Texsox

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.

IIRC Venezuela has Napoleonic Law, guilty until proven innocent, like Mexico.

I'm not an athlete. I'm a professional baseball player. John Martin Kruk Philadelphia Phillies 1B

I did think the long anticipated WGN series 2003 Cub World Series run, ended at about the right time . . .

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 09:06 PM) YEEE f***ING HAW!!! LOW POLL NUMBERS! OUR PRESIDENT SUCKS!!! WOOO HOOOO!!! I guess we should change your screen name to CAP-KOMET. Yes sir, we understand, any negative comments about Bush will result in you getting pissed off, even in a Dem only thread. We should be more like the GOP who is still complaining about Clinton 6 years after he left office. Not everyone is enamored with this President, last I looked Homeland Security and the Patriot Act didn't take away our freedom of speech, we still can complain about the government.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 07:07 PM) i think its safe to say that a declaration signed by 55 democrat politicians had plenty of government time put into it. what are you saying, that they all got togethor during their lunch breaks and after 5 pm?? its all government time when you are in the national assembly. LMAO. How about all the politicians that find time to appear in Rush's show? The Saturday morning news shows? This is well within what leaders should be doing. They are experessing their views and defining their beliefs. Seems like a great use of their time. If this was a group of GOPers talking on Rush you would be lapping it up. Damn it McCain, you got filing to do, stop that interview.

Twin Peaks

Public Officials Under God By E. J. Dionne Jr. Tuesday, February 28, 2006; A15 When John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, he said some things about Catholic bishops that might, in today's climate, be condemned as insolence toward church authority. "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act," Kennedy told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September 1960. "I do not speak for my church on public matters -- and the church does not speak for me." Kennedy, of course, spoke those words in an effort to fight anti-Catholic bigotry. That was long before the 2004 campaign, in which John F. Kerry, only the third Roman Catholic in American history to be nominated for the presidency by a major party, found himself fending off certain prelates who said that his stand on abortion meant he could not receive communion -- and also meant that Catholics should not vote for him. The episode caused anger, anguish and reflection among Democratic politicians who are Catholic. "People felt their faith was being questioned, and they were angry that ideologues were using the church for their own purpose," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut. Such reflections have produced a remarkable document that will be released this week, a "Statement of Principles By Fifty-Five Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives." It is, to the best of my knowledge, an unprecedented attempt by a large number of elected officials to explain the relationship between their religious faith and their public commitments. "As Catholic Democrats in Congress," the statement begins, "we are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition -- a tradition that promotes the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need. As legislators, in the U.S. House of Representatives, we work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has moral purpose." The statement is only six paragraphs, which gives it clarity and focus. After a paragraph on Catholic social teaching about the obligations to "the poor and disadvantaged," the writers get to the hard issue, insisting that "each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term." What's significant is that this is not a statement from pro-choice Catholics trying to "reframe" the abortion question. The signatories include some of the staunchest opponents of abortion in the House, including Reps. Bart Stupak, Dale Kildee, Tim Holden, James Oberstar and James Langevin. In other words, Democrats on both sides of the abortion question worry that it is crowding out all other concerns. And in very polite language, the Catholic Democrats suggest that their bishops allow them some room to disagree. "In all these issues, we seek the church's guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience," they write in an echo of Kennedy. "In recognizing the church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes from being in disagreement with the church in some areas." With any luck, this statement will provoke two debates, one outside the Catholic Church and one inside. One of the troubling aspects of 2004 was the extent to which partisan politics invaded the churches and seemed to enlist them as part of the Republicans' electoral apparatus. But there is a difference between defending the legitimate right of churches to speak up on public questions and the hyperpoliticization of the church itself. For Catholics with moderate or liberal leanings, the argument from some bishops that they could vote only for staunch foes of abortion posed a wretched dilemma. It seemed to demand that such voters cast their ballots for conservative or right-wing candidates with whom they might disagree on every other question -- social justice, war and peace, or the death penalty. All are areas where liberals are often closer to the church's view. "Our faith does and should affect how we deal with issues," DeLauro said. "But we're rebelling against the idea of a one-issue church." If nothing else, these Catholic Democrats will haul out into the open a discussion with their bishops, with their fellow Catholics and with their constituents that has been festering underground. "We were silent for too long," DeLauro said. "And that meant you were defined by others, not by yourselves."

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 28, 2006 -> 05:03 PM) seriously, the Art of Pizza on Ashland beats the s*** out of all of those, true story. You forgot the green . . .

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 09:24 PM) Rain rocks though. That's Rock Raines* *Know your posters

I would have leapt for joy if this had been a bi-partisan letter. I wonder if the GOP was even asked.

House Democrats Release Historic Catholic Statement of Principles Expresses Commitment to Dignity of Life and Belief that Government Has 'Moral Purpose' WASHINGTON, D.C. - A majority of Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House led by Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn.-3) today released a statement of principles. Signed by 55 House Democrats, the statement documents how their faith influences them as lawmakers, making clear their commitment to the basic principles at the heart of Catholic social teaching and their bearing on policy - whether it is increasing access to education for all or pressing for real health care reform, taking seriously the decision to go to war, or reducing poverty. Above all, the document expresses the signers' commitment to the dignity of life and their belief that government has moral purpose. The full text of the statement and the complete list of signers follow. Statement of Principles By Fifty-Five Catholic Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives As Catholic Democrats in Congress, we are proud to be part of the living Catholic tradition -- a tradition that promotes the common good, expresses a consistent moral framework for life and highlights the need to provide a collective safety net to those individuals in society who are most in need. As legislators, in the U.S. House of Representatives, we work every day to advance respect for life and the dignity of every human being. We believe that government has moral purpose. We are committed to making real the basic principles that are at the heart of Catholic social teaching: helping the poor and disadvantaged, protecting the most vulnerable among us, and ensuring that all Americans of every faith are given meaningful opportunities to share in the blessings of this great country. That commitment is fulfilled in different ways by legislators but includes: reducing the rising rates of poverty; increasing access to education for all; pressing for increased access to health care; and taking seriously the decision to go to war. Each of these issues challenges our obligations as Catholics to community and helping those in need. We envision a world in which every child belongs to a loving family and agree with the Catholic Church about the value of human life and the undesirability of abortion B we do not celebrate its practice. Each of us is committed to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and creating an environment with policies that encourage pregnancies to be carried to term. We believe this includes promoting alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and improving access to children=s healthcare and child care, as well as policies that encourage paternal and maternal responsibility. In all these issues, we seek the Church=s guidance and assistance but believe also in the primacy of conscience. In recognizing the Church's role in providing moral leadership, we acknowledge and accept the tension that comes with being in disagreement with the Church in some areas. Yet we believe we can speak to the fundamental issues that unite us as Catholics and lend our voices to changing the political debate -- a debate that often fails to reflect and encompass the depth and complexity of these issues. As legislators, we are charged with preserving the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom for all Americans. In doing so, we guarantee our right to live our own lives as Catholics, but also foster an America with a rich diversity of faiths. We believe the separation of church and state allows for our faith to inform our public duties. As Catholic Democrats who embrace the vocation and mission of the laity as expressed by Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Exhortation, Christifideles Laici, we believe that the Church is the "people of God," called to be a moral force in the broadest sense. We believe the Church as a community is called to be in the vanguard of creating a more just America and world. And as such, we have a claim on the Church's bearing as it does on ours. Rosa L. DeLauro David R. Obey Wm. Lacy Clay Hilda L. Solis James R. Langevin Bart Stupak Anna Eshoo Bill Pascrell Gene Taylor Raul M. Grijalva Carolyn McCarthy John B. Larson Ed Pastor Joe Baca William Delahunt Tim Ryan Silvestre Reyes Mike Thompson Linda T. Sanchez Charles A. Gonzalez Xavier Becerra Diane Watson Michael H. Michaud Nydia Velazquez Jim Marshall Frank Pallone John T. Salazar James P. McGovern George Miller Tim Holden James L. Oberstar Dale E. Kildee Patrick J. Kennedy Cynthia McKinney James P. Moran Michael Capuano Richard E. Neal Mike Doyle Peter A. DeFazio Maurice Hinchey Dennis A. Cardoza Joseph Crowley Jim Costa Lucille Roybal-Allard Loretta Sanchez Robert Brady Marty Meehan Grace Napolitano Luis V. Gutierrez Jose Serrano Stephen Lynch Edward J. Markey Nancy Pelosi Lane Evans

Remember, the family that slays together, stays together . . . No one noticed the couple was missing? It would seem an investigation then would have turned something up.

QUOTE(Brian @ Feb 27, 2006 -> 11:02 PM) Bill's Pub? Of course. Kaisers has been around forever. Off Route 21 near Fatman's. waaay up there. Now I know where you're talking.