. He's just an idiot for saying this the way he did. My manufactured outrage comment was much more universal. It seems to be the way we react to everything. Take something small that really doesn't mean a damn thing and try to see if it gets "tracks" and can make someone look bad. Sit that would have been overlooked 10 or 20 years ago, from everyone, is now huge front page news. In this case, I seriously doubt he was joking about *killing* the President. He was joking about *being* the President.

CMT is doing one of those silly count down show, 20 Greatest Southern Rock Songs and I'm thinking ok #1 is Freebird, what is #2? Damn if Freebird was #3. Ramblin Man #2 Sweet Home Alabama #1

She gets off easy, maybe she's the perfect woman for nuke . . .

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 03:16 PM) *crickets* this reminds me of a joke.... the punch line ends with, "you wanna go backpacking?" A joke only a mother would love* *see PAs Sig

Keep it up and I'll have enough to buy the Sox a rod

Linked

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 10:25 AM) Except the phrase was modified to target one subject. I don't for a second think that John Kerry has any intent to harm Bush. Not at all. But I do think there are good reasons why, when it comes to things of this nature, there can be little allowance for such words. And further, as a statesman, I think Kerry needs to be more careful. Here is an example, I saw in the news yesterday... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/14/...in2089658.shtml High school girl puts a picture of Bush on her blog, with a drawn in dagger stabbing him, with the word "Kill" followed by his name. It was there for a day, then taken down. I doubt she intended to kill anyone. But, I also think the Secret Service did precisely what they needed to in this case. Do you agree, or no? There is a difference between a metaphor which means to complete a task and that picture. If anyone posted a picture of Bush, two birds, and a rock, would that be a threat? Yes, I believe the Secret Service acted correctly. And by getting the media to report on it, it sends a clear and important message.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 10:02 AM) In my opinion, it doesn't much matter. This is sort of like someone joking about a bomb while standing line at airport security. Motive and intent are irrelevant. There has to be some common sense. Using your example, there are different levels of joking about stuff. Bad: This line is so long, the guard so inept, I'm going to bring a real bomb here and see what happens. Not so bad: I'm going to use my supernatural powers to build a snot bomb using mind waves and see what happens. Not bad at all: I'm going to go get a bottle of Jager and get us all bombed. I think most rational human beings in America have heard the phrase Killing two birds with one stone. If anyone thinks that actually means killing something and not completing two things, they are an idiot.

QUOTE(MichiganBorn @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 07:58 AM) I have been reading all this and I haven't posted anything because I didn't want to be "that guy" who brags in the good times and keeps his mouth shut when things are going bad for his team. But I'm enjoying this time because it may not come again for another 20 years. We usually have a high tolerance for fans of other teams. For a while we actively encouraged other AL Central fans to stop by and do previews. But the bad posters seemed to out weigh the good and we dropped that area. I actually am enjoying seeing Detroit in the Series. I think it is good for baseball. About the only Detroit team I couldn't stand were the Bad Boy Piston teams of the late 80s. Welcome. Have you decided where to watch the games?

manufactured outrage is so *in* these days.

Instant death penalty, what a great way to combat crime. Added bonus, the Chinese media got the story right.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 06:41 PM) Your last sentence also caught my eye as for every one breaking the law or trying to get over on the system there will be a lawyer doing his damdest to ensure that justice is thwarted and the perp gets away with whatever he has done and fatten his own pockets in so doing. So who should lawyers defend? I'm guessing you think the government is infallable and if someone is charged of a heinous crime they must be guilty. Damn that innocent until proven innocent concept. How can you swear to uphold a constitution you don't believe in? Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our justice system. Even the military would provide you an attorney if you were accused of a crime. Of course you would wave counsel and just plead guilty, since the charges must be true. Our system works precisely because someone is fighting for everyone the government accuses of a crime. We all can sleep better at night knowing that the government can't just bust down our door and lock us up.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 09:18 PM) Only the really innocent. Those who the President deems "Non-terrorists". Anyway, if this person did what she's accused of doing...then yeah she crossed the line. By a lot. I was ore addressing this line

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 06:46 PM) I ran cross country in high school and all I can say is I HATE YORK. Tough coach, but he won.

Nuke, Who should lawyers defend?

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 06:28 PM) i was hoping they'd hire bevington. oh well.