Texsox

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Sep 26, 2005 -> 10:04 PM) I belive it is a mix of both. While she probably started out over the grief of losing her son,, she has deformed into a self-serving, all-devouring media whore living off the attention she is getting by being outrageous. Her son was the hero here, not her. Do you think everyone has the skills to manage the media and the individuals that surround situations like this? Did y'all think the Swifties were also media whores? They collected millions to tell their story?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Sep 26, 2005 -> 07:31 PM) I'll bite. Revenues brought into the treasury are some 265 billion more annually than they were prior to the tax cuts. But why let a little detail like that get in the way of rich people bashing? :rolly Who is paying those taxes? We are borrrowing billions from foreign countries and paying all that interest. And I'm not bashing rich people, I'm bashing our government spending way more than we send them. Eventually we have to pay off the deficit plus interest.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 26, 2005 -> 08:58 PM) In all honesty...there's a good chance that she could make a ton on the lecture circuit right now if she wanted to. She toiled in obscurity for a year, protesting. She stood by herself near the Crawford Ranch, trying to draw attention, and finally got the audience she had hoped for. I doubt she thought, hey my son is dead, how can I make some money off of this? Whether I agree with her or not, I believe her motive is love for her son not money.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 26, 2005 -> 08:03 PM) Short answer, she didn't have a permit. It's a misdemeanor. Personally, if you have an issue, and obtain the proper permits to protest, protest away. She made it a point to get arrested to garner the attention, and I guaran-damn-tee you that she was paid to do it. So Kap, you think she's in this for the money and it's not about losing her son? :headshake Save this thread and when your kid is old enough to serve his country, pull it out and see if your opinion changes.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Sep 26, 2005 -> 08:41 PM) You're thinking of Jane Fonda...... Do you have the Vets Aren't Fonda Jane bumper sticker?

Could it be that all combinations concerning the White Sox haven't been determined because no one in their frickin' mind thought we would be this close??

A friend of mine in Schulenberg reported about the same.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 26, 2005 -> 02:51 PM) The smile says it all. She got some cash to do this. I really dislike this woman after this. Prostesting is one thing. Hamming it up for the cameras is another, purposefully to garner attention. Cindy 'Jane Hanoi' Sheehan. That security guy on the left must have a special "touch". No wonder she's smiling.

When hurricane experts talked about the Cone of Uncertainty, I laughed and pictured the Cone of Silence.

There was a day when affirative action and other laws would create a situation where a less qualified candidate would get a position. I have to believe that there are qualified minority candidates available. (Aren't Dems a minority right now?) Just asking QP, which would be more important, a woman who votes like a man, or a man who votes like a woman? Woudn't a verdict record that would fall in line with "women's interests" be better? This kind of harkens back to the Thomas confirmation. Voting record was more important than color to some people.

I guess that's what happens when you don't suspend people for talking about attendance, being negative (realistic), or having a bad hair day. I love this bar, it's my kind of place . . .

QUOTE(S720 @ Sep 26, 2005 -> 12:42 PM) If we win 4 straight games against the Tigers but lose 3 consecutive games to the Indians while the Indians win all of its 6 remaining games, the White Sox and the Indians will have the same record. If this situation unfortunately occurs, do we win the division by a tiebreaker rule, or do we have to play a one-game playoff series with the Indians to determine the winner of ALC? I read on one site that head to head is the tie breaker when both teams would get in. A game is played only if it means one team would go home.

Once again I ask, why is it harder to get a driver's license than to have children? :headshake for the girls

That sounds like a normal, late night, ride on the El.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 26, 2005 -> 12:24 PM) Don't forget...that's 40 of the 100 currently serving senators...I bet if you went in and looked at the numbers of Senators that had retired recently but were still employed...they'd all be making in the high 6 to 7 figures per year. They also do not have to disclose their residence, which for most people is a big chunk of their net worth.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 26, 2005 -> 12:14 PM) On the other hand Tex...weigh the amount you might lose by not having control of your personal portfolio to the amounts you might stand to gain through that govenrment service... Lobbying contracts after you retire, business contacts that help you find incredibly high paying positions, the lecture circuit, etc. Good point. There is probably a cross over point with the gazillionaires on one side and the "poor" millionaires at the other. I wonder what the net worth is of the "poorest" Senator. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jul2003/sen-j07.shtml bad source I'm certain but interesting reading of the numbers. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances/probably a better source. 40 of 100 are millionaires. Honestly, I would have predicted 80 to 90 and wouldn't have been shocked at 95.

I just had a thought I would like to share. How many of us would be comfortable of placing our entire investment portfolio in a blind trust in exchange for public service? I can see the temptation to lift the veil of a blind trust. I'm not excusing the behavior, but it did give me pause. I'm willing to bet a number of posters here have peaked at least once of twice this morning at their holdings. Too bad for Frist if this knocks him down.

This is a great way to end a regular season. A small lead in the final week. I am so excited for every game.

Another factor, and not specific to inside, out, is moving your pitches, working the corners, keeping a hitter off balance. Something guys learn as their careers go on. It keeps guys like Maddux and Moyer pitching well past the age that others have retired. And it was an excellent question, not stupid.

Thank you. I missed that. So we can't blame Frist for not knowing the rules. It's not his fault, the trustee did it? Well there goes one challenger to Hammer in '08. I wonder what they can dig up on McCain

Remember the inmates are writing the rules. If this was a classic blind trust, SS is correct. But IIRC, blind trust rules are generally written by the institution who is concerned about the conflict of interest, and will be unique to that institution, whether it be the US Senate, the SEC, or Financial Reporters.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2005 -> 11:01 AM) The information they turned over to him about his trust. What information? He asked for the shares to be sold, and they were. Was there something else?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2005 -> 10:22 AM) I haven't really worked on the investor side of stocks, but everything I have read saids that a blind trust is supposed to involved a complete lack of knowledge by the owner of the assets. I think he could give a big broad generalization to liquidate all of his assets, but that would be about it. He wouldn't be able to say buy or sell specific sectors/stocks, or anything like that. The fact that he had knowledge and access to his holdings are huge violations by the trust company, and at least ethical violations by Frist for even asking for information. And that is what Frist did. Where is the huge violation by the trust company?? I'm missing it. I didn't see any problems in the way the trust was handled. The only issue is this; did Frist receive insider information? I don't think he needed it based on public documents of the HCA insiders selling.