Texsox

See, he fulfilled that campaign promise to streamline government and make things easier.

what's that site again? On line polls are meaningless. For example, I was elected to the Soxtalk Hall of Fame in a online poll. Game.Set.Match

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ May 17, 2006 -> 08:34 AM) Of the top 5 things that bother me about the Sox this year, he doesn't even make the list. My list in no particular order: - Boone Logan's suckiness - Jon Garland's woes - Ross Gload's uselessness for this team - Jenk's shaky outings - The incomplete green seats That's about my list as well. But he's in the top 10, maybe the top 7.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ May 17, 2006 -> 11:16 AM) But see, here's the one problem with something like that. If I want to unionize or try to work towards a better salary, or if I want to file a workplace complaint, or something silly like that, I have that right, and if things get really bad I can always just quit and go look for another job. But if a guest worker has a problem with a company, or the company decides it's given out too many raises to guest workers and lets them go in favor of new blood, then those people are stuck without jobs, and if you're only allowed in this country with a job, basically you wind up having to choose between tolerating whatever situation you're in or deportation. Unsafe working conditions are covered by OSHA, and basic US protections are in place, so I am not concerned about most abuses. But then, let's tie it to the unemployment rate. If unemployement in the skill area the immigrant is applying for is increasing, then decrease the number of immigrants allowed and vice versa. It helps no one when workers are out of work. And I will not bankrupt the US by allowing more workers in than can be supported. Emphasis on worker in a Guest Worker program. Another way to help this is the company would have a limited number of "do overs", after that, they would not be allowed to continue to hire guest workers. The same objection I have to people that make statements that illegal is illegal and we should deal with it without looking at anything else, I have to statements that allow immigration for immigration sake. There has to be a need and benefit to the US. I will admit, when someone like Southsider is so opposed and believes that jobs aren't part of the equation, I start to doubt my position. He is far ahead of me with economics, but it seems too obvious.

Is it necessary for the population to monitor the government and know what the goverment is doing? Or should be just allow the government to tell us? Is it necessary for individuals to have a means to report when the government is doing something wrong? Who can do that, and what controls should the government be allowed to place on the very group the citizens have selected to monitor the government? I am more concerned about curtailing the press than my own phone records.

^^^^^ perfect leader for the times. He also was pretty smart about immgration and what to do with Mexican nationals who were working in the US.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 10:57 AM) Vote for that man! It's either Kinky or current governor Perry. Perry has looked ineffective in our school funding debates, but overall he still seems like the best choice. Kinky would be a kind of Ventura governor. More celeb than governor and I don't think Texas needs that. Although, if I could be persuaded to believe he really wants to be governor, and this isn't a career move, that could change. I believe Kap is still looking for a candidate and my guess he's going to lean toward ex-Republican turned independent Strayhorn.

I wasn't aware of the widespread gambling that was going on. I never really bothered to learn anything about that era.

Best? Possibly. Most competitive and entertaining? Yes.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 10:50 AM) Just curious. Does he ever send you an email without asking for money? No I was just thinking the only politician who sends me stuff without a soliciation is Kinky.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 10:45 AM) After thinking about this, I was mistaken. Please disregard. you probably were thinking "a" seat, not "the" seat.

Dear James, You know what our mission is -- to drive to victory on November 7 by using our online strength to give key Democratic candidates grassroots help they couldn't even imagine getting in the past. This week, we're focusing on a handful of races across the nation that are absolutely critical to the environment. We're out to take back the Congress and defeat Republican candidates who have sold out the environment whenever it really counts. Support pro-environment Democratic candidates now. Yesterday, we helped raise tens of thousands of dollars for three critical House challengers: Ron Klein in Florida, Francine Busby in California, and Darcy Burner in Washington state. Today, we've added a new candidate to the list -- Linda Stender who is running in New Jersey's 7th Congressional district. Linda is not only a strong environmental candidate, she has also fought to protect the right to privacy and she has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's failed policies in Iraq. Linda has led fights in her county to pass the Open Space, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Trust Fund, create the area's largest tree replacement program, and develop a new program to improve the appearance of county property. Protecting our environment and making America energy independent are two of her key priorities when she gets elected. I told you earlier that two of the GOP incumbents we're out to defeat, Clay Shaw and Dave Reichert, had identical 28% voting records on the League of Conservation Voters' scorecard. Linda's opponent, Mike Ferguson, is even worse. In the last session of Congress, he voted pro-environment only 17% of the time. All 3 of these Republican incumbents have voted to open up the Arctic Refuge to drilling, gut funding of environmental protections for clean water and environmental conservation, and sell off our public lands to the big mining companies. We can't continue to let this happen. Support pro-environment Democratic candidates now. We have these anti-environment Republicans on the run. Let's keep it that way. Help build an unstoppable momentum for our environmental slate of candidates. Donate to one or more of our candidates right now. Let's give them the strong support they need to win. Sincerely, John Kerry P.S. In addition to providing direct support to our candidates, don't forget to also include a donation to Keeping America's Promise in support of our broader efforts to help shape the outcome of these vitally important elections.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 08:48 AM) The times I've flown Southwest I've always had an assigned seat. they are talking about specific seats like row 12 seat A. Something they have never done.

QUOTE(samclemens @ May 17, 2006 -> 10:17 AM) you are right. we should give more aid to mexico to improve a foreign country's economy. since mexico is part of the united states, its our responsibility. We give them aid to hire more law enforcement, to help clean up their environment (some of which was US manufacturers mess), to improve health care, etc. Keeping a stable government on our border is money well spent. It certainly is as valid as sending money to everyone in the middle east and half of the former Soviet block countries. BTW, were you away that much of the agriculture in Texas is dependent on the Rio Grande watershed. That watershed is sprerad out across both countries. When Mexico makes improvements, with US aid, to their reservoir system, it increases the amount of water the US has for irrigating crops. Programs like that are excellent ways to offer US aid.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 10:10 AM) The Dems certainly would have had to been careful. I totally agree with you there. Good points. I was just thinking, from a political capital and opportunity point of view, what President has pissed away, or had taken away, more political capital than Bush? Control of everything up to the Supreme Court and a post 9/11 approval rating that was through the roof. Amazing to think about. That may be the central theme when historians view his career. I think he, perhaps much like Jimmy Carter, may have had too much heart for the job. I may question his mind and intelligence, but Bush has a good heart. I really believe it.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 10:18 AM) They can be let in, a controlled number, with the caveat they have to have employment within X number of days. Hell ... As I type this, I see all kinds of logistical problems with it. I don't know how to address this. Exactly and the control has to be linked to jobs. I wouldn't let them in until there is a job or someone willing to support them. There is no other criteria as important to both parties (immigrant and US) Perhaps let the employers apply for a guest worker permit and then they fill it. There has to be some way to link jobs to immigration. Anything can happen once they are here, companies may close, etc. and we would have to account for that. But from both sides this makes sense. From the people I know who have immigrated, legally and illegally, the desire to build a better life for their kids and sometimes themselves is the #1 reason for crossing the river. That better life isn't from being on public aid, it comes from working and having your children be educated. From the taxpayer side, we would rather send aid to Mexico than deal with Spanish speaking Mexicans on our shores who are accepting aid. So linking jobs to immigration works.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 10:05 AM) I'll say this much, though. This is the main reason I've been stumping for secure borders. That would curtail the need for Nat'l ID cards and databases. Once the border is effectively under control, then the weeding out process could take place through the natural course of events. In other words, pull someone over for speeding and if he's illegal alien, arrest and turn over to the proper department. No need for mass roundups. What? You mean Natalie Holloway isn't an important issue? Explain what you mean by linking jobs to immigration. Currently one proposal calls for 330,000 immigrants per year and another calls for less. Neither proposal links these immigrants actually having means of suppporting themsleves. Some link to where immigrants have to have jobs seems like a no brainer to me. I don't have an exact method in mind, but perhaps either a direct; Juan Carlos Espinosa's application as a guest worker is sponsored by Hormel who needs him in their chicken processing plant or a floating number based on unemployment numbers. But to say in 2008 we will allow X number of immigrants is just stupid.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 09:58 AM) Oh, I agree there would have had to have been an investigation of it. But there are calm, sensible investigations and there is treestump rhetoric. I'm sorry, but Bush would not have been given one iota of the benefit of the doubt. Which is why I say the passenger communications would have been such an out, and easily have supplied Bush with a reason to never acknowledge the order had been given. Actually, remember the bull horn and 90% approval ratings? I believe, at that time, he would have been given the benefit of a lot of doubt. Today? Toast him. Not fair, but reality. I agree a calm, sensible investigation is always a better approach, but politicians won't allow for that.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 09:59 AM) I don't have all the answers, my friend. I just don't like the way things are headed. I don't like the way things are and am glad we are having a national debate about it. One thing I have total faith in is America's ability to solve big problems. We have a system that allows for all voices to be heard, a single voice can change the world. So I am encouraged by the way things are headed. It is the things we aren't talking about that worry me more. Now if I could just hear more people linking jobs to immigration, I'd be even happier.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 09:51 AM) Now they are talking about a national database the employers would be required to check before hiring someone. In fact, I think Georgia is trying to implement this right now. So, in effect, that gives the gov't the ability to approve or disapprove of hirings. This is an offshoot of the illegal immigration problem, but easily expandable to include everyone. Currently employers are required to look at various forms of identification to determine if an applicant can legally work in the US. Many people are proposing destroying any businesses that are caught with illegals. Huge fines, prison, etc. If we are going to make the penalties so severe that someone's life work would be destroyed if they hire someone who is found to be llegal, shouldn't there be a full proof way that employers would be protected? How else could we do it without changing our present ID systems?

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 09:46 AM) As logical as that sounds, the press still would have been all over him. The Dems would be screaming for an investigation. They are always sniffing for blood with Bush. This would have been an extraordinary event in our history. The only prudent thing would be for it to be investigated. The President would have ordered innocent US citizens killed. No way that should be allowed to pass with a shrug of the shoulders. No matter who the President is. The alternative is just trusting the President and we have never in our history allowed that to pass. The nagging question would be, could the people on the plane have overpowered the terrorists and taken control of the plane, and how much time should have been allowed to see if that was going to happen? The plane was heading to heavily populated areas, the window was closing quickly. I really don't think they shot the plane down and no one saw it. So this is just a theoretical question.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 09:41 AM) But that's how they work. A little here (Nat'l cards), a little there (chip in the cards), then ... chip implanted under the skin. The chip under the skin would be convienent. I understand the concerns, and share many of them, but like I said, combining all the cards in my wallet and my passport seems ok to me. Where we go from there, should be debated. I do think we are heading towards a system where proving citizenship will be important, and I can't think of a more convienent way than a national ID card. Carrying a passport sucks, I had to carry a green card for working in Mexcio, about the same size as a passport, for a few years and it is a pain.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 09:34 AM) When they put RFID chips in them, they are basically tracking devices. We'd have to draw the line before that.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 09:28 AM) I wouldn't have disagreed either. But, he would have been put through the wringer by the media and opposition party. Probable headline: Bush orders plane shot down to save himself! And if any President ever had to order something like that, I would hope there was a huge debate. No way I would want any President being able to kill civilians without close examination.

QUOTE(YASNY @ May 17, 2006 -> 09:26 AM) I know this much. The Democratic Party is way to liberal for me. I'm not going to buy into any temporary centrist movement on their part, either. When it comes down to it, I don't trust the Bushies. Conservative agendas are one thing, but driving us toward fascism is something else. And your National ID card is one step in that process, by the way. I don't see the difference between a national ID card and me carrying a Texas driver's license and a passport. In fact, give me a universal card that would work as my driver's license, library card (already there) Blockbuster discount card, gym membership card, credit card, debit card, selected medical history, Sam's Club card, etc. We are already carrying all that stuff, let's combine it into one. I try to avoid the descriptive labels for either party. I disagree with the GOP on balancing the budget, activist judges, and the media. I think they are trying to destroy a couple pillars of our freedoms. I also disagree with Dems on a number of issues, so depending on the people involved, I make choices. Statewide in Texas, I voted for more Republicans than Dems, because on balance, I agreed with more of their plans than their opponents.