Texsox

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 10:31 AM) Wait. Doesn't this go along with the liberal agenda of taking money away from the rich and putting more in the government coffers? Legit question. Not trying to be a smart ass .... this time. Not exactly what you are asking. The government takes money from everybody except the poorest.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 10:52 AM) Tex- I'm a little confused on the Q&A portion. In my debate, after the opening statements were made, Flaxx asked his first question. Then I asked mine. Is that how it goes? We each ask one, each answer, each respond? Then onto question 2? Or was I supposed to answer Flaxx first, then he responds to my answer, then I ask MY first question? I was thinking they would be asked concurrently and have both asked before answering. Perhaps with the second question the order of asking could be reversed, in case there is a built in advantage I don't see.

Some people believe it is every Christians responsibility to witness and lead others to the Lord. Some believe words are the key, others deeds. This also falls somewhat on your denomination.

nice. I wonder how much that professor gets paid to say that with a straight face?

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 10:11 AM) just from my standpoint, i don't need a guy to report happy news to make me think he's doing a good job. i want a guy to report the news accurately and fairly, and i want him to develop good enough sources that when the time arrives, a big story can be broke. i don't mind the reporting of bad play or bad incidents, because i'd rather have an accurate view of the happenings on the team than one that's been polished up for public consumption. Same with me. But just watch during the season and when some reporter or analyst picks against the Sox there is a 50 post thread talking about what a moron he is and how the Sox get no respect. Once I left the Chicago market and wasn't surrounded by "homers", my attitude changed. Accuracy wins out over attitude.

I think this came up during the debates about Presidents being good debaters. I find that being a great debater not that important in choosing a POTUS. What I do want is someone who can listen to all sides and make the right choice between many options. Even more difficult, is many times, all the options are terrible choices. I can not picture (pitcher?) Bush and Bin Laden debating to solve any problems. I do see Bush deciding how to hunt Binny down and choosing between different plans. So I don't mind how poorly he answered that student's question. Likewise, if he was a brilliant debater, I wouldn't be too impressed. I worry that by taking the profit out of student loans that it will become harder to get these loans as banks may limit how many they will process.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 09:49 AM) I said I wouldn't peer into this thread during the current debate, but I did sneek a peak at Tex' opening statement. It sounds like "Piss Christ" is a perfect poster child for the federally subsidized art of questionable value you are referring to. Once the current debate round is over I'd enjoy sharing my thoughts on why that art piece and other controversial pieces are of value to society, even if they are not your cup of tea or mine. I actually didn't have any one piece in mind. I am enjoying reading the well thought out opinions so far.

Not allowed to touch him? Somehow, that seems very sad.

I think by "best", people really mean who runs the most flattering articles about the Sox. Sox fans never have had much tolerance to any bad news. Who cares how they write as long as it is nice and makes us feel better.

He will be a poster boy for every GM in the game to show young players. There isn't player in sports who the game needs more than the player needs the game.

One of the best examples of how to cheer on the visitors I ever saw was at a Black Hawks game. A guy was sitting in front of me and about 5 minutes before the game turned and said "I'm grew up in Toronto, and have been a Maple Leaf fan for 20 years. I know I will cheer, and I know that may be annoying. I don't want any trouble, so how about this, when the Maple Leafs score, I buy you guys a beer? He would up buying about 10 beers after every goal, thankfully for him there was only 2 or 3. He turned out to be a nice guy, very good hockey fan and even with a little cheering, no one really bothered him. But as any Hawks fan knows, it could have been ugly.

I knowmy talents, and my weaknesses, are God given. I think him daily for many gifts, but prefer to keep that private. I know that God wasn't pulling for me to sink a putt, but I thanked him for the two good arms and the eye/hand coordination. What we do with our talents is up to us. I am never comfortable with the grandstanding. And I suspect some people use it as a PR ploy.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 08:16 AM) You think? I agree, it seems logical enough. Proactive healthcare costs 1/5 to 1/10 of what reactive healthcare costs. But it is perfectly clear we're not really serious about ever moving to a federally guaranteed proactive model. It seems to come down to what is fair. I've always believe when people who are getting government benefits are receiving more than what the middle class has, there are problems. A classic situation I remember was a young mom who worked for me through a temp agency. Both her and her husband worked at minimum wage jobs, and their children qualified for some programs. One was dental. The same time I was writing a large check for orthodontics for my daughter, she was b****ing she couldn't select which Orthodontist to take her daughter. Stuff like that creates a backlash against programs.

It was suggested we have a public comment thread running alongside the debate threads. Funding for the arts is an interesting area for me. I've placed it alongside items like public parks, libraries, 4th of July fireworks shows, etc and believe they make our society a better place to live. What I struggle with at times is the artistic freedom we allow some people to create items that frankly I find disgusting, immoral, and without any social value.

Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, and their liberal counterparts (none here so I can't name names), have a greater impact on people's opinions than the 10:00 news. And opinions and the subsequent voting is what counts in the political arena. The GOP wants to steer people away from news accounts and towards conservative talk shows that push the party agenda. That is good business for them. Neither party wants people to make up their own opinions when they have prepackaged opinions there for the asking. They want us to just listen to them (dem or rep), agree that the the media lies, and they (the parties and politicians) will tell us the truth. I here way more people talk about Rush's show than the newscast. That is influence.

I was part of a Career Pathway project that was created to help textile workers who were out of work after Levis and others moved out of the country. One thing we discovered with that population, and I suspect may be at work here as well, is their experience level. Many will have been at the plant for a couple decades, with steady cost of living increases, yet their job skills did not improve beyond the first year or two. They were doing the same job, in this case sewing blue jeans, and there is a limit on how good you can get, and most workers hit that wall quickly. I used the statement they have 1 year of experience repeated 20 times. So they aren't anymore valuable to their employer in year 8 as they were in year 2, they only cost more. This is a reflection on factory work, not a reflection on the people and their work ethics. I don't think you would know the difference in a Mustang built by 25-year veterans or 2-year veterans, yet Ford would know in the bottom line. The answer from a manufacturing side, is investing in machines that do not get more expensive with age, outsourcing to cheaper labor markets, and creating value with the next "hot car".

QUOTE(yakyusox @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 01:02 AM) Hey, the people who told me are right. This IS a great board. Pitcher and picture. Ha. I get it. Are you a cub fan? I wanna talk s*** to a cub fan soooooo bad. Cub trolls are wacked fast around here. I believe SOuthsider wacked one in under 55 seconds for a new world record. You may wish to try mlb or espn's message boards. And basically we try and avoid "talking s***" here.

So the next question becomes, is it in our countries best interest to have a healthy population? History shows societies that fell because of the plague and other maladies. We need some level of public health to save ourselves. We are packed into cities and towns where infectious desease could spread rapidly. It would seem to be in our self interest to want people healthy.

Just asking a couple questions. The GOP wouldn't change a thing. As long as any negative stories are explained by a media bias, they remain perfect in the eyes of their supporters. Brilliant. And with fringe talk shows like Rush catering to a narrow listener base and repeating it until those people believe it, they have the perfect PR campaign.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 24, 2006 -> 05:13 AM) 15 million divided by 5 broadcasts = 3 million. Now, who's more mainstream? Geez, Mr. Twister, you compare an average newscast, that's singular, vs. a weeks worth of Limbaugh's broadcasts and try make a point like that. How many people in a week are reached by the network newscasts? 3 networks times 7 days a week times 10 million people ... of course, we are only talking about the nightly network news. We won't include viewers to the morning hours long news shows, such as the Today Show, or the magazine format news shows such as '60 minutes, or the Sunday discussion shows such as Meet the Press, etc. Should we talk newspapers and magazines now? Why is there such a media bias? Why hasn't the GOP been able to change this? And isn't it better for Republicans when their supporters will not believe any bad news because of media bias?

Is anyone thinking that a healthy workforce helps us to compete in a global economy? Is our society better off, or worse off, with uninsured workers?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 23, 2006 -> 09:45 PM) Again, I'll pose the question, is health care supposed to be government funded and/or ran? Government? No Employer? No No one is suppose to fund it. And that may be the root of the problem.

OK you win. Sorry to disagree.

Dear Friend, In hundreds of communities across the country, people won't be sitting back when George Bush delivers his State of the Union address on January 31st. That's because in each of those communities someone decided to host a Watch Party -- a simple event to bring people together to get the facts and take action. There's still time to invite people over to watch together, react together, and -- most importantly -- decide together what you will do to work for change on the ground in your community this year. There will also be a Watch Party Conference Call immediately following the official Democratic response. You'll be able to join Governor Dean and other Democratic leaders for immediate reaction and opportunities for rapid response. You can set up your own Watch Party and start sending invitations using this simple tool on our web site: http://www.democrats.org/events/create From Anchorage to Wichita to Brooklyn people have already created Watch Parties. Everyone attending will receive background information before the speech, and the opportunity to hear directly from our party's leaders immediately after. You can search by zip code for an event in your area: http://www.democrats.org/events/find Where will you be next Tuesday night? Tom Tom McMahon Executive Director Democratic National Committee