Texsox

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 24, 2005 -> 10:02 AM) Ignoring the tons of assumptions and generalizations in there... The reason that I would rather see things done on a local level, is because of the HUGE ineffeciences of government. When you cut out buearucracy, you cut costs. If you cut out costs more money gets to go to the things you are trying to fix. At a local level you are also much better able to identify specific and particular problems that are as easily seen from Washington DC. Besides I am still a big believer in the idea that the framers of the constituion had individualism in mind when the founded this country. How did we survive for 150 years without SSI and welfare? How did we ever make it without medicare and medicade? The federal government was meant to protect us from our enemies. The local governments were meant to provide services that the private sector fails at. Currently every American able to pay taxes and support these social services, does. With it being privatized, how many Americans will be paying for this stuff? Who will be collecting the money? You don't think there will be huge scams taking in dollars and spending pennies? Who will set the standards? Waste? How about someone who just travels from Church to Church and social group to social group? Without any central record keeping, you don't know if you are getting scammed or not. If you want to eat you must pray to Mecca, you must practice Witchcraft, dumb dumb system. We were an agricultural society. People could grow their own food. Now many neighborhoods have zoning restrictions on livestock? Buy yourself some baby chickens and set them up in the backyard and see what your neighbors say. Plow up part of your front yard and grow some vegetables. I don't care if it's the Federal or local governments. Taxes are Taxes. What I don't want to see is taking this burden from everybody and placing it on a few.

Sosa determined to play the victim

QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 24, 2005 -> 09:54 AM) Over a balcony.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 24, 2005 -> 09:31 AM) "I don't think it is good social policy to ask people to head down to the local Mosque for their daily bread." I don't think its good social policy for the people to get their daily bread from the government... Name another organization that represents ALL AMERICANS? ALL AMERICANS that are able, contribute through our tax system to social services. Why not have a group of ALL AMERICANS instead of just your Church? The government is you and I and WDJ and Steff and Kip Wells Fan. That's how we take care of our own. Why would you want to form thousands of individual groups offering those services when we already have an organization that EVERY AMERICAN that is able to, contributes to? THE GOVERNMENT IS ALL OF US!! It isn't US and THEM. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. And what is really funny, is how few people here actually attend Church. Sounds to me like some of you will dump that responsibility on the people in Church. How will athiests contribute? Will there be meetings somewhere for them to contribute? Will we have Athiest based soup kitchens handing out meals? Will they spring up and rent buildings, buy food? It is a shame that Republicans think that if all Americans get together to do something it is somehow worse than if just a few do.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 24, 2005 -> 09:20 AM) How about the billions of dollars we spent on rebuilding Japan and Germany after WW II? You're presupposing that those things aren't happening domestically, and Social Security will be bankrupted because of the number of baby boomers vs. the lack of # of workers paying in to the system. we don't have the resources to do everything at one time. the threat of terrorism centers on the middle east. I'll admit the $ has a lot to do with things. so your answer would be to stop all funding to foreign countries and focus inwardly? I don't see where Japan and Germany come into this discussion unless you are operating on some "well we did it for them so we must do it for everyone" principle. Social Security is going broke because we don't have enough money in the system. Yet we have virtually unlimited money to rebuild Iraq. You don't see a problem?? Imagine if we received an itemized bill for Iraq on our W-2s? Shouldn't Iraq rebuilding become bankrupt before Social Security? How about sorry Iraqi's but in 2006 we have to stop building your roads, were running out of money? Sorry Haliburton, this is your last contract. Yet we are telling our young people, we cannot support *you*. Yes, many terrorists are of Middle Eastern decent. But how many are privately funded and how many are sitting in Toronto, Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris, London, Buenas Aries? I hope you aren't proposing that we somehow killed thousands of terrorists that were coming to our shores by attacking Iraq. The threat of terrorism is all around us. We need resources here, not trying to find groups spread out all over the globe. Terrorists are small, nimble, loosely organized, groups. You didn't answer my question. Before Iraq, were we bound to join France, Germany, and Russia in whatever military action they desired, regardless of our interests?

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 24, 2005 -> 07:47 AM) so....you're still an ass for making fun of poland? k...thought so. "Bush famously uttered "Mission Accomplished"" he never said that. I have no doubt in my mind why countries like germany, russia, and france didn't attack iraq----------> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ don't act as if the "coalition of the UNwilling" were so altruistic in their reasons for NOT rescuing millions of people from the death grip of a mad man. Could it be they didn't join in our attack because their intelligence agencies were telling them there were no WMD and our data was faulty? Would it be our responsibility to fight any war that they wanted to engage in? If the tables were reversed and France, Germany, or Russia came to the UN and said, hey let's destroy Country 323BZY, we have evidence they are a threat and need to be stopped. Do we say Yep, let's go get them, if we didn't believe they were a threat? How many billions of dollars and thousands of lives do we spend "rescuing millions of people from the death grip of a mad man"? More bodies are piling up in the Sudan. Do we bankrupt our Social Security system to pay for rebuilding Iraq? Do we not rebuild our schools and instead build schools in Iraq? Do we stop research on Cancer, Aids, Parkinson's, to build police stations in Iraq and train their officers? How far do we harm America to help Iraq? If rescuing people was such a big deal than why the hell aren't we in Sudan? Why aren't we taking out China and saving billions of people?

QUOTE(CubKilla @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 10:41 PM) Good idea in theory. Completely assinine in reality. Imagine setting up a "safety curtain" on the Dan Ryan Expressway to avoid gapers at a fatal traffic crash at 2 in the AM where the minimum speed limit appears to be 85 MPH in a 50 MPH zone. The workers and everyone are still there cleaning up, cutting people out, towing away, etc. so I don't see where adding the curtain would make it worse. Again, those drivers zipping by at 85 mph would be paying attention to me driving 65 and possible not adding a second accident to the night. I also know when my brother died in a car accident it pissed me off to see pictures of people standing there watching the rescue workers cutting him out of his pickup.

The defense has already challenged the jury make-up claiming the prosecution dismissed 2 black potential jurists for racial reasons. IMHO the defense is looking for one person to hang the jury.

Give me a bad singer singing their own material who has something to say; over a smooth singer with great voice, singing what someone else has to say. Economics and technology in the current system works against the small artists. I am waiting for technology to allow a greater voice to artists who walk a different path. A slightly different twist on the lyrics mentions

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 24, 2005 -> 07:41 AM) That is a huge generalization that is absolutely wrong. The GOP doesn't believe in making people starve. They also don't believe that people should depend on the government. The difference being that they believe that the private structure should help to take care of people. Charities are meant to be run by private people, not the federal government. The GOP believes the churches should be feeding people, not government cheese. There obviously needs to be a safety net for people who are unable to take care of themselves, but there are many people who do not fall into that group. The fundamental difference is Democrats believe the Government is WE; Republicans seem to believe the government is THEY, and citizens are somehow not responsible through our government. We manage our affairs as a society. We combine resources via a system of taxes to pay for services like fire, police, military protection, and we pay for services and items for our common good. We elect people to manage those shared resources. In the end what is accomplished is WE. We have freedom of religion is this country and by extension, freedom from religion. I don't think it is good social policy to ask people to head down to the local Mosque for their daily bread. Quarters spent on our social programs are dollars saved in our criminal justice system.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 11:18 PM) I'd like to restate your thesis, which is that THIS is what Jesus' message was far more than other issues. However, we cannot just look past those other things. I think there's a need to do a major "spring cleaning" of the american church. I totally agree with you about the abercrombie, Benz, etc stuff. I need sleep however. After you get a good nights sleep, think about this statement: There is no "American Church". Nor should there be. Is there room on this planet for a society where every lawful belief system is allowed? And along a parallel line, is there room on this planet for a mono-belief country?

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 11:16 PM) Ewwww, I hope that isn't why kids come to my office hours. Although, honestly, I've only ever had one girl show up. I always just thought the boys were more motivated.... Hell with so many teachers looking for love in all the wrong places, a guy cannot close any avenue . . .

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 11:09 PM) Wow, now we're talking. I'd much rather talk about this to be honest. 1 John 3:16 "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 17If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? 18Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. " PA, how do you reconcile this with the GOP view that we should only feed someone for two years than let the lazy bum starve?

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 11:05 PM) Lol, I actually don't mind my non-traditional students (although, lecturing/grading/tutoring them is intimidating to say the least). They tend not to think that they're owed good grades, which a lot of the younger crowd seems to believe. LOL. I know I approach classes much differently than I did before. I look for any help I can find, not to get better grades, but to get the work done quicker. I also am quicker to debate a professor and know my beliefs have been tested over time. Oooh tutor me, make me do it again

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 11:03 PM) Not to totally hijack this thread, but.... I think it's interesting that the biggest debate in religion seems to be the debate on gay marriage. While, it appears, a myriad of things Jesus was much more fervent about seem to fall to the wayside because they affect more people. One of the things Jesus went on about most in the Gospels was the evils of possessions--how they end up owning you, you can't serve 2 masters, harder for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter heaven, sending away the young man because he wouldn't give it all up, the widow's offering and the poor man's offering, Zacchieus, Judas selling Christ for silver (and those are the few examples I can think of off the top of my head--I know there's more). Yet we live in a country that is the wealthiest in the world--and prides itself on its overwhelmingly Christian majority. I think there's a disconnect there. Why, oh, why isn't this one of the MOST talked about issues facing Christianity? I am honestly, honestly baffled by this. Good post and greater hijack Sadly I believe this is partly blamed on the religion for profit movement. Once the Communist scare was gone, they needed a rallying point and gays seem to be the new enemy. Like posty 9/11 America, nothing brings an organization together quicker and stronger than a common enemy.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 10:49 PM) yeah, I'm sure the families of the 16 Polish Soldiers killed in Iraq think that's hilarious, you "bleeding heart it's all about the love" f***ers..... You don't think they are waving little American flags and thanking George Bush?

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 10:31 PM) Shoot, I'm a grad student! It doesn't take much, I'll like the one with Andrew Jackson clipped to it! As a returning student and more a peer of my professors than the GA, I really don't like some snot nosed kid grading my stuff. I know I will not have the same smooze factor I get with the Professor, especially when our kids are in the same school . . .

WH: "And never touch a black man's stereo. "

I'm scared, very scared. I KNOW these guys cannot have a gig in Texas. Well at least not in the real Texas, maybe where Kap lives

So you like the first one with the $100 attached correct?

QUOTE(winodj @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 06:39 PM) Jesus never uttered a word about gay people. Some very intelligent Bible scholars would disagree with that statement. Some very intelligent Bible scholars would agree with that statement. I've read articles by both and believe somewhere in the middle, there is truth. WDJ, I hate to direct this at you, but you are here and answering. You mentioned you tried to live a straight lifestyle. Why? What factors caused you to battle this? Could it be as simple as society makes life easier for a heterosexual breeder with 2.3 children? Or could it be some inner compass at work? The Bible is a great self help book, perhaps guiding people to a straight lifestyle does make people happier. I've seen stats regarding suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, and other self destructive lifestyles and it would seem that gays are as a group less happy than straights. If God loves us and wants us to be happy, wouldn't he encourage a straight lifestyle? I've never really explored that avenue of thought before, what does everyone think? Somewhere earlier it was mentioned about the Bible having gray areas and it not be 100% clear. While that may be true, I also believe that God has made it easy enough for each of us to find our path. Can that path include a long term monogamous relationship with a member of the same sex? My heart tells me yes. The same heart that fuels everything else I am and hope to be. It's faith.

QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 06:54 PM) Steff isn't a woman? :banghead I rewrote that a few times. Oops. I edited the original, thank you.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 10:01 PM) That's one of the most annoying things in the world. You're stuck in traffic for what seems like hours and you finally come to the cause and its some fender bender in the opposite lanes. But who hasn't gotten to that spot and thought damn, I waited this long so I'm going to slow down and take a look too? me neither.