Texsox

Congrats for him.

QUOTE(southsideirish @ Mar 1, 2006 -> 10:53 PM) There is nothing wrong with going to the bathroom when you need to, however I am sure the need to go to the bathroom does not just hit you. You don't just feel it and say "HOT DAMN!,, I gotta take a piss!!, get me outta here!!!!" It is not a spur of the moment type thing. Most of us are able to hold it or tell beforehand that we are getting full and we will have to go soon. It happens to old people all the time, just ask FlaSoxxJim and YAS

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 1, 2006 -> 06:46 PM) Frank was not invited. Yet, former players have been. Another greedy player

Where's the three-way? Dammit, he forgot something.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 1, 2006 -> 10:36 PM) Our entire government is so corrupt. And when in Rome... (crumbles) How many tens of thousands of local, county, state, and federal officials do we have? Both employed and elected? Add to it the police, fire, and military. Now add up how many convictions we have in that group for wrongdoings? A prisoner abuse scandle here and a blow job there, some questionable campaign contributions, overall, we have an incredibly honest government led by some equally honest and hardworking individuals. America Love it Or Leave It!* *or work to fix it.

I will never believe that one party does anything more or less than the other. The business of politics is the same for both parties. Even if Jack didn't touch a Dem, there is someone out there that did. Neither party has a monopoly on honesty or dishonesty. All we can do is reject those politicians as we find them and pray that the good and just people in both parties stay and have long successful careers. It is such a minority of leaders that are ever accused or convicted of any wrongdoing. By and large we have honest representation on both sides of the aisle.

I thought I would save Kap some typing QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 09:06 PM) YEEE f***ING HAW!!! LOW POLL NUMBERS! OUR PRESIDENT SUCKS!!! WOOO HOOOO!!! And then you wonder why the perception is from a conservative standpoint all you want to do is attack and wish bad things for this president. Edit: Oh, crap, my fault. This is the Bush bashing thread that no one dare speak anything good about the president in here. My fault, I just realized where I was. But I think this is a good enough point to leave it here.

QUOTE(SnB @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 08:43 PM) rule number 1: STAY IN YOUR SEAT UNTIL A PAUSE IN PLAY Really hot chicks, in early innings, are exempt from this, especially if they are bringing beer. Wait, maybe that shouldn't be in green . . .

f*** him, he's a greedy bastard

Kenny is bored and WOW! talk about being under the radar

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 1, 2006 -> 04:11 PM) Whether or not it bothers you...it could be a pretty good indication of how he'll vote on a lot of things. Again, no surprise, he's a religious conservative. Our Constitution allows for the President to nominate and the Legistlative Branch to confirm. As luck would have it, it was an easy path for a conservative. We have checks and balances, and when too much power is centered with one party, voters will swing the pendulum back if they are unhappy. I don't agree with the Judge on many issues, but I'll defend his right to hold them, his confirmation, and our Constitution.

QUOTE(mreye @ Mar 1, 2006 -> 10:20 AM) I'm too lazy to look, but I'd like to see how these Catholics voted on Abortion and Partial-Birth Abortion. That was at the core of the statement. They talked about a US where abortion is not common, not about outlawing abortion. How that almost all Catholic beliefs fall within Democratic beliefs, except abortion. Capital Punishment, aid to the needy, most public aid programs are all within Catholic teaching. For Catholic Dems, abortion is a problem; For Catholic Reps, Capital Punishment is a problem. What is significant here is a statement that you can be a religious person and be a part of the Democrat party and here is why. My Church for example, unionized it's workers and has a very active Human Rights group, and a very active Peace and Justice group. We pray for the respect of human life and believe that no one should end life early. That's a cradle to grave prayer. No abortions and no executions.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 1, 2006 -> 02:47 PM) That's justice Samuel Alito, writing to James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family. I don't have a problem with that at all. His positions are well known, and they fall in the Focus on the Family beliefs.

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Mar 1, 2006 -> 08:49 AM) They told Howard he could not refer to Sirius by name. The judge will decide. CBS will lose, but it will cost Howard money on lawyers, and f*** up my stock for the time being. Les Moonves :finger CBS will lose because HOWARD ROCKS I don't know on what basis CBS will sue, but if Howard was selling advertising, I would think that would be an easier issue to decide. I am certain it is a complex contract equal to his talents, and I am equally certain a Judge will not buy into the argument that Hey, CBS made money, so f*** the rest of the contract. In the end it doesn't matter one way or the other. Neither company will suffer to much. The list of infallibles Jesus to Believers Pope to Catholics Stern to his hardcore fans I respect that.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 1, 2006 -> 08:34 AM) I don't know. What I do know is Howard is like no other, and I imagine had many special things/deals in his contracts. I would bet high his is nothing like standard DJ stuff. I would to, and I would expect that both sides would live up to the contract. And I am guessing, as all of are. But here's the scenario that may play out. CBS had gone to Sirius and offered an advertsing package. Stations cross promote all the time now and CBS would have been wise to grab even more, especially with an obvious tie in. Sirius says no thanks. They say no thanks, because they are paying Stern direct. Now substitute Chevy, Paramount Studios, or any other advertiser and I believe we all can see CBS's point. In exchange for his services, they were entitled to make as much as they could, within the scope of the contract. I was wondering how CBS could prove damages, I think this would be the only way. And Tony, that will be up to a Judge at some point, I am certain. But how did y'all know Howard was talking about Sirius? At some point it becomes apparent, and possibly enforceable.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 1, 2006 -> 08:28 AM) Is his contract avaliable to view or something...? And isn't this the same contract he signed in 2000...? 3 and a half years before he decided to move to Sirius..? How could there be lingo in there that states "don't promote Sirius.." when Sirius wasn't even in the picture..? Of course discussing exact aspects is fruitless. But do you think that his contract would allow him to read commercials that only himself was benefiting from? Shouldn't the station have control of advertisements on their station? Imagine if on air talent could go out and sell their own ads and read them and the station receives nothing. I have to believe that is standard stuff for every DJ.

I believe CBS is claiming he breached his contract. I also believe that some Stern backers believe he should be allowed to breach the contract as long as CBS made money. Presumably, CBS would have been allowed to breach the contract as well as long as they paid Howard. So why do they spend all that time negotiating the rest? I believe you live up to the entire contract, and expect the other party to also. I am not going to get into whether or not his actions breached or did not breach the contract. That would take knowledge of the contract, which no one here has access to.

QUOTE(tonyho7476 @ Mar 1, 2006 -> 08:21 AM) And Howard did live up to it. He made them an assload of money, as always....and then he moved on. The listeners would be coming to Sirius no matter what. I bought Sirius as soon as he signed the contract, and I heard it outside of the show. Les is mad...this is a vendetta...that is it. SOUR GRAPES...WAAAA! You seem to think that there was no language in the contract that covers content? Or are you saying that as long as CBS made money, Stern could ignore everything else he signed?

QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 11:25 AM) I've got something now: I hope his cell mate gives him a similar list. LMAO

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 1, 2006 -> 08:11 AM) 1...? I agree. It seemed like some people where saying that CBS should have done more, and because they didn't, they have no reason to try and claim injuries now.

Because CBS made money, Stern didn't have to live up to the contract? Didn't Stern receive his compensation? It seems to be that when he signed the contract he knew the CBS would be making money. It also seems that Stern is a bright enough individual who knows he talents and would have predicted CBS would make BILLIONS, which allowed him to earn even more. Does anyone think he was telling CBS, you WON'T make billions and please adjust my salary downward to reflect that? So Stern and CBS entered a contract in which each expected to make a lot of money, and each did. To say that fact would void all other aspects of the contract seems silly to me. I don't hear Stern claiming any violations on CBS's side, but that will probably come soon enough. What would the Stern backers be saying if CBS had said we paid him hundreds of millions already and won't live up to contract? I'm a black and white guy with contracts. You sign them and you live up to them. It's a matter of honor and integrity.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

I wonder how many efforts someone has to take to enforce a contract before it is valid?

I guess there mustn't be anyone to talk to in the GOP thread

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 09:02 PM) you comin in town anytime soon. I will treat and prove it to you. Probably in October for the playoffs, and you are on.