Texsox

And that probably describes hundreds of thousands of illegals in this country. BTW, some people equate paying cash with not reporting it. That may or may not be true in this case. I was paid cash when I worked for Foot Locker, but of course it was reported. Many retain stores still do that. I did that for my workers as a convienece to them. Sadly, their families may never know what happened to them.

Just wondering

Happy Birthday!

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 08:47 AM) But why should alcohol be legal and marijuana shouldn't? Many scholars and legal experts would agree that the reason is partially or mostly racist. Minorities (blacks primarily) smoked pot and nice WASPs drank gin.

Let's remember these rules are more about helping the teachers who don't want to deal with crying kids who were excluded than about anything else. Knowing and working with several elementary teachers I can say they have too much to do than counsel the class geek who wasn't given a Valentine or invited to the party. From that point of view, I side with the teachers. I just wish they would be honest and give that reason than some pop psych lip service.

Anyone actually follow these? Traditional Anniversary Gifts by Year First -Paper Second -Cotton Third -Leather Fourth -Fruit or Flowers Fifth -Wood Sixth -Candy or Iron Seventh -Wool or Copper Eighth -Bronze or Pottery Ninth -Pottery Tenth -Tin Eleventh -Steel Twelfth -Silk or Linen Thirteenth -Lace Fourteenth -Ivory Fifteenth -Crystal Twentieth -China Twenty-Fifth -Silver Thirtieth -Pearl Thirty-Fifth -Coral Fortieth -Ruby Forty-Fifth -Sapphire Fiftieth -Gold Fifty-Fifth -Emerald Sixtieth -Diamond

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 11:47 AM) Well...when you count Iraq... Seriously though...yes, in terms of total numbers killed, there are more people killed walking down the street by terrorists than in planes. But in terms of per capita...there are quite a few more people on the streets of the world every day than there are flying in planes. Like 7 billion versus a couple million. So the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack will almost certainly go up considerably the moment you step on a plane. So then considering the small potential for surviving the attack, airplanes should be singled out as needing greater protection. Combined with the thought that people do not need to get on airplanes.

QUOTE(hi8is @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 11:22 AM) what that guy said. mega dittos Hi8is

QUOTE(YASNY @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 11:31 AM) Cavemen eat roast duck with mango salsa. Astronauts eat Tang. Cavemen. No contest.

1. They should have consulted an attorney when drafting that agreement. 2. The attorney should have advised them to seek a therapist 3. The therapist should have suggested these adults should go jump off a bridge. f***ing idiots.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 11:02 AM) The risk on a street is not nearly as high as it is on a plane. Planes are basically flying bombs (Jerry, at the NSA, this is only a description, not an actual threat). You are flying through the air on the principles of physics with a gigantic tank of highly flammable and potentially explosive liquid only a few feet underneath you. If you want to kill 200 people on a street in Chicago, you need an absolutely enormous bomb. You need to quite literally drive a car into a gigantic crowd of people and blow it up. To do that on a plane, you need a small explosion, good enough to either puncture the fuel tank or rip the skin of the plane. Hell, a Fire alone can bring a plane down if it catches the right thing (i.e. that Valuejet flight). A plane is the safest way to travel because of how well built they are, but they're so incredibly well built because they are flying bombs. If they're not well built, they can go off. How would you repsond to this . . . The risk on the street is greater for the individual. You are correct that a bomb on an airplane would be more likely to kill a group of people. But for the individual, does it matter if they were the only ones killed by a car bomb, instead of one of a hundred that were killed on an airplane? Isn't this about protecting individual lives? Doesn't the person on the street also run the risk of knives, guns, cross bows, traffic accidents, etc? I'd be interested in adding up airplane fatalities through terrorism versus car bombs, suicide murders, etc.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 08:51 AM) I am NOT in the "I have nothing to hide so search me" crowd. Others in here I am sure are aware of my stance on the FISA B.S. and other encroachments on real, protected rights and freedoms. That is why I made the post earlier saying that I am 100% OK with the new travel stuff, but hope we are dumb enough as a nation to start bargaining away or Constitutionally protected freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security. I was posing that to the group. I believe there are two themes here that would make intersting discussions. Why go through all this screening to stop one person in a crowd of 200 on an airplane, when there will be at least that many on a crowded street corner in every major city? You don't have to walk down Michigan Avenue you chose to. Isn't the risk just as high? When we consent to being searched everywhere else, does our right to keep the government from searching us become meaningless?

it pisses me off that I actually pay a service to block spam on my regular pop3 account.

I know a number of posters here use gmail, are you noticing a lot of spam not getting blocked?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 12:47 AM) The Dodgers trading for Maddux is an indication of the value of veteran starting pitchers. Freddy also has that rep of being a big game pitcher. If you think he has little or no value on the trade market, you are mistaken. Right as always . . .

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 12:38 AM) No liquids are permitted into the sterile zone (secure) of an airport at this time in the US. The only exceptions are formula, breastmilk, insulin and prescription medication. Taste tests are required for these exceptions. Stay in school kids or this could be your next job . . .

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 08:42 PM) First off, avoid sprays. I like Arm&Hammer stick, actually. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 11:34 PM) The Sox game is being aired on ESPN so we'll have to wait until around 1 o'clock or so just to see the damned thing. Hey, I get to see a game. quit complaining

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 07:25 PM) So the first drug your friend(s) did before the "hard" stuff was pot? They didn't drink alcohol (which is illegal if you are under 21,) or smoke a cigarette (Illegal if you are 18?) Weird. Your friend(s) make up 1% of anyone who has ever smoked pot. (From P&T Bulls***.) Personally I feel if people really wanted to mess with their bodies and alcohol and pot were legal, they wouldn't need the harder, illegal stuff. I believe the gateway comes into play more on the method of purchase. What is the hardest drug the local convinience store sells? The one he bought the cigarettes from? What is the hardest drug the liquor store sells? Now what is the hardest drug that the guy who is supplying his pot sells? If you legalize pot, I don't think it will cause more people to try harder drugs. In fact. I think it would cause less people to. But I do agree it is a gateway. The user accepts illegal activity, they now have access to illegal drugs, the user now has everything necessary for harder drug use.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 01:19 PM) Stadiums, owned by private interests or government entities, always have the right to conduct security, charge for entrance and admit/reject anyone. So yeah. Private property - their call. But probably won't happen, for financial reasons. Grey area, given its public transit. Up to the cab company, which again, is private. Public street, so no, no searches. Private property, so if they choose, yes. Of these, only walking down Michigan Avenue could really be construed as a right. So after being searched at the office building, the retail store, the stadium, the train, plane, and taxi, does it really matter if the government isn't allowed to search you? That's the point I am making. We are on a path were all freedoms will be meaningless. If it is unsafe to travel via a plane next to someone, why allow anyone to walk in a crowd on Michigan Avenue without being searched? Think about this for a minute. You get on a plane with dozens on up to a couple hundred people. Count how many people will be at a busy street corner in Chicago tomorrow at lunch time. Why should we be more concerned about being in a plane or on a bus than walking? When searches becomes routine we then give up that right and allow the police to have you empty your pockets and open your purse when they ask. Is that better or worse for society? It is easy to give a "if you have nothing to hide" or "if it saves one life" argument. And perhaps those are valid positions.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 01:00 PM) Hypothetically it depends... If it is criminal in nature, then obviously the government steps in to handle the problems. If it is just something that happens, the company would have to face up to the scrutiny and investigations that any other company/industry would be subject to if their equiptment failed and caused harm, or if the court determines what the reasonable level of security that an airline would have to provide. Now the government interest in making sure things go smoothly is a completely different beast. Of course it is in the best interest for the airlines to move smoothly and safely, but it could be argued that it isn't the place of government to legislate and decide how airlines have to do business. Great points to ponder. But then, who should provide air traffic control? Could a case be built that air travel is so important to our economy that it is in the national interest for everyone to have a voice in how it is run, and therefore we should be involved via our government? Isn't this comparable to food safety and law enforcement?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:59 PM) Yea, cause this is exactly what's happening - why the story broke and when it did. Sometimes I hate ignorance. sometimes?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:32 PM) I did that one just for you. Pioneering journalist but lousy as a sex symbol

So everyone, myself included, accepts that to ride on a plane, one has to consent to a search. How about to attend a sporting event? Shop in a mall? Ride a bus or taxi? Walk down Michigan Avenue? Enter an office building? My point again, is what difference will our rights make if we voluntarily give them away at every turn?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:22 PM) But Tex...here's the counterpoint...no one needs to go on a plane. Going on a plane is not a right. Going on a plane is something you purchase a ticket to do, it's a choice. It's more of a contract between you and the flight provider than it is between you and the government or anythign like that. The governnment has restrictions on what freedoms it can take away. Those we have to defend against people like Bush. But airlines are a different beast entirely...they are private corporations. If the rules for the contract people purchase with thsoe airlines were to be significantly changed, I'm not sure I see the problem with it in the same way I see the problem with the government changing its rules. I would contend that our economy depends on travel. While it isn't a right, it is necessary for many individuals. So those individuals would be in a position to have to subject themselves to a search that would normally be against our rights. Same with employers that want our bodily fluids. My best point here is what difference will it make if the government can't do something, like search and seizure, if we allow everyone else to search?