Texsox

Joey needs to see what the guys can do. I would rather he finds out now, than in the playoffs that Frank is big and slow.

Did you do those cool hedge design like I see in fancy gardens maybe a swan or a snowman?

damn you. I love b**** slapping to the oldies

Thi$ is the part of politic$ I really di$like. Whose the best GOP fundraiser right now? I'll give you a hint, he lives in a very nice public housing project in Washington, DC. Who was the best Dem fundraiser of all time? He came from the same public housing project in Washington!

Gee if he couldn't beat out Jeter for a job, what makes you think he could be out Valentin?

Hmmm S A X -- taken S E X -- Good for ticket sales S U X -- Some years . . . S I X -- taken S Y X -- Too close to a band from Chicago S O X -- perfect Based on White Sox history, my guess is the sign painted wanted too much per letter and they needed to save money for the players

Not for countries but I believe the optimum organization for a committee to quickly get something done, is to have an odd number of participants and 3 is too many.

Mooch, the reason I used those examples is to point out the turn the channel argument does not hold up. At some point, society has to set standards. If we allow anything to go, then anything will go. For some members of society, we reached the limit years ago, for others it is today, for others, we will never reach something that is unacceptable. Whose views should be considered? Should we dismiss Americans without kids from this debate? Should we dismiss anyone with religious views from this debate? The way I see it, from the first radio broadcast or TV broadcast, the media justifiably has pushed the limits of what is acceptable. I am not advocating a return to 1950s Leave it to Beaver style programming. What I am saying is at some point, probably short of porn on free TV, society has to set a standard. With satellite radio and pay per view, I do not feel that using the public airwaves to broadcast anything just because someone wants to is good public policy. The material in question would still be available, just not in a format that any child with a TV set or radio could be exposed to. And I agree with TV as a baby sitter. But we help parents all the time. We do not allow cigarettte sponsorship in our schools. Some cities will not allow liquor or gun stores with 500' of a school. We do not allow pornographic magazines to be sold without being wrapped in plastic and covered. Parents do have to be responsible but do we have to make it even more difficult? Again, either we accept that a standard should be drawn and debate the standard. Not setting a standard would lead to anything goes on TV and I find that to be poor public policy.

They have the right to tell you what society should do. It's the same freedom of speech you are trying to take away from them. Is how the air waves should be regulated pushing a religious view? Are speed limits a religious view? Is not allowing a guy to urinate on a sidewalk a religious view? Is not allowing topless sun bathing on Oak Street Beach a religious view? Do only religious people want to protect their kids from indecent behaviors? Only religious people want some limits as to what can be broadcast?

Changing the channel has never been a justification. Laura Petri was the first woman on tv to wear pants. Look how much we have changed. The difference is these no charge, public airwaves that the government has a responsibility to regulate. These material is beemed into my home. Would you support WGN showing Anal Attraction as the "after school special"? The argument would be, your kids can just change the channel. Would you support X rated movies being show on car video equipment? The argument could be your kids could just turn away. To me it comes down to access. Parents try and keep their children's environements safe. They wouldn't leave a loaded gun, or booze, or whatever in their kids room and say, just do not touch them. When this material is transmitted over free airwaves, parents only weapon is to eliminate tvs and radios from their homes. When the material is only available on pay per view or premium subscription services, parents retain some control. You and I and every American has a right to determine what is broadcasted into our homes. The media has continously pushed the envelope. Compared to 10, 20, 30 years ago there are way more freedoms. I think it is perfectly reasonable at some point for society to say whoa, we've reached the limit.

You do not know how to negotiate

or not careing if you shave . . .

shaving each other . . .

When does s*** in green make the list?

I'm tired of athiestic wacko nutjobs thinking I can't voice an opinion because I go to Church on Sunday. Everyone who goes to Church and thinks that there are limits to what should be seen and heard on the *public airwaves* is a wackjob? The point I am making is that is how America operates. A group of people can, have, and will continue to make changes. That is a democracy and I dislike wackjobs telling me to butt out of American politics. Because I choose to excercise my rights as an American I'm a wackjob? Get off your ass and do something about censorship. That is what America is about. I would rather you write letters, and excercise your right to free speech and to assemble, and lobby, and everything else to excercise your rights than to complain about another group excercising their rights. Don't tell me not to excercise my rights because athiest scumbag wackjobs are too f***ing lazy to excercise their rights. Call your Congressman and demand that you be able to hear a DJ call a father and tell him his daughter has great tits and would be great in the sack. That's damn funny. Call your congressman and tell him you want nudity on tv for your 8 year old to see. Call your congressman and tell him you want porn on tv. Call him and tell him (or her) what you believe in. But do not tell another group of Americans you are tired of them excercising their right to tell the country how they think it should be. Yes some Americans are in the fore front of what they believe in. Be in the fore front of free speech and nudity.

Also, do not drive by the Mosque or be on any street he could possibly drive on. As I4E has pointed out, this isn't a civil unrest. I add, it isn't a war in the traditional sense either. You can't wrestle with pigs without getting dirty, to pretend otherwise is foolish. But how dirty you get can be controlled. From what I have seen, and with an admitted bias towards Israel. The Palastinians have taken the low road. Yesterday's capture of a 14 year old suicide bomber is yet another example. But, I do not think it is correct for Israel to use the Palistinian actions as justification for their own actions. To be one degree of magnitude better than a terrorist isn't all that great. Imagine thinking you can do anything you want as long as you are a little bit better than the next guy. Gee was PolPot better than Hitler? Was Idi Amin better than Pol Pot? It's all bad. And please, I do not want anyone to think I made a comparison of Israel's actions to Pol Pot. I use that as an example of using a low standard to justify behavior. That guy stole millions, I only stole hundreds of thousands? Israel needs to take the highest moral road possible and not give those that hate them anymore ammunition. I guess we can debate what the highest moral road is. At the minimum, follow International Law.

OK. Would you agree that they are knowingly killing civilians? If a Palestinian targets a soldier with a suicide bomb, and they know he is sitting on a crowded bus of school kids, have they "targeted" those kids?

I know this was meant for a laugh and you know better The computers were so slow in the 1950's they couldn't do much more than that. Not withstanding the environmental jab, a kid today with 1950's math skills would be locked out of many job markets. With calculators and computers, just figuring 4/5 of 100 isn't going to feed the bulldog. Kids are working quadratic equations in middle school. That was an *optional* HS course in the 1950s. At the HS level we have made so many statewide mandates (at least in Texas) as to curriculm, kids have almost no electives. That is a bigger concern of mine. The problems given kids on standardize tests have increased tremendously over the years. Here is a nice review of how one standardize test has changed from 1950 onward. Note the section that many problems from older tests are too easy today. Link One final thought. If a HS grad with 1950 skills entered your office, what job would he have? What did we take out to teach kids computers? And theres more history to learn

Guess what. As a country we failed. Notice the difference between WTC1 and WTC2. Do you think if we hit the streets and flew flags and held meetings, a prayer groups, early on that collectively *our* government would have ignored it? One of the complaints my GOP friends made against Clinton was every morning he put his finger to the wind and read the polls to see what he should believe in today. If that was true, would he have ignored the American people if after the first attack on the WTC we had gathered, prayed, sang songs, and demanded action? If we bought up every Made in China US flag after the first attack by terrorists on a US Ship do you Clinton would have ignored us? Part of Clinton's problem was the whole Monica affair made him very inneffective. I blame him for that. If he did jump up and down and said let's get Bin Laden the talk shows would have been alive with tail wagging the dog references and claims he was trying to divert our attention from his problems. And who would have believed terrorists were planning to fly planes into the WTC? Again, this is Clinton's fault for getting a hummer in the Oval Office. As far as Bush only having 9 months, we do not have a patronage system in the FBI, CIA, etc. How much experience does it take to read a memo that says terrorists are planning to fly a plane into a building? If it takes him two or three years to figure out how to react, he's denser than I thought. It's a 4 year term. He was 20% through his term when 9/11 happened. The various agencies give you a report and ask you to react. As Americans we have to be more vigilent.

It is the best way to run a large country. It is very costly. We have so many different government entities because of it. I sometimes wonder if I need city, country, state, and national governments. Then toss in School Districts, Water Districts, district this and district that, a couple regional thigns, and my head spins how much tax dollars are being spent.

dammit, I was laughing and crying at the same time

A. I do not feel we should let Bin Laden determine our course of history. Isn't he already rejoicing that we care what he thinks and will vote based on him? Doesn't that give him a victory already? B. The Pres is one of thousands that play a part of our anti-terror program. If we are worried about what switching Presidents will do should we start a Bush 2008 campaign? If this was his second term would we be arguing we can't change Presidents now?

Instead of the religious groups, I dislike suburban people telling me what to do and what I can listen to. They meet in their PTAs, and in there parks, and plot this stuff. What right do they have? I think if you are a religious person, you should forfeit your right to have any say in US policies. You shouldn't even be allowed to vote. What right do they have? And old people with their AARP cards. No votes, no letters to editors, no voice in America.What right do they have? And the NRA, gun nuts. Take away their voting cards.What right do they have? And SUV drivers. They should have no votes since they are just wasting resources.What right do they have? And Independents, this is a two party system, they should not have any votes.What right do they have? And Republicans with their Neanderthal clinging to the past, no votes.What right do they have? And Democrates with their wild ideas. Why do they get votes?What right do they have? If you are part of any group, you are not allowed to vote or voice your concern. As long as we can lump you together with someone else, you're outta here. What right do they have? Democracy, who the hell needs it? What right does a group of Americans have to lobby congress and make their feelings known? How dare they. Do they think that is the American way? Cali, you are correct. The religious right should have no rights. They are un American. At least one person here understands democracy, freedom of speech, and how our constitution works. Only atheist who belong to no groups should be allowed to run this country.