Texsox

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 25, 2009 -> 12:14 PM) Less than 20 — they were literally the only vegetable I didn't like growing up. Now, I'm sort of itching to try them again because I think I'll really liek them, but my wife is not so sure and so they remain off the menu. How many times have you farted in a crowded elevator, accidentally or on purpose? four or five how many times have you watched a tv show to the end then realized you had watched it before?

QUOTE (BigEdWalsh @ Aug 25, 2009 -> 10:03 AM) 17...ouch! How many times have you been to the Urinal (not counting to see the Sox)? too many to count (over 25) How many meetings have you missed because you fgorgot to enter tyhem in your calendar? ?gotta run

Really, the how many thread may be fun

QUOTE (MHizzle85 @ Aug 25, 2009 -> 09:31 AM) 5 How many people here turned in their clunker for cash? zero that I heard of. How many MPG does your current vehicle get?

QUOTE (Pumpkin Escobar @ Aug 25, 2009 -> 09:32 AM) As long as we are doing interpretation of rules I have one for you all... My buddy and I were wondering about it during MB perfect game. We figured it'd have ruined the perfecto and made it a no-hitter but it's interesting and perhaps something to be reconsidered in baseball. Buehrle is cruisin lets say. 8 innings 24 up and 24 down. 9th inning rolls around and Sox get a pop up in foul territory, Beckham drops it. Thats an error but no runner obviously got on base. Buehrle continues on and gets the next 3 out. I presume just a no-hitter but I'd also score it a foul ball and cheat for my SP if it was a home game. What do you guys htink? 27 up, 27 down and no one reached first. Sounds like a perfect game to me. And by the way, the next time it happens, will be the first.

QUOTE (HeGone33 @ Aug 25, 2009 -> 09:28 AM) Two that I was pulled over for........ How many people will realize this thread sucks and go back to the alphabet thread? one, Jim LOL How many will participate in both and really up their post counts?

Please

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 25, 2009 -> 09:22 AM) The guideline is about the batter. If the batter gets out as the third out, then it doesn't matter, no runs score. But once the batter is out OR has reached safely, then its all about timing and the ball in play. Right, if he is out trying to stretch a single into a double, then it is about timing.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 25, 2009 -> 09:07 AM) Less than 3 times. How many times have you *ahem* in the past week? *ahem* times, wait, plus one ahh How many times have you rolled through a stop sign?

Let's kill the alphabet game. This is another simple game, ask a question that starts how many . . . the next person answers the question and asks another. How many times have you eaten fast food in August?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 25, 2009 -> 08:54 AM) My goodness. Why is this still going on? nothing better has come around to take its place

I always thought the run counted if the runner crossed the plate before the third out was made.

I'm never happy when a player is demoted. That is never a good sign for the club, it means some player has been under-performing, often by a huge delta. So I am sad for Contreras, worried that they are pushing Peavy because of the playoff race and needing a boost.

Things did not line up properly so instead of being in grad school, I'm just working.

Kayaking is still better than Karaoke or Knife throwing. But not as good as Kentucky Bourbon

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 25, 2009 -> 12:36 AM) B B BbbBbbBBBBBBBBB ut... McCain was Powell's PERFECT "MODERATE" candidate! If he would describe a Republican that would WIN, he would describe McCain. Oh, no - Obama's better. And ethnically like said Democrat president whose political ideology was supposedly not his views but more closely aligned with Old Man McCain. Ya'll want to turn this into something else, and the facts just don't support it. Great points, I forgot Republicans are never suppose to change their minds about anything.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 24, 2009 -> 07:17 PM) but they lost. elections have consequences, remember. No, many won in their districts. That is why there are still GOP leaders around. The Congress and Senate do not run nationally, they run locally. Those districts want their elected official to continue the platform that got that individual elected. If it was any other way then all those guys with ® in front of their names would have been replaced because the other party won. Instead there are checks and balances built into our system. Perhaps you would want your representative to just do whatever the "in" party wants, but more people want their representative to continue to fioght for what got him/her elected in their district.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 24, 2009 -> 04:50 PM) I had respect for Powell right up until the whole "endorsement" thing for Obama. That was calculated bulls*** for the Washington establishment and his ethnicity (unfortunately). PERIOD. Really. You do not think that Powell thought Obama was the best candidate? Even after saying in another thread that the GOP could have run Jesus (which they have for 20+ years) and lost? So why did Powell do that?

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Aug 24, 2009 -> 02:56 PM) It's a funny irony. In the 2008 congressional elections, the democrats won an even 60% of the seats. In the Senate, the democrats currently own 60% (incl the 2 indpts who caucas with them) of the seats. So I'd say, its safe to say, that the American population really wanted the Democrats in charge to handle the issues of the economy, health care and war(s). Not certain how many Congressman and Senators you voted for, but for 99.99% of Americans they get one Congressman and one Senator per election. So there are a lot of Americans who do not want Democrats to do that. That would be everyone who voted GOP, where their candidate won or lost.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Aug 24, 2009 -> 03:15 PM) Has anyone ever asked the people that were protesting against the Chief and against UND what THEY thought about the Seminoles? I mean, so what if the Seminole tribe gets money or whatever....if one of those people were against using Indian symbolism for U of I and UND and whoever else, why is their voice not as strong, or mean as much, for FSU? Really, ti's over and done with, so might as well move on. Still, I think it might create a slippery slope. PETA against any animal mascot. Fighting Irish. Penn Quakers...ok, maybe not the Penn Quakers. I do not think one person for or against will make much of a difference. When established tribal leaders, the elected officials for the tribe, come out and say, this is offensive, I believe the right thing to do is ask, what are we trying to do here and is it worth being offensive? So what is the Chief trying to do?

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Aug 24, 2009 -> 02:22 PM) "The debate came to a head in September 2005, when the NCAA declared Fighting Sioux as "hostile and abusive" to American Indians and said UND would be barred from hosting NCAA postseason tournaments if the school continued using it." Doesn't seem like the NCAA checked with the tribes in 2005 to me, if they're saying it can stay if they say ok now. Even so, bad in 2005, but maybe ok in 2009 doesn't sound the least bit hypocritical? You should have also highlighted the debate in the wuote. The debate was not the NCAA and themselves, it was Tribes and the NCAA. The NCAA did not start these actions until Tribes started complaining. If there is any hypocrisy, it is the NCAA trying to find anyway for teams to keep their mascot instead of just unilaterally banning all tribal mascots.

The NCAA checks with tribes and they say this is offensive, this is not; then acts on those recommendations. Seems pretty easy and not hypocritical to me. They even left it open for the Tribes to approve. The NCAA acts because they have legislative power over the teams. So not in their omnipotent wisdom, in the Tribes.

perhaps I should clarify, do not like math, love NUMB3RS and figures.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 24, 2009 -> 11:25 AM) The Chief is simply a symbol of the Indians who lived in Illinois. Since none of those tribes exist anymore, there can be no approval. But the University got approval from the closest ethnic group they could find. What more can they do? If we're giving weight to the "offended" Indians who are not related in anyway to the Illiniwek tribes, than why not give weight to other similar individuals that support it? Look, it would be one thing if some white college kid painted himself red, threw on a piece of cloth around his crotch and a feather in his hair and ran around the field with war axes screaming at the top of his lungs. But that's not what happened here. Sure, give support to those that support it. But there is no half way here. Either the mascot stays or leaves. Closest isn't close enough, certainly not as close as FSU got. So now you start lining up Tribes on both sides of the issue. And is being offended, or not, the only yardstick to use? I find some value in offending people for a greater good, but I do not see a greater good here.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Aug 24, 2009 -> 11:24 AM) Not sure where you are getting that line from either. Everyone wants the costs to go down. They are skyrocketing at way more than the current rate of inflation. It needs to go down across the board somehow. Isn't that the whole point of this? We are all paying more each and every year. It seems that insurance companies are ok with them getting steep discounts and others picking up the rest of the cost. In other words if the hospitals "broke even" on the insured, and made their profit on everyone else, the insurance company would not mind. Or stated another way, the insurance companies are not interested in an equitable pricing structure, they are looking for the cheapest and least used for themselves.