Texsox

Nuke, Mexico is forced, by US policies, to spend more of their GNP on fighting drug smuggling into the US, than the US. Because the US has a drug use problem, Mexico is racked in violence. The heavier drugs are produced in South American and smuggled through Mexico. The solutions involve South America and the US not the middlemen. Jenks, Rightful place as most important branch? Look up the definition of balance. You may remember a phrase called checks and balances, there isn't a more important branch. That is a cornerstone of our government. I am looking for a candidate with the charisma of Reagan, style counts as our chief cheerleader. A positive attitude will do more to fight the terrorist threats than trying to lure them all into a war in the middle east. I am looking for a candidate that understands balancing the budget, that we can't continue to spend trillions more than we take in. Buying votes is easy, and we've become accustomed to "helping the economy". One that understands some programs are investments. Education, childcare for the poor, health care, all are cost effective when they lead to better paying jobs, and it's easier to keep someone healthy then pay for disease. Someone with the courage to spend our tax dollars are what we need, not what is politically popular, like a symbolic fence. Someone that will see we need immigrant labor, and put together a meaningful immigration reform bill that allows businesses to hire the people they need and will not require a generation of our kids to become yardmen. Immigrants have always filled these jobs in every society, nature always provides the most efficient solutions. As far as Congress and the Senate, I have two different views. In the Senate, I look for visionaries and statesmen. People with high ideals that can offer long term solutions. Character over political views. The Senate should be the arena for great debate. In the congress I look for a worker, someone that will roll up their sleeve and get things done for today.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 04:55 AM) And that has what to do with the money being paid by the Rangers which is whay the question was to start with... Good Morning With ARod, its all about the money and his huge contract. If, as some have theorized, the Rangers are required to pay whomever has ARod, and not necessarily the Yankees, then the Yankees have to package ARod + $28.4 million. If the Rangers are paying the Yankees, and the Yankees are free to offer less than that dollar amount, there is more flexibility for the Yankees to toss in talent (doubtful) or accept someone with a bad contract and the money could be lower. I could see negotiations where the dollar amount may be $26 mil with player A or $29 mil with player B. Making moving ARod a tad easier. As I mentioned earlier, it probably will not make a difference, it's one of those technicalities. My guess is the Yankees may have to add some of their money to the Ranger money to make it happen. Another reason I believe the team is obligated to pay the other team would be in the event of a career ending injury or retirement. I normally couldn't care less about a players contract, but this time of year, with no Sox baseball being played, it's all about trades and money.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 06:28 PM) I don't understand why you are tossing in what the Yanks may do. maybe because ARod is a Yankee and they are the ones trading him?

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 04:33 PM) Yep, It will at the very least be the same. The Yanks could obviously throw in additional cash to make Arod more lucrative on the trade market (but that is all up to negotiations between the Yanks and whoever there trade partner is). I think it would depend on who the Yankees receive in return. While it would seem nit piking to some, having the flexibility to adjust the dollars based on the talent involved will make the deal much easier to make. Imagine if you had to offer the exact combination of players that would make that exact cash work out. In the end, as I mentioned before, whether the Rangers are sending money to the Yankees or to A-Rod anything could be worked out. ARod's original deal and Boras' ability to sell a player coming off an injury, and unavailable for a workout, to a top 10 contract, proves that.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 03:53 PM) I do not have the exact terms of the contract. I believe Texas paid a total of $65 million or so when the trade was originally made. From everything I have read, that money (a prorated portion of it of course), would follow ARod in the event that he was dealt from the Yankees. I am just speculating here, but it is my belief that the money would follow him, either because the contract states that it would, or simply because if the Yankees attempted to deal ARod without sending the Texas money along, or any of their own money along, it would make ARod practically unmovable. I don't believe any team would be willing to take on any player, regardless of who it was, at $100 million for 4 years in the current economic climate, AND trade away players of value as well. NY, if they truly wish to deal him, are going to have to make it not only feasible for another team to fit him into their payroll, and make it a favorable position for themselves by getting back players of value. It is doubtful that Bud Selid would approve a deal that looked like a pure "salary dump." I agree that money would have to follow A-Rod, I just believe it could be more or less than what Texas is paying

QUOTE(iamshack @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 02:14 PM) Just to clear things up, if ARod were traded, assuming the Yankees did not pick up any salary, the money Texas ate to make ARod tradable would follow him to whatever team the Yankees deal him to. That amount is about $66 million over 4 years, or slightly more than $16 million per year. There has been some speculation that NY might pick up some additional salary, to lessen the commitment to somewhere more in the neighborhood of $12 million per year, and involve more teams in the bidding, however, that is fairly unlikely IMO. Link? Here's one that states the Rangers owe New York click I doubt in this case it would make a difference, but I could see a deal where the third team down the road would not receive the entire amount. A great example would be someone like Thomas or Thome, a superstar with a questionable recovery. They recover 100%, have great seasons and their value rises. The team that was receiving money would possibly not have to eat as much of the salary as the first team did.

It seems odd to me that his contract would be amended to say X dollars are paid by Texas and Y dollars are paid by New York. Actually would he then have a contract with Texas and a contract with NY? It would make more sense that all dollars are paid by New York. The player would continue to get everything that was spelled out in the contract. In the end it doesn't matter, the amount he is due will not change, whether he receives three checks or only one, it probably isn't important. But who would it benefit if his contract was amended to say Texas always pays A-Rod? Would it make a difference who Texas writes the check to? Plus, if he is traded, couldn't the receiving team just toss back the Ranger money in the deal, if that is what it took? Obviously it would probably be the Yankess tossing in cash. I can't see the player wanting to deal with two teams, especially after he has left one.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 12:13 PM) Not saying she's my choice either, but she's a freakin rock star in person. It's kinda crazy. I have no doubt. Problem is only half the country would be dancing and singing along.

QUOTE(SnB @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 12:12 PM) you forgot to say "y'all" yus'guys are making fun of me. looking for the spell checker in 2.0. Works very nicely. I love this version even if this is all it does.

I herd it has a spel chekr, I culd ude one

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 11:29 AM) Tex, All I can say, is if you get a chance to see her speak live, take it. You might change your thinking a bit. Her demeanor and "swagger" has changed quite a bit in the last six years. She may fire up the Dems, but it will not unite. Not even close. She is a lightening rod. Dear James, This is it. The Republicans have circled their wagons and decided that control of the Senate is down to four states. They are going to throw every desperate, lying, misleading, dirty tactic they have left in the Republican playbook at our candidates. It's going to be a long two weeks. But even the Republicans know that if we win in Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee, and New Jersey, then Democrats will take back the Senate. It's that simple. Together, we have given to or raised more than $11 million dollars for Democratic candidates and committees since the end of 2004. Every day we are spending and giving more to elect Democrats. Every day. But we can't stop now. In two weeks, Election Day will be here. But to win, we need to make a final push starting right now. The cash that candidates have on hand by this Friday will determine how large their final media buys can be. And these four Senate races are so close that the size of Friday's media buys may be the difference between victory and defeat. Will you join us in lending your immediate support to four must-win Senate candidates? Take back the Senate: contribute to candidates' final media buys In Tennessee, Harold Ford, Jr. is running for the history books. He opposes President Bush's failed "stay the course" policy in Iraq and supports Democrats' efforts to achieve energy independence. His victory on the Tuesday after next will bring one of the most impressive voices of his generation to the Senate. "It's time for a Senator on OUR side." That's what Claire McCaskill is saying all across Missouri in her effort to unseat Senator Jim Talent, a Bush rubber-stamp Republican who was recently named by the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) one of the "Oil Slick Seven" for doing the bidding of Big Oil. The Talent campaign has launched vicious, personal attacks against Claire McCaskill. With your help, we can make sure that Missouri's voters see through his unwillingness to tell them what he really believes in. Take back the Senate: contribute to candidates' final media buys The next person we need by our side in the Senate -- Bob Menendez -- is already there and already leading the way on one critical issue after another, starting with Iraq. Bob had the courage to vote in favor of my amendment to change course, set a deadline in Iraq, and bring our heroes home. He has been endorsed by the LCV for his outstanding record in the environmental community, and he deserves to win election to a full term in the Senate. Jim Webb in Virginia, a decorated Vietnam veteran and former Secretary of the Navy, is our fourth must-win Senate candidate. He's running neck-and-neck against George Allen, the GOP incumbent who -- just a few short weeks ago -- was considered all but unbeatable. Allen, whose true character has been put on display for Virginia and the nation to see this fall, has been placed on the LCV's "Dirty Dozen" list of the 12 members of Congress with the worst environmental records. Take back the Senate: contribute to candidates' final media buys In each of these four key races, we've got momentum on our side. But in every one of them, the outcome is up for grabs. Pull out all the stops. Let's get it done. Let's win. Sincerely, John Kerry Paid for by Friends of John Kerry. Authorized by McCaskill for Missouri Authorized by Harold Ford Jr. for Tennessee Authorized by Menendez for Senate, Inc Authorized by Webb for Senate 2006

I was thinking about prison sentences and all they are suppose to do: Protect Society from the individual Protect Society from others like this individual (making an example) Rehabilitate offender Satiate society's thirst for revenge/justice Satiate the victim's thirst for justice/revenge Balancing this is the cost, both human, and monetary that locking someone up and rehab programs cost. Wow, how we ever get that right is beyond me.

That would be an interesting move. As always, it would depend on how much NY is willing to spend on A-Rod's contract.

Water is a huge issue here. On one end, Mexico owes us a couple trillion acre feet of water from a 150 year old treaty, water our farmers badly needs and on the other, on our ballot is a $100,000,000 bond issue to improve storm water drainage throughout the county.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 23, 2006 -> 11:52 PM) Tex, Why? More than a few things, number one, I believe we need someone who could unite the country, not further divide them. We need someone with Reagan's or (early version) Bill Clinton pr abilities. The biggest magic that happened with Reagan was making us feel better about our future and our ability to overcome adversity. We had the embarrassment of Nixon, the clumsiness of Ford in W.I.N., and the paralysis of Carter. Then Reagan comes riding in, literally, bigger than life and gives us back our swagger. With the terrorism threat, we need someone who can give us back our swagger. Hillary aint it.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 24, 2006 -> 07:16 AM) That's true. There were thousands of people wiped out because of these bastards. And to clarify, there were thousands of people wiped out because of illegal acts committed by these bastards. CEOs, COOs, CFOs, etc. can still be incompetent and wipe out your pension, as long as they do it legally. Which is something I think about when the topic of private investments in Social Security comes up, but that is a different horse to whip.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 23, 2006 -> 10:31 PM) Jim Edgar. Edgar Scissors Hand?? Yep, he was pretty good also.

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Oct 23, 2006 -> 12:18 PM) I can't remember the last time we had a gubernatorial candidate that was worth their salt. Adlai Stevenson, Jim Thompson . . .

And, he is sooo banned from here

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 23, 2006 -> 10:06 PM) I think it's sort of strange to talk about "early voting". Absentee, ya, I understand. But "early voting"? That's one of the things that they said skewed the exit polling on election day two years ago. Kind of weird, to me. Yah yah yah, go make our next Governor a Jewish Cowboy

I can't think of any serious Republican candidates that I would not vote for instead of Hillary. She is so far down my list of candidates.

I don't have a good scale to know if this is fair or not. Rapists have gotten less. A drunk driver kills a person and gets less.

Be a human. Treat her like any other friend. Ask her if she would like to go do something, anything. Just call. She's probably as nervous as you are. Don't over think this. Be yourself.

I voted today. When the summary came on the screen, in contested contests, I voted for more Republicans and Independents than Dems. Here in South Texas, The GOP doesn't even bother to run a candidate in many races.

Here's a good bumper sticker: I Never Change My Mind -- I'm a Republican Nice to know that Republicans form their opinion at an early age and never, ever, change them. That would be flip flopping or going back on their word.