Texsox

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 15, 2011 -> 02:37 PM) Overton Window & appeal to moderation in full effect. I'd like to know what wacko Dems are even at the "waaaay to the left" position on economics. Arch Socialist Obama is basically no further left than Eisenhower or, hell, even Nixon. I'm thinking a dozen or so of those that didn't vote for the compromise bill. Nothing specific, just figuring we won't see all the Dems voting with the non TeaGOP (TeaRep?) I like the sound of old TeaRep

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 15, 2011 -> 03:18 PM) And Im not sure how this is arguing that because everyone is doing it. Its arguing that, if the govt is allowed to perjure to convict people, than defendants should be allowed to perjure to try and beat the govt, its called fairness. Or if you are going to convict defendants for perjury, convict every officer who perjures. That was my question. It's either everyone can lie without penalty, or prosecute everyone for lying. Of the two, I'll take prosecuting everyone.

BTW after watching way too many news reports on the budget I have come to believe that the Dems have to cut more and the GOP has to tax more. The last agreement took Dems crossing over to pass because of the no votes from the Tea Party. If the Tea Party stays waaaay to the right, and a few wacko Dems stay waaaay to the left, a moderate faction of like minded middle of the roaders may get a lot done.

So people are cool with people lying under oath because other government people do or should we start prosecuting them as well? I just can't see how our system would work if people are allowed to lie without penalty. It makes trials seem like a game of balderdash or fact or crap. And I thought the 5th amendment says in a criminal trial, I thought, and I could be wrong, that Bonds did not face a criminal charge, therefore how would the 5th apply? As a society we seem really good at defending wrong. Everyone was doing it. It wasn't as bad as X. Etc.

QUOTE (scenario @ Apr 14, 2011 -> 12:58 PM) Someone needs to tell our bullpen that "all in" does not apply to inherited baserunners.

I think it is a little too soon to be looking for a trade. I don't see any excess areas they can offer. So it would be digging one hole to fill another.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 14, 2011 -> 09:44 AM) I bought my laptop at an office store too. Their regular prices suck, but their sales are great if you can find what you want. The main reason I went into OfficeMax is they were next door to Best Buy. It wasn't on display, no one could really answer any question I had, but I saw a lower model and a little sign that said upgrade to and the specs for what I was looking for. They didn't have it in stock but the other store in town did, so a quick drive and I was happy. The touch pad is a little strange, and the key board will take a little getting use to, but most of the time I will have a remote keyboard and mouse, so no big deal really.

QUOTE (Wanne @ Apr 14, 2011 -> 01:25 AM) Glad our government has nothing else better to do or spend taxpayer money on...good Lord. What happens to our legal system when we stop prosecuting people who lie under oath? A high profile case is the best bang for the buck to show that lying under oath is not something you should try. Convicting some random dude doesn't garner the attention that Bonds gets. So from spending taxpayer money, it seems like a bargain.

Thank you. I bought a HP dv6 3250 i5 processor, 4G ram, 750Gb HDD, I am planning on using this configuration for a while and then probably upgrading the ram and OS. Home Premium is on it now. $649 @ OfficeMax. I was a little surprised after going in and out of six stores they had the best deal.

It really depends on how the evaluation is being used. As a fan interest thing, winning series is a fun idea. As a tool to judge how the team is doing overall, or what changes may be necessary, than it is kind of a poor yardstick. But, as I was typing this I began to think, what does a team have to do in October? Practicing that may not be as crazy after all.

We have spent money on these worthwhile programs to the tune of $50,000 for every person in America. What do countries do that can't afford them? If the goal is to reduce taxes and allow private citizens to decide to support programs like Planned Parenthood and private business to study how to widen a port, than I am really cool with that.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 13, 2011 -> 09:06 AM) Holy s*** this is fantastic.

So the state economy depends on the port, yet all those private businesses can't cough up $50,000? Which btw is the amount per person of our national debt.

Buried in the compromise somewhere was something that will probably help my pocketbook, removing the "Texas Amendment" to the education funds. Basically in 2009 Texas took a couple billion earmarked for schools and basically used it to balance the state budget. They did not increase school spending by the amount of the funds the feds spent. They reduced state contributions by the amount of the federal monies. Congress retaliated, led by the Dems, and put in a provision that Texas could not receive the funds unless they agreed to add it to, not replace it with, state funding through 2013. Besides the fact that Perry didn't like the feds adding strings, Texas does not allow committing to spending for more than two years. It's right there in the Texas Constitution. So Texas was going to be without those funds. Now the GOP comes riding in and gets that clause removed, a billion or so will be coming to Texas, a couple three million or more will flow into my district. So thank you GOP. I feel like a hypocrite, I think it is wrong that the federal money wasn't in addition to, which was the entire goal of the stimulus money. But this helps the GOP in a couple ways. They can help a leading GOP Governor and presidential candidiate (crosses fingers), they can continue to dismiss the stimulus spending as not helping, and make me happy.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 03:42 PM) The DoD and HUD changed their policy after the ACLU filed a suit in Illinois. I don't think it ever went to the SCOTUS. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2004/November/04_civ_751.htm It's a relatively recent policy change after the program was more or less hijacked by the Mormons in the 80's and 90's. While other scouting organizations do typically have a "duty to god" or more generalized "spirituality" clause, they're not nearly as hard-line as the BSA. There's no reason going camping and hiking and kayaking needs to have some sort of faith-based background, but there are other programs available that don't needlessly discriminate. A loss for the BSA, in my opinion. I'll note that this applies to national-level BSA stuff, and local troopmasters have generally been found not to care if a parent wants to sign up an atheist or agnostic or gay son, they just want to share the other aspects of scouting. I'm glad to hear that. I was a scout once, and I support what they do-outdoors, adventure, team work, etc. But I'd never sign a child of mine up for their programs until they clean house. I understand that you're heavily involved with scouting and I think it's great to have enthusiastic leaders like you. The BSA is not an outdoor club, that isn't how Baden Powell envisioned it, and it isn't why churches sponsor units. Take any activity that a church's ministry undertakes and you could say it doesn't need to be spiritual. If all the organization was concerned about was teaching outdoor skills they would do away with charter organizations like the Girl Scouts have done. There are a lot of ways to instill values that will last a lifetime, sports would be an easy example. The Scouting program is just another avenue.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 03:07 PM) everett? I doubt it. Bible didn't mention nothin bout steroids. nicely played

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 03:35 PM) Those services are NOT available in other locations to the poor. medicaid? Clinics?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 03:01 PM) No, that's the simple question...which is better, saving money and lives or costing money and lives? Because funding PP is the former, and ending funding for it is the latter. Are you for building free health clubs for all Americans? Because which is better, saving money and lives or costing money and lives? We could keep going on and on. PP is a very narrowly focused health care and education provider. Those services are available in other locations. Again, I happen to appreciate their work, but I'm not ready to believe the dire predictions you've posted.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 01:11 PM) Government policy changes were brought about after the ACLU filed suit against the BSA on first amendment grounds. Perhaps if the BSA dropped its discriminatory policies it wouldn't be an issue, but then my gay-atheist brother being an Eagle Scout wouldn't be so ironic. None of that has anything to do with Balta's question regarding PP, though. Religion, assembly, petition, press, and speech are the first Amendment rights. The Dale v. BSA case was not about any of those. The Dale case was if a private organization can set membership standards for their groups. There were farther reaching ramifications beyond the Boy Scouts. Could, for example, the Daughters of the American Revolution continue to bar men from becomming members. Could the Knight of Columbus continue to only allow Catholic men? The courts decided that yes, a private group could have their own membership rules. Interestingly about the same time a man sued a woman's only fitness center for not hiring him, that was allowed. After the SCOTUS ruling, many organizations who did not agree with BSA's position rightfully pulled their support, including the US government. I happen to be a fan of both PP and the BSA but see where the government can make those decisions. Even if I do not agree. BTW The Boy Scouts of America has programs which do not discriminate on any basis. Learning for Life for example is one that is sold to school districts. Venturing is open to men and women 14-20 years of age. Soccer and Scouting is open to boys and girls in elementary schools. There are more. But for the flagship program, which is almost 100% sponsored by Churches, a belief in a higher power, is required. It does not have to be a Christian God, even a native American belief in "spirits" works. So an atheist wishing to join a religious organization always seemed a little weird to me. And I truly wish the ban on openly gay volunteers was lifted. There are very few members of the World Organization of Scouting Movements who have that ban. It's personally embarrassing to me.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 12, 2011 -> 01:04 PM) the first amendment? I'm not certain this is a free speech case. I believe this is more there isn't a law, just like their insn't a law allowing someone to be wearing an ugly tie in public. Basically the government has done this in many ways. It is legal for a private club to set their own membership standards, but the government can pull certain tax benefits and not host events at your club, etc.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 12:48 PM) You missed the underlying point. Under what law does the government have the right to tell a private organization that it can't raise private funds to perform a fully legal medical procedure? Same law that eliminated public money and accomodations to the Boy Scouts. A private organization can raise private funds for legal purposes, in some cases then they just can't also have public funds.

Remember, this was a law written by the private prison industry.

Clearly the only gambles worth taking are the ones that work out, the rest are stupid managerial decisions. You can't trust your closer to close games, so keep in your starters. The manager destroys arms by having the guys work too many innings. Players want managers that will pull them right before disaster. Players want managers who will trust them to do their jobs. There are a long list of managers who are loved and respected by their fanbase. OK, I can only think of one, and that is probably wrong, Tony in St. Louis.

I thought this would be an appropriate thread for this . . . Anyone missing Bobby yet?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2011 -> 12:40 PM) I think if you banned them from raising private funds for that medical procedure then they'd have to shut down completely. That basically confirms the GOP pov that PP has abortions as their primary focus and not woman's health education and prevention. That the public money allows them to provide abortions by allowing them to channel their private money away from education and prevention over to abortions. I know that isn't the message that PP sends out, but you are probably correct.