Texsox

QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 10:01 AM) I knew it couldn't last very long.

QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 09:26 AM) Tex, is this bizarro day? You agree with me here, you agree with me on the WalMart issue. OK, what'd you do with the real Tex? And BTW, it is you that is agreeing with me

I always wish I was invited to give a toast at Charls and Diana's wedding. Who could resist the line "Drink up Chuck and Di!"

QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 09:26 AM) Tex, is this bizarro day? You agree with me here, you agree with me on the WalMart issue. OK, what'd you do with the real Tex? I'm a moderate. I side with conservatives on a lot of issues.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 09:37 AM) The publisher can be sued. The Publisher would lose if they knew Canseco's allegations were false. That cannot be sued for publishing the allegations. Example: Every newspaper in America published Clinton's quote "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and it was later proved false. They were not sued for printing a lie. Newspapers printed allegations that Cardinal Bernadin had sexual relations with a young man. Later the man admitted to making up the story. Again, the publisher cannot be sued.

He claims that Dubya knew about the steroids when he was with the Rangers. We'll see if Bush sues . . . The problem is how much are you going to spend on the law suit versus what you could collect from a broke Jose Canseco. Let's say someone does sue and wins, does that convince the American public? I don't think so, just ask OJ, who is still looking for Nicole's killers. It will come down to who is more believable to the jury, Canseco who repeats what he claims, or the player who says, I never tested positive. People will still believe who they want to believe regardless of any lawsuits.

QUOTE(winodj @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 08:50 AM) If more people shopped with their conscience before their pocketbook, Wal*Mart probably wouldn't do as well as it does. This is a situation just like a McDonald's. People who work there, possibly for lack of a better opportunity, seek to get their working conditions and salary bettered. By organizing, their barganing power increases. By turning their back on unions, large corporations show that they don't care about the asset that is the cause of their profits to begin with. People. The problens with unions is they want to treat all employees the same, the shining stars and the lazy, just getting bys. Just because a corporation doesn't want a union doesn't mean they automatically treat their employees bad.

Common sense changes all the time. Common sense told us that the sun, moon, and stars revolved around the flat earth. Common sense would tell us that a box cutter couldn't cause an airplane to crash into the World Trade Center.

They need Democracy! Let's send in the Troops.

What's the rules on a citizen's arrest? Can we use the fur lines handcuffs and restraints?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 07:55 AM) It would be interesting to see what their margins look like. I don't think it really matters. Their strategy is the absolute lowest cost of goods and services. What that translates to as a retail prices is market driven. As long as they are acting legally, paying min wage, offering proper benefits, etc. they shouldn't be legally required to do more because they are more profitible than company X down the street. Paying lower wages, in theory, means they will have lesser skilled employees. When someone builds a model where their superior employees outsell WalMarts lesser employees then the market works. Currently that hasn't happened. I side with the Republicans on this one. I'm not a big fan of labor unions. I know here in McAllen we have a K-Mart and a Wal-Mart side by side. If you go to K-Mart you can park closer to the door, get through the isles quicker, and there is rarely a line at the chechouts. Why? Because most of the world is across the street at Wal-Mart. Nothing is forcing the employees to work at Wal-Mart. Customers I'm certain probably know about the labor issues and maybe they stopped shopping at that store forcing the closing?? Who knows.

QUOTE(mreye @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 07:10 AM) We're forgetting something. It was LEGAL to carry boxcutters onto the plane! I believe airlines can set whatever stricter standards they want. There are many areas that different airlines have diffferent cargo, checked bags, and carry on restrictions. The challenge the intelligence community has is sorting through threats without means and opportunity from threats with means and opportunity. It is really easy in hindsight to come up with the correct action, far harder when the stuff is mounding over your desk.

WalMart survives and thrives by low prices. They negotiate hard with their suppliers as well.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 9, 2005 -> 06:33 PM) Good question, what would make a much older person want to hang out with teenagers in a group like that??? It may have started as an innocent relationship on an internet message board.

If it was called profit sharing it was probably not taken from your check. For $30, I don't think it's worth getting an attorney. Be careful filing your taxes, unmatched 1099 do cause the IRS to get excited, regardless of the amount.

Head wounds bleed and bleed. I couldn't imagine how much blood must have been spilled.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 9, 2005 -> 01:46 PM) He did say deducting.. Some people just assume it was deductions. There are other explanations. It is strange they were doing it without his permission.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 9, 2005 -> 11:25 AM) I have similar expectations. Well crap then, he's screwed

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 9, 2005 -> 12:17 PM) They were deducting 401K funds WITHOUT your permission..?? Umm.. you better make a fuss about it. It's against the law and you should report them. Also check to see if they were deducting -or- this was a benefit and just company monies. Rare, but possible. A person that worked for me had that situation with her previous company. IIRC there are IRS guidelines about top heavy plans, common in places like Doctors offices where the Doc tosses in $$$$ and the employees do not participate. So the Doc needed more participation and contributed regardless of the employee's particpation. (More if they particpated)

QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 9, 2005 -> 10:30 AM) I don't even think it's a case of Garland being a head case. I think it's just a matter of maturity. I believe he'll get to a "Pavano-like" status eventually. If he finishes the season as our #5, I will be surprised and believe it is far more likely we won the division and 1-4 had great seasons. My best guess now is he finished the season as our #3 or #4 with 16-17 wins against 10 loses. He's just now hitting his prime years.

I wonder if he will argue he should be locked up in a juvenile facility since most of his plastic body parts are less than 18 years old . . .

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 9, 2005 -> 08:45 AM) Good list. I hear the working title for the musical is "All Hat and No Horse." Learn to speak Texas, that's All hat and no cattle . . .

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 8, 2005 -> 08:37 PM) I thought it was for 4 years.. he wanted 5 and that's where the 70 million with it deferred for 2 years came into play..? The 70 was defered but much longer than 2 years which was the sticky point. That was also before Maggs brought in Boras. He brought in Boras after the injury, and in hindsight was a smart move. Boras had done a similar contract with I-Rod.

All of the experts whose job it is to follow baseball are wrong. Fans who are totally unbiased, like those here, are correct. We're not drinking whatever koolaid the teams are serving, not like all the experts. Pods will rebound to 2003 levels! Dye will stop striking out! Iguchi will do even better than he did in Japan! No question marks on this team. Suddenly we're the genius of the Central Division. Print the playoff tickets now. I'm as happy with the changes as the next person, but I can understand why people are not picking this team. It was blown apart and rebuilt. We can hope the pitching holds up. We can hope guys rebound and return to past glory.