Texsox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 08:14 AM) "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." Exactly! And what greater threat to liberty is health? You accept a government run police department to keep you safe from criminals, but a government run department to keep you safe from illness is a threat to your freedoms and liberty?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 08:08 AM) Its news to me - perhaps you could substantiate it for us. http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kenne...r-robinson.html This is about as credible of a source as can be found.And here is a little background on who wrote the piece Peter M. Robinson is a rese

SS mentioned it as an aside in the health care thread, I do not think we really discussed it. Does the natural born American clause help or hurt us? Obviously we have had some Presidents who were not born in the US. Looking over this list of Presidents who were not born in the US, seems like some damn fine Presidents George Washington John Adams Thomas Jefferson James Madison James Monroe John Quincy Adams Andrew Jackson William Henry Harrison I recall when Henry Kissinger was the poster child of someone who many would have liked to see run for President.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 07:54 AM) To you it is a positive. To others preventing someone who isn't legally allowed to hold the office of the President is a positive thing. Its all in the eye of the beholder. To me the continued erosions of our freedoms aren't too positive. How is assuring all American adequate health care an erosion of your freedom? You do not have a choice in what police department patrols your street. You do not have a choice in what government agency inspects the food you eat or establishes standards for the car you drive. Most Americans do not have a choice in the water that is piped to their homes or the sanitation service to remove the waste. There are certain infrastructures that we have as Americans that are shared. True, it is in the eye of the beholder.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 31, 2009 -> 07:40 AM) Typical strategy from the healthers. It is much easier to label and name call. Mega-dittos (after the edit). Nice label btw

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 10:34 PM) The point is right now illegals are not eligible for insurance because they can't legally obtain work. That's honestly the way it should be. So they go to the ER, get treated with world class care (compared to the rest of the world - no it's no perfect, no one says it is) and we the taxpayer pony up or it gets written off. The issue becomes, under this plan, just like you say, they can go purchase insurance like it's bread in a store. "Purchase"... whatever the hell that is. Anyway, that's wrong. If you're not a citizen, you should not be able to pick up insurance like it's bread in a store. What the hell comparision is that? So I'll say it another way, which is the semantics game you're playing. Insurance is guaranteed to be available to them. That's FACT. And it's wrong. Jose Illegal (stereotyped) just got the same "rights" I just got as a citizen, and that's just wrong. I pretty much agree with you about offering to illegals (another reason for a guest worker program). The danger is having those same workers spreading a treatable communicable disease. The jobs that many of the illegals work, are in our food chain. Kind of scary that the only people in the country without access to health care will be the people touching your food.

Other than this nagging headache, those were dam fine margaritas last night

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 04:39 PM) How about Kennedy wanting to secretly meet the Soviets to tell them how to counter our president in the 1980s? Great move. Yep, and with all the Reagan deals before and after it is kind of scary what all goes on.

Tomorrow this thread takes off.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 01:08 PM) You're not going to get 100 dem senators. If they can't get stuff done when they completely control the government it's their own fault. Just put another Kennedy in the final 60 seat. There would still be problems passing a health care program. So many excuses, nothing is ever the Democrats fault. It's getting old fast. Maybe they should address unemployment then fix health care. Governing with restraint. When the political tides turn, I hope the GOP acts in the same measured, prudent, manner.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 11:23 AM) He is SO bi-partisan. He's reached out to SO many Republicans since he's been president. Oh wait, he's got his hand out, it's shake my hand, do it my way, or f*** you. Bi-partisan my ass. Perhaps John McCain and other Senate Republicans have been lying?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 29, 2009 -> 07:45 PM) Senator Kennedy politicizes his own funeral. (letter addressed to the Pope, written by the late Senator, read at his funearl) How can you separate him, or anyone, from their work? Like him or hate him, his life was the Senate, being the Senator from Massachusetts and the causes he fought for. If my funeral was a platform I could urge people to serve youth, I would.

Short version, friend's computer, a HP desktop about 6 or 7 years old. Started having problems on start up. I do not have a meter handy but it seemed to be the power supply The power supply shut down while I was troubleshooting. POS HP case used a 150 Watt PS, can't find a replacement locally that will fit in the space allotted. Picked up a new case, started moving components. Installed mobo, HD. Started up and zero activity. PS on new case does not start. Outlet and cords are good. Started hooking up SW from mobo to front panel, old case does not use reset. Couple questions. Shouldn't the power supply fire up even without any load from the mobo, etc? Or are the switches on the case front necessary? Unlike the old case and PS, their is a switch on the power supply itself. Thoughts? I'm starting to think I have a case with a DOA power supply, but that seems really unlikely.

Well, f***. Just no other way to phrase it.

Quality stuff here.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 30, 2009 -> 12:01 AM) I can't find the link, but I know I read somewhere that back in the Nixon era, kennedy OPPOSED a version of national healthcare that was proposed back then. I have to find that later. He later said he regretted not working more with his political foe in making that happen. It probably shaped his later talents in crossing the aisle and getting things done. Sometimes it takes a few terms before leaders understand how to make bi-partisanship work.

He was so clutch down the line in 2005. I hope he gives it every shot he has left before retiring and can walk away knowing he gave it his best. At his prime, I'd place him with Robin as the best 3rd baseman in my time as a fan.

Does it really matter?

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 04:44 PM) How many times do people of a faith disrespect those who share the faith. Religion no matter what is going to inspire some, aggravate others. I do admit, it was a weak point that I brought up. I didn't think it was a weak point. Actually it is a strong point in that it validates religious observation during sporting events.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 02:43 PM) TEx, do you hear the words 'tort reform' and automatically think that it means nobody is ever gonna be able to file a wrongfull death suit or malpractice suit ever again? Or do you hear that if they ARE able to file that the award would be capped at some super low figure like $10,000? I am not advocating any specific plan for reform, but you can't argue that there doesn't need to be some kind of reform. C-section births are on the rise because doctors fear a natural birth complications. Tests are ordered that aren't needed, or may be needed for that 1 in 50 million chance of some super rare disease, for everyone, just to CYA. That costs time and money which can be better spent on other things. Tort reform needs to happen, in some form, along with numerous other changes. Some of which I posted a few posts back. It is not the end-all, but it has to be part of the final package, whatever it is. QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 03:19 PM) Oh, really? In all actuality, they're going to cut tests "to save money" which DOESN'T allow doctors to CYA, which would therefore INCREASE tort issues, which then in reality pays back the trial lawyers that got this idiot elected in the first place, in spades. I see how this works. Let's cut costs, increase tort liability issues, which then produces an environment that is 100 times worse then what we have today because everything is going to be sued the s*** out of it AND rationed at the same time. What a GREAT plan. Which, by the way, by its own side admits still won't cover a lot of the very people that need the coverage the most. I've been following Alpha and his reasoning for the past day or so. Both of you are hard core critics of these proposals. Alpha (the GOP mainstay) wants fewer "unnecessary tests". Earlier, SS expressed the fact that when it is free, demand rises which is just fiscally wrong. Which I agree with and would like to see some co-pay to at least slow some people down. So it seems that your opinion of how this will work, would address their concerns. I would also like to see fewer tests, but at the same time, not by predicting in advance, for every patient, what they will need. This really highlights how difficult an issue it is. There is even disagreement within the party faithful of how it should be formed.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 04:30 PM) Before a game its Christian players doing a Christian prayer. I assure you if before the game a bunch of Christian players put on yarmulkes, wore Hacidic outfits and said The Shema prayer people would be offended. And to further that point, is there really a way for non practitioners of a faith to respectfully portray that faith?

Russ, I certainly do not disagree with you about strong, positive feeling towards the Chief. As I mentioned, having my daughter at UoI really brings it home, especially as I look at the cap I am wearing. And the Blackhawk's jersey is perhaps the all-time coolest in sports. We may have swung the pendulum too far. I think the difference would be having an actual member of the tribe do the dance, just as actually practitioners of the faith, are saying the prayer. And I'll toss this out there, some are praying for something other than religious reasons.

Really? No one is using their real name except me?

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Aug 28, 2009 -> 03:48 PM) Great point, and I completely understand that. I know people may find it offensive as "entertainment" but looking at religion at sporting games you see it all over, mainly in terms of prayers. I realize that and since we are gettnig into a level of tradition with the dances I am not familiar with, I can only add this. There are some religious traditions in the Christian faith that are performed almost anywhere, like praying. There are other traditions that are kept to certain services and masses. I would also assume there could be some form of Native American actions that could also be done. But, and again I am just taking a guess here, they would not involve the traditional face paint and other actions we associate with cheering a sports team. But, again we come down to is it possible to fulfill an educational mission in Native American studies at half time of a NCAA final four game? I just do not think so. And it really is amazing how fast I became a Big 10 fan again.

Nice touch