Texsox

Cutting voters taxes and going into debt is a great way to get elected. Why not cut taxes and spending? Because our leaders want to buy us stuff with our money. One thing I always respected about the GOP was fiscal responsibility. Now they are the leaders in deficit spending and the DEMs are right there at the trough as well. FREE LUNCH! FREE LUNCH! Elect us and others down the road will pay your taxes and interets. FREE LUNCH! Eventually we have to pay all this back, with interest. Our leaders avoid that issue and try and convince us that someone else is going to pay it back. I don't mind cutting taxes, but you have to cut spending also. Come back to us after trimming the budget and give us the surplus. Don't borrow money from China, and give it to me, and try to convince me it's a free lunch.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Sep 27, 2005 -> 07:00 AM) But Tex, that means that she would have to take personal responsibility! Don't you know that it is always George Bush's fault? On another note, the story is also illustrates a good reason for immigrants here to LEARN ENGLISH! Actually it's always Clinton's fault. Bin Laden, the economy, global warming

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 27, 2005 -> 08:40 AM) ANYTIME I see something like that, Snopes is the first place I go to. They are the be all, end all for urban legends. And actually if you click the community link at the top of the page, they have a nice message board, with really really smart people. I love that site, it's always the first place I go. I just never thought to check there for the Kennedy/Lincoln list. BTW, I read John Jakes On Secret Service a few weeks back. A friend of mine likes historical novels and I decided to read one. Jakes works on keeping his novels historically accurate, which makes it a great way to brush up on history. I'm reading Savannah, A Gift for President Lincoln. Also a great read.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 27, 2005 -> 08:27 AM) Just because there aren't facts to be checked, doesn't mean that her message gets off scott-free, without investigating whose paying her to talk. If you are getting funding from someone you are a lot more likely to be saying what you are told to say. Plus she HAS stated a LOT of opinions about Bush and the war, a lot more has been said than just bringing the boys home. She had made a ton of accusations and statements about the President and his administration. Actually her aim is the exact same as the swifties in one respect, they want to make sure that someone DOESN'T get elected. They were trying to take down John Kerry, Sheehan and company are trying to take down George Bush, and by that, whoever is going to run for election to succeed Bush. Good points. You must be getting better coverage. I have not seen or heard her make any accusations like the Swifties, it's been all opinions. Have you seen any evidence that her opinions have changed since she is receiving a broader audience brought on by being surrounded by media? I haven't, but that would be very interesting. I also haven't seen or heard her talking about issues unrelated to the war. But I imagine it's only time until she is asked. How is her position different that Rush, Hannity, Frankin, etc. They are true media whores, paid to state their opinions? Why don't we make the same arguments about them as we do private individuals like the Swifties and Sheehan? The EIB network pays Rush to make statements, should we assume that someone whose income is directly tied to their opinions would be more or less likely to bow to the corporate feeder? And by stating "paying her to talk". Are you implying she is a spokes model handed a script and reads it no matter what. How exactly are the "paying her"? Right now it seems that the media is following her around and pointing microphones in her face. I heaven't seen any paid advertisements like the swifties. Kap mentioned she was paid to be arrested. I wonder if he means someone said if you get arrested I'll give you $10,000??

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 27, 2005 -> 08:15 AM) Snopes is all over that... http://www.snopes.com/history/american/linckenn.htm Thanks for posting that. I've seen that list for years and always wondered about some of the underlying "facts".

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 27, 2005 -> 08:07 AM) And that was instantly used by the media to discredit the message that the Swifties were giving. They published the names of every rich rebublician who was funding them in the NYT. How come the same papers aren't mentioning that her primary funding is now coming from George Soros and Moveon.org? Isn't her funding just as relevant too? Yes it is. But here is the fundamental difference. With the swifties there were facts that could be checked, they basically discredited the entire Purple Heart process, and all that jazz. With this woman, it's her opinion about ending the war. Since there is no underlying facts to challenge, the pro war groups are attacking her personally as a media whore and just in it for the money. She just doesn't seem that savvy. I can't believe she is using Moore et. al. They are masters of self promotion, she's a rank amateur. It is my belief that she just wants to preserve the memory of her son, has a sincere desire to see the war end quickly so more moms aren't watching their children be lowered into the ground. Just like the swifties, there are well heeled individuals that see a story that the public can rally around and they are using that story to advance their beliefs. Another big difference in my mind. The Swifties were out to elect a President, what is she out to do? Help end a war sooner? Which should receive greater scrutiny?

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Sep 26, 2005 -> 11:29 PM) Come on now Tex, who needs someone special when you can dance around and sing loudly and off key in your underwear? While most everyone here is now thinking happy thoughts of *you* dancing in your underwear, no one, and I mean no one(1), wants to think of *me* dancing in my underwear (1) Well maybe Rex Kickass, aka winodj

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Sep 26, 2005 -> 11:01 PM) C'mon, Tom Jones is smooooooth man. Whenever I hear Joe Cocker I think of Belushi imitating him on SNL--not a feel good image. . . I'm just listening to Jones' version wishing someone special to me was here.

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Sep 26, 2005 -> 06:48 PM) For my money, there's no better feel good song than, "You can leave your hat on" by Tom Jones. . . Better than Joe Cocker's version??

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Sep 26, 2005 -> 10:50 PM) Well, regardless of who took over who, she is sucking that teat for all it's worth. When the Moore-ons are done with her, she will end up a pathetic shell of a woman that no one will listen to, wondering where her 15-minutes went to. As for the Swifties, I didn't recall seeing very much about them that was positive, unless you watched Fox or listened to Rush. I agree 100% I have a hard time imagining her manipulating Moore and the rest of that set. Down here in Texas I didn't hear anything negative about the swifties. They were on every talk show, newspaper articles, and they played the commercials a few times. They had a story and the millionaire boys club lined up with tens of millions to tell their tale. I don't recall them being called media whore.

FWIW, I think President Bush is very honest. I like his character. Chaney, I'm not as certain about.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Sep 26, 2005 -> 10:11 PM) C'mon, Tex. She has practacly taken over Michael Moore's website. She doesn't have to know how to use the system, she has more than enough enablers to help her. That's what I'm saying. Not everyone could manage this situation. All of a sudden she is surrounded by famous people who seemingly care about her, her son, and her message. Imagine the machine in place to use someone like this? Look how many people lined up to have the Swifties on their shows? They were everywhere. Yet some seem to think she is manipulating the situation for her profit, not the other way around. I don't think you can take the average person, put them into this giant pr machine, and have them handle the situation, I think she is being handled. I don't think she took over the Moore website, I think they took her over.

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.