Texsox

I'm not as worried about the catcher situation. As long as every starter likes who they are throwing to, I think it will work. Offense is a nice bonus, but probably not a necessity on this team. You can never have too many arms. It's not like last year when something really had to be done. I like this team, just wish we were a little healthier.

Kind of like if you can remember the 60's you didn't live in the 60's

No, it's all part of the same problem. We are stating on one hand that salespeople have a moral responsibility to judge the economic condition of the person in front of them, and only take as much money as the person wants to give, especially if the person appears homeless. Hello and welcome to McDonalds, before you order, may I see your net worth statement? You appear homeless and should be buying fresh food at Jewel, not overpriced fats and sugars at McDonalds. God help the McDonald's clerk that asks if he wants fries with that. That would be asking for more money than he wants to spend. On the other hand we are saying that the same homeless person that must be protected from solicitors asking for $2, should be allowed to fend for themselves. That seems wrong to me. If we have people in our society that cannot make a $2 decision, they should be given some help and not left to fend for themselves. They are incapable of surviving.

I thought it was changed after the Tiger's 2003 campaign You are correct, it is 60.

I like Tony G. but would rather have Uribe/Harris I believe this team can win the A.L. as is. It will be a tough 6 gamer through NY, but could win the A.L.

But not being capable of $2 decisions will keep them on the streets and I think society should be helping these people in whatever way necessary. I believe you meant threat to others

Isn't the old phrase every team is going to win 40 and lose 40, it's what they do for the other 80 that determines where they finish?

Am I the only one that thinks someone who is incapable of making a $2 decision should not be out on the streets? How will be able to get a job, pay rent, go to Wrigley?

Yes, Prawn likes to play escaped prisoner and warden's wife

My cat dumps bigger than that

I'm surprised that 100% do not reboot. It's the very first solution. And it should be a cold reboot, not just a restart.

Is it wrong to ask anyone to spend more, or just the homeless? Every car salesman, realtor, retail clerk, etc. routinly asks for more than someone is wanting to spend. Should we only protect the homeless from this? Tell them not to visit retail stores? Are you proposing that you are better able to determine what every homeless person can spend their money on? Oh, the poor homeless man cannot make a decision. If he cannot make this decision he should be off the streets. He cannot take care of himself and must be protected. Why isn't anyone fighting that fight? How is this guy going to support himself if he cannot make a $2 decision?

anyone want to figure out what the universal identifiers of "sport" is? My first description is competition and keeping score. There has to be a winner.

psst, Balco called, asked how you're feeling

It was figured on a Pentium 486

Kap, this proves once and for all that everything is bigger in Texas

Maybe to this guy, it was way more valuable to again feel he was a member of society? Perhaps the campaign worker showed the same enthusiasm for this man's $3 donation as the $50 donation from the man in the $3000 suit. I don't know, I don't know why this man appeared to be homeless and crazy. I just know in my heart refusing a donation can harm someone as much as accepting it. Imagine if you went up to the Salvation Army bell ringer, they looked at your jacket, and said keep your money, buy a coat. How does that make the guy feel? I'm sorry I can only accept donations from guys in suits carrying briefcases? You're homeless, I cannot take your money. I would rather have read that the DNC worker helped the man to a shelter or program where he could have gotten help.

That's why tech support tells you to totally shut down. That gives them time to research, ask a buddy, post to a user group, all the while seeming intelligent. I know, I was one.

Heather, how is this person feeding themself, finding a job, etc? Should society let these people wander around if they are incapable of making a $3 decision?

I should have been clearer, I was addressing the poor/homeless, not the mentally ill. The mentally ill will start me on government policies that have released these people into the population when they are not capable of making simple monetary decisions. How can these people survive when they cannot make a decision to give $3 to a political cause? Shouldn't we be more concerned about their ability to get a job, apartment, and feed themselves?

This is the point that we disagree on how to proceed. Some parents are clueless, embarrased, or just trust in the schools. Based on what you seem to be saying, since the parents cannot do the correct thing the 1. State should decide what should be taught, not the parents. 2. Every student must be taught, not just those from clueless homes. Kids are bombarded with sex is ok messages all day and night. Reality shows have made marriage, sex, and dating some game. When some people want to take back sex and marriage they are branded as repressed and out of step. I like the Boy Scout approach to the subject. Whenever a new youth joins (we have coed programs) they are given a youth protection pamphlet and the parents are asked to review the information with their child and sign the last page. The pamphlet reviews information on keeping safe from abuse, sexual behaviors, etc. It is left up to the parents how to approach the subjects. It is one of the principle tools we use to keep kids safe.

Hmmm, if you are homeless you should not donate to the candidate you best feel could help your situation? If, for example, the current Mayor, Senator, whatever cut the program you were working on, wouldn't you want to get involved and help in anyway? Perhaps tossing in a buck or three helped their self esteem. What would the alternative be? "Oh I'm sorry you cannot donate because you are homeless and we have to tell you how to spend your money."? It's a can't win proposition. I have often heard that the poor are the most generous to charities by percentage of income. Plus Nuke will tell you he was just going to buy a fifth of cheap wine

This is a prime example of a morals issue, not a sex ed issue. Presumably she figured out how she got pregnant the first time and chose to ignore it. She caught stds as in multiple. She was still clueless how she was infected? Didn't the Doctor tell her when she was first infected? Of course abstinance education wouldn't have made a difference here. The schools cannot teach everything. OK kids let's put down the textbooks and learn how to use condoms. I know kids that couldn't fix a dripping faucet, check the oil in a car, remove grass stains from blue jeans, read an interstate roadmap, yet we do not feel compelled to make that knowledge manditory for every student. Why should parents have conflicting moral and ethical values taught to their children? We are allowing the government to raise our children, with values that the government wants. That is wong.

But if kids are going to have sex isn't it safer in their bedrooms than parking in a remote area? If we are going to keep kids safe from STDs while they have sex, shouldn't we be concerned about assault, robbery, etc. from parking in unsafe areas? Where do you want them to have this safe sex? Or should we send a mixed message, we'll teach you all about it, but sneak around and find a dark alley somewhere? Further, it's all b.s. to me since I firmly believe that moral and ethical education should not be the responsibility of the schools, instead it should be the parents. I just noticed I'm debating this from a guy who lists his interests as I guess this is part of the porn. :headshake

Well it seems others believe it should have. You should have learned how to have your guy put on a condom as a Freshman. How it can be safe.