Texsox

We won an eighth grade soccer game a couple years ago where the opposing team felt the officials were cheating to help my team. After the game, after they finished yelling obscenities at the officials, they walked off the field and onto their bus. I kept my guys on the pitch and we watched them leave while I explained that they lost because they were undisciplined. Every call against them was blamed on the refs. The kids could play the sloppiest, dirtiest, soccer and the coaches and parents would blame the officials. So the kids played dirty, sloppy, out of control soccer and we kicked their ass, by a goal, scored in the final minutes, on a penalty kick.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Oct 11, 2013 -> 01:12 AM) this is one thing on which we agree. Term limits will fix many of these issues If you won't have to answer to the voters next election time, who will you answer to?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 03:34 PM) How's that any different than the current system? At least if there were term limits the buddy-buddy, old gentleman's club crap would stop. What will stay constant? An incumbent has an opportunity to build up visibility and voters and donors will know him. If we have to elect someone new, who will you get to know? The candidates that the donors want you to know. So every term or two a select group of large donors will get together and pick who gets to run, the party and the donors will have all the power. Plus we already have term limits. Elections are held all the time. Vote the guy out and put in someone new. I'm philosophically opposed to taking away the voter's right to elect the candidate they want. If the voters believe that Jane Sixtermer is the best candidate for them why should they not be allowed to select her? The incentives cut both ways. Doing the best for your district trying to get reelected or grab all you can you only get one or two terms. Having a lot of lame duck officials concerns me.

term limits will concentrate the power with the people who donate the money and the candidates they put in place.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 03:12 PM) What is the incentive to settle? The incentive to lead. They aren't just looking for a paycheck, if that were the prime motivation what was the motive to argue in the first place? Just vote yes and you don't have to work hard at all.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 12:34 PM) The shutdown or the PPACA? The PPACA. Democrats have basically just assumed that the bill is fine and the GOP is trying to save their own skin. There are plenty of intelligent people on that side who believe otherwise. I believe we should do, what we would want the GOP to do when times and advantages reverse (as they always do). The partisanship has taken us to a point where both sides are unwilling to even look at the others. Maybe, just maybe, there is more validity in the GOP position than we are willing to see.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 10, 2013 -> 09:45 AM) How on earth did a broken website cost 635 MILLION f***ING DOLLARS to create, let alone the original bid of 94 MILLION f***ING DOLLARS. Jesus, and you people want the government to be in charge of healthcare???????? We all but eliminated polio from our society. We won WW1 and WW2. We landed a man on the moon!!!!!!!!

The ACA was passed three years ago over Republican objections. Obama was re-elected over Romney's objections and making "Obamacare" issue #1 "A referendum on Obamacare" he said. The SCOTUS ruled it Constitutional over Republican objections Now (some) Republicans are refusing to pass a CR to fund the government unless it includes delaying the ACA. How can you not give credit to the Republican party for their determination and resolve? Their willingness to fight till the end! Funny how much in common those members seem to have with the Occupy XX movement. As Democrats I believe it is important to look past partisan politics and wonder if this really is the boondoggle that will destroy America. The folks across the aisle are not stupid. It is easy to dismiss this as a ploy because if it is successful, it could destroy the party. Are they simply looking after themselves, or looking after the country?

You know who would appreciate it more than anyone? This guy http://www.leeelia.com/ I think Ozzie could do better!

I remember the Laker fans in the 1980s couldn't be bothered to show up until the playoffs, and even then, maybe the second round. So I'm happy to see fans excited early. Plus the Cardinals are the team that Cub fans love to hate.

I've been reading some mid 1800s stuff and really enjoying it. Jude the Obscure, Therese Raquain, Madam Bovary . . . Really geeky just finished Tony Trigillo Historic Diary a long poem about the JFK assassination and starting on Zaprudred.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 01:12 PM) No. To which part of the question? My post is poorly written.

I believe there is some irony that advances in helmets that were suppose to protect the brain may actually contribute to more brain injuries than leather and no face masks.

http://www.npr.org/2013/10/08/230519762/sc...ey-and-politics I have really mixed feelings on this. While I believe reducing the money in politics is a good thing, I find it hard to justify limiting the total number of candidates a person may donate to. The problem becomes when you have to have the support of the wealthiest 500 donors or your campaign ends before it gets started. That seems like it will limit speech, not increase it. I was listening to an NPR report with Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon who brought the suit and I had to agree with his assertion that challengers, not incumbents have the roughest time raising funds. I am skeptical about his claim that this could help expand ideas in the arena with more candidates funded. I think it is equally plausible that the incumbents will just receive even more money, locking out new ideas and candidates.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 05:50 PM) Well, one person who got backed into a corner. And who doesn't have the courage to fight. As I've said, people back here know me well enough to know I almost never blame one party for some political issue. But this is 100% Republican. No other way to look at it. And worse of all, the Dems will do it when they have a cause they believe in.

I'd start suspending players and coaches before eliminating the practice.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 01:15 PM) Yeah I'm not entirely sure why a tasting room wouldn't just fall under the local liquor license. Because they sometimes "taste" products that are not for sale or packaged for regular sales. Plus there are federal inspectors already coming into the manufacturing side. (As I understand it from manufacturing). There has been a push by manufacturers to reduce the number of different agencies they have to deal with. So if the Feds are already going to be there, have them inspect as much as possible and keep the local inspectors out.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 01:30 PM) Most of the breweries i've been to have been. It's normally a tour and a beer or a flight of beer for free. And then you can stick around and drink like you're at a bar. We use to pre-game at the Miller Brewery before hanging with some friends at UWM. It was all you can drink, then they would give you two tokens, but there were always people giving up their tokens.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 01:03 PM) There are times where you are sympathetic to the idea of Hammurabi's Code. Yeah.

One factor in some of those awards is has it happened before and what has been done to correct it. Courts see a series of $50,000 settlements and nothing being done to change the situation will jack up the award to fulfill the idea that the award should be punitive to change the behavior.

That is brutal.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 12:51 PM) Giving away what they sell? Tasting rooms aren't free. Depends on the facility. When I was in California a few years back at least half were free.

Should we even continue the restriction on natural born American? If voters are willing to elect someone born outside the US shouldn't they be allowed to do that? We allow it in all other elected offices.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 9, 2013 -> 11:49 AM) Why the hell should a tasting room need a permit from the federal gov't? How about republicans pass CR in exchange for making less stupid alcohol regulations on books (like wine across state lines). Because states do not want the expense and shifted it to the feds. Other sellers of alcohol, (bars) don't like competitors giving away what they sell. Anytime you are serving food and beverage in this country it is inspected in some way. The closer to the production, the more likely it will be the feds. This way a company does not have to deal with mutiple inspectors looking at basically the same thing.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 7, 2013 -> 01:22 PM) He is American, regardless of where he was born. So try again. There are two different standards here. American and eligible to be President of the US.