Texsox

Worse when they dismiss your thoughts because you are part of a Special Interest Group. Man that is the cornerstone of democracy. Everyone who voted for Bush was part of a special interest group. A textbook example of how the minority can win over the majority If your views are so far out there you are alone, worry then. If others are also thinking the same way, be happy. That's a SIG. But when only wealthy politicians can win, all we will have are wealthy politicians.

At the same time, if anyone lays a hand on my kids, I will be pissed. If there is a problem you call me and I will take care of it. I don't want some teacher or librarian laying a finger on my kids.

Oh s***, if you look in the White House windows, I think you can see Jane Fonda and President Elect Kerry making out.

But TV makes or breaks big campaigns. I hadn't really thought about 2k4's point. It is interesting. I think this is an area that the founding fathers would not have anticipated. When the constitution was written, all campaigning would be primarily face to face or, at worse, very regional. Now a thousand volunteers cannot reach as many voters as one TV spot. Another interesting factor I had never considered before seeing it on West Wing goes something like this. I admire the way I4E runs his corporation. We share similar values and ideas, believe in the same causes. He decides to donate to my campaign. His company runs into trouble from whatever and it is within my control as a Congressman, President, whatever to help him out. If I make a decision that helps him, is it automatically because he donated money, or is it because we share a common set of values and of course I would agree with him? I had always sided on the idea they are greedy bastard corrupt politicians, now I am not so certain. Everything a President does effects someone or else some else would be making the decision. If his actions didn;t help those whose values are similar, something wouldn't be right.

The issue that I cannot resolve is this; *if* I had southsider2k4's money and wanted to spend $100,000 telling you why I think George W is the perfect man for our time, shouldn't I be allowed to do that? If I decided that the environment was a huge issue, and had the money to spend, shouldn't I be allowed to take out commercials and educate y'all? That sounds ok to most people. But when you see the ads and they are obviously partisan, because so many issues are partisan 1/2 the population cries "no fair"!

Or the GOP will promise more programs -- and -- give us all big tax breaks Honesty is such a lonely word Everyone is so untrue, Honesty is hardly ever heard Dems = Tax and Spend Gop = Spend and Borrow

Actually I think ARod is the better athlete. But could he beat our Crede?

By voting Dem

Sorry, I'm not a smart man. Momma told me this board is like a box of chocolates, sometimes you bite in and get cream all over your face. Or something like that. Favorite line But Lt. Dan, you aint got no legs

The problem is there isn't a solution that is perfect. Public money only cuts of yours and mine free speech and raises taxes Private money leads to groveling by our Presidents and conflicts of interest and all that. Any combination brings in the worst of both. At least in Presidential races, I would like to see single 6 year terms. As it is now the President is either too new, worries about mid term elections and what his actions will do to his party, or running for re-election.

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?