Texsox

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 10:58 PM) 1979 through 1983 my dad usually took us to 1 game during each homestand, so that's probably 60 games or so. Before and after that we'd mae a handful of games each year, so I think the total is around 75 games. How many times do you curse out loud during the average 2009 Chicago White Sox ballgame? Less than one on average How many times have you quit a vice only to restart?

optimistic, aren't you.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 02:58 PM) That's what this whole thing is about. Wow. About stopping law suits by deciding in advance, for every patient, which tests should be run? Wow. I guess I've been reading a different thread

More?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 02:50 PM) Yet this is exactly what will happen with governmental health care. Then we need to be certain that does not make the final bill.

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. Sure, but at the heart of the reform usually is limiting access and awards to victims. And the reasoning is jury's awards too high of and it is too costly. Additionally innocent Doctors (actually their insurance companies) settle rather than fight. I'd rather see reforms that force innocent parties to defend themselves than decide in advance who has a legit case and how much is fair. Name a reform that would not limit someone's access to the courts or limit their award and I'm probably for it.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 01:40 PM) they would rather piss off everyone else in the country, except trial lawyers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaMj-WUC-aE...player_embedded I am certain it would also piss off the victims of medical malpractice while making the borderline Doctors very happy!

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 08:40 AM) tex, if a doctor is drunk or on drugs f***s up something, he SHOULD have to pay thru the nose. AND not be able to practice again. but when a baby is born and has a birth defect of some sort, the first course of action nowadays is to sue the doctors and hospitals, because it HAD to be somethign they did. Most setttle out of court to avoid the hassles, so it perpetuates the cycle. Those are the cases reform needs to happen for. Reform needs to happen so doctors can stop having to do defensive medicine and ordering every test under the sun just to cover thier asses. People complain about how many tests and labs get run, but if they don't run them, and then discover somethign later, they get sued. So who decides if the law suit is proper or not? How do you decide in advance that 99% of the Doctors would have run that test, or it truly is a waste? Our system is through the courts. When we automatically cut off access to the system who are we hurting and who are we defending? It seems like we take away the rights of the injured and give more rights to the guilty because the innocent will not defend themselves in court. The end result of most of the tort reforms I've seen are less access for the innocent victims and more protection for guilty (and innocent) Doctors. Build a better system and I'll support it. But I do not like the idea of a parent with a child who was born with a birth defect not having full access to the only system we have.

I believe it is called waving a white flag.

X-rated

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 08:34 AM) On the patriot part or that he should have retiered part? I can see them all vainly hanging onto their position, for the power, perks, money, prestige, ego, etc. None seem to want to give it up. As for the patriot part, like I said, being a Senator doesnt make you a patriot. if you think Teddy served all those years 'for the good of his country', you are sadly mistaken. Of course who would ever devote their lives to public service, that's crazy.

Vaginas are cool, two are really cool.

Eight times. Never missed one. How many times have you helped with a campaign?

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 10:08 AM) He f***ed up a lot when he was younger, but a very good senator. QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 05:48 PM) He is (was) a reason that we SHOULD have term limits. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 10:11 PM) Yep. He also loved drinking, driving, and leaving the scene of a murder. But like Michael Jackson, lets forget about the horrible things, and concentrate on his music.... QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 11:45 PM) A patriot? Teddy? You sure you have the right kennedy? Just because he was a Senator doesnt make him a partiot, no matter how many of his views you share. I am sorry for his family over their loss, that is the extent of my respect. The Senate is a better place without him. He should have retired long ago when his health issues sidelined him instead of depriving his constituants of representation, but his ego, and sense of entitlement led him to hang on and miss countless votes and not do his job. QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 07:48 AM) I didn't really see any of us damn republicans doing much criticizing in here. Not that there isn't room for it, but people have pretty much kept it to themselves. Keep trying to get angry though. I thought I'd gather a few posts in case you missed them in reading the thread. And I'm not saying they are unfair criticisms or not worthwhile remembering. Everyone who spends so much time in the public eye, and in this arena, will have detractors and admirers. Perhaps it is important to remember all of that, and learning some lessons.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 27, 2009 -> 07:46 AM) You're proving our point. The offense struggles mightily every April and August. When will adjustments be made to address this? Perhaps when there is an offense out there that never struggles? Every team goes through a rough patch or two during the season. Better teams, fewer and less severe, worse teams, more often, longer, and more severe. It's the nature of a long season.

When shaking up a team, the position I look at last is a veteran catcher who the staff likes. I'd keep trotting AJ out their until his wheels fall off. But I like old catchers and young closers. Walks on the beach and lying in a tent on a cool morning feeling the world wake up.

And as Lostfan points out, can we just bookmark this thread and bump it a few times a year?

Firing a coach is usually a desperation move. A desperation move that rarely works. I generally dislike mid season firing. At this point, I've resigned myself to Walker always being here. I'd like to see what he does with a different team, you know, just to compare

QUOTE (SouthsideDon48 @ Aug 25, 2009 -> 10:11 PM) Once, because she wanted me to see the stuff she did. How many times have you had your car break down on the interstate? Once, flat tire How many times gave you voted in a Presidential race? Bonus for Chicago voters; how many times in the same race?

And for all Soxtalkers, isn't the moment when you find a story like this almost like hitting the lottery

At first I was thinking, her boyfriend could get a little on the side, but damn, their both in the usual place.

Oh my, it is a circus in Pale Hose.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 06:02 PM) And the DEM leadership won't pass any kind of healthcare legislation that caps jury awards thanks to their trial lawyer donors. GOP leadership has proposed changes, but since they all contain tort reform in some fashion, they get dismissed outright by the left. So many people want tort reform until some Doctor, drunk or on drugs, f***s up their operation, then they want everything. I'm not certain what the answer is, but we have established a system of civil awards (re: fines) that based on the severity of the f*** up, can get very expensive. But when someone loses their leg or worse, do to neglect by a Doctor, I'm not certain how much is fair or adequate. Perhaps there are people smart enough to decide in advance how much is fair, but I doubt it. We could have a chart. 35 years old, father of two, needs legs to work, active athlete, loses his leg $250,000. 63 years old, inactive, retired, likes to read, loses his leg, $25,000.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 05:48 PM) He is (was) a reason that we SHOULD have term limits. Because the public should not have their choice in who represents them? You want term limits? Do not vote for your incumbent. And you must have been a big Obama supporter because he had so little time in Washington compared to McCain

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 26, 2009 -> 11:45 PM) A patriot? Teddy? You sure you have the right kennedy? Just because he was a Senator doesnt make him a partiot, no matter how many of his views you share. I am sorry for his family over their loss, that is the extent of my respect. The Senate is a better place without him. He should have retired long ago when his health issues sidelined him instead of depriving his constituants of representation, but his ego, and sense of entitlement led him to hang on and miss countless votes and not do his job. Interesting that his colleagues in the Senate, both Republican and Democrat have a view almost 180 degrees from yours.