Texsox

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 8, 2009 -> 02:08 PM) You're forgetting that illegality adds its own large price inflation. I did not forget that at all. Compare cigarette and alcohol prices in Mexico versus the US. US liability laws, taxes, and other costs almost double the prices from Mexico.

Two different issues. Start throwing inside will keep the opposing batters off balance. It will not automatically stop the other team from throwing inside against yours. So at best, it evens things up.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 8, 2009 -> 02:02 PM) First, its not that easy to grow at home since seeds are also illegal and not exactly easy to find. Second, with the legalization comes increased quality and availability, both of which would be worth a price increase. Right now pot isnt exactly a cheap drug, you still pay on avg 15-20 dollars a gram street price, with total inconsistent quality and brand control. (for folks that dont know, a bag of weed isnt the same no matter origin, strain, method of growth etc.) Like any drug, regulation has its ups and downs, but i think that the ups far outweigh the downs. Would you pay $50 to $60? I'm not saying there are not advantages, but the tax revenue figure is a joke. And the savings in law enforcement are not complete either. Someone has to enforce the tax laws, someone has to be certain the marijuana is legal and not black market. So the law enforcement cost may go down, but it will not be zero. The biggest cost savings may be the prisons will have a few less inmates, but even there the marijuana lockups are very small.

I believe the greatest gift Jordan gave Pippen, and what placed Pippen into to top echelon of players, was the desire to play both ends of the court. It is very rare that one player would be the top player offensively and defensively, but those two were #1 and #2 on both ends. My guess is on a different team, Poppen becomes a far better offensive player and never comes close to his defensive potential and retires a very good, but not top 100, player.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ May 7, 2009 -> 05:04 PM) From what I read, it would be $1 billion in revenue with a $50 per ounce tax. AHR-nold is supposedly willing to debate/discuss it. Perhaps someone should show him at the end of his lifting documentary from the 70's where he tokes up at the end. There is no way that pot smokers will accept the price increase that would come with legalization. People forget that with legalization, will come product liability costs, marketing, distribution, FDA controlled manufacturing, multiple profit centers, and other costs. Then add a sizable "sin-tax" and you have a price far higher than what is paid now. Add to that the ease in which a quality product can be grown at home. The already in place black market, and I just do not see all this tax coming in.

Even if he does not receive HoF support, no one will have had as much fun playing the game as Buehrle. For that alone, he has my admiration. The guys that make playing seem like a chore and a job, make me sad. /lights fuse I think by the time Buehrle retires, the baseball writers will be looking for the "good guys" in the sport and he'll have a better chance, perhaps better than he deserves. But I would rather go to the HoF and see Buerhle than Bonds, Manny, Clemens, Sosa, etc. If the Hall is about the best in baseball, I'd give him strong consideration. For the same, albeit opposite reasons you wil not see Rose or Jackson, you should see guys like Buehrle.

It has been said often that the differences in baseball is razor thin. The AAAA guys versus MLB. It seems like that keeps coming into play. Maybe without the PEDs, Manny is an average player. Maybe he's an All-Star. Anyway you look at it, the pressure must be immense for guys to take these chances.

It is a long season, and you ain't seen nothing yet. I could see Mark winning a Cy Young. Eventually we will need to celebrate the good guys in baseball and when that time comes, Mark is at the front of the line. And it could be this season. That may be the one great thing that keeps fans interested in the Sox. Why any Sox fan would want to dismiss that in mid May is kind of strange.

I have seen a lot more of Jordan, so I'm biased I am certain. But the only defensive player that I ever saw play, who I felt could shut down Jordan on a somewhat consistent basis, was Jordan. His D amazed me more, night after night, than his offense.

War Sucks rip

From the coverage down here The HBO producers deny he was ever even going to audition The prosecutor seems to be pinning their hopes on the new law that would allow her old letters into evidence.

I'm done with college Long live Grad school

DONE! Graduation, job offers, and Grad school awaits. My parents gave me a 32" Sony TV as a little grad gift.

I'm guessing this is for the routine stuff. They are each tossing in 2, but we do not know how many they are keeping above that. It could be another 6 or 10. The "pool" that some may be thinking is where an event cannot fit dozens. One reporter will pool for the rest. That is more directed by the newsmaker (press conference) than the groups cooperating.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 5, 2009 -> 11:56 AM) But they just said schools shouldnt close because of the swine flu. It was on CNN at lunch. 4 of our 5 biggest school districts across the area are already shut down. They announced well before the CDC changed their recommendation. Also, because of our very fluid bi-country population, that we continue to be more conservative in this matter.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 4, 2009 -> 08:57 PM) I just love emotional over-reaction, followed immediately by "nothing to see here, move along". You talk about having it both ways. How should you follow emotional over-reaction

From a near 40 year look at this team, this team is about average. Enjoy the surprises, a nice winning streak, maybe a breakout player or performance (back to back 300, enjoy a few games for the sake of enjoying baseball, keep expectation low and if by some miracle games in September count, WOW.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 4, 2009 -> 11:35 AM) Kap, Question about Corporations relocating. Business law is not my area of specialization but I was under the impression that in order to do business in most states you need to register or file something with the secretary of state. (Illinois you can register as a Foreign Corp or you can file an Authority to Transact Business). Now here is where my question is, if you are a corporation of Japan and you do business in Illinois, making a profit off that business in Illinois, do you have to pay Illinois/US taxes on the profit made in Illinois? Ive always thought that the Foreign Corp had to pay the Illinois/US taxes, but Im just not sure. If we can use Mexico and Texas as an example, I will give you real world examples. Buy raw materials in the US, do some process at your subsidiary in Mexico, then ship it back to the US for sales world wide. Raw material cost $1 Mexico labor cost $2 Final Cost $3 Sale Price $5 Do you show a $2 profit in Mexico? $2 profit in the US? You can mark up the raw material or the labor. Generally, most companies have been showing the profit in the US. And because of NAFTA, the largest collection of Asian manufacturers outside the Pacific rim in along the Mexico border.

We have to figure out how to eliminate all taxes so companies will stay here.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ May 4, 2009 -> 09:03 AM) If he was playing center, we would be clamoring about all the other presidents we could have signed in the off-season. That's bush league . . .

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ May 4, 2009 -> 06:55 AM) They may have been investigating Pablo Escobar on a tip that he was running kilos of cocaine out of Bromley Hall, but all they ended up with after a year and gosh knows how much $$, was two dozen college kids and 180 grams of pot. If you can't label Operation Thunder Strike a piddling drizzle after that, when and how does law enforcement ever get held accountable for how they spend our tax (and in this case tuition) dollars? Do they get a total pass based on noble intentions? They are accountable on a wider perspective than one case. They are accountable based on the information they had and what happened. Perhaps, since this is a University funded thing, that the administration wanted to prove that their campus had almost zero illegal drug use. They hoped that this would attract more students to their campus, increase their prestige amongst potential donors, etc. In that case you could call this a success. Maybe the entire thing was made up and the investigation was really just one cop, for 10 minutes every other week, standing on a corner and asking if anyone has drugs.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ May 4, 2009 -> 10:17 AM) That's silly. Does a warm weather team not deserve to win the Super Bowl if such a thing happens because they don't play in "football weather"? Come on now, football is just like any other sport in my opinion, the weather should not be a factor in deciding the best team under ideal circumstances, who is the best team should be what decides it. Just like the one thing I don't like about baseball is you get weather like there was in Philadelphia during the World Series last year, 6 months of playing hard and the winner is decided in s*** conditions. Between assuring the game is played in 72 degree conditions, with less than a 3mph wind and 20% humidity or playing in an ice bowl, I agree, the warmer, nicer weather is better. However, I think the range of allowable conditions should include playing in 30 degree weather, I'd even take a little snow once in a while. The weather is the same for both teams, the better team will adapt to the conditions.

We are shutting down all of our programs and closing our camps. We are kind of forced to follow the lead of the schools.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 4, 2009 -> 06:35 AM) Wait, you are saying 10A is impractical? Its the 2nd most important amendment in the bill of rights by most accounts. It is by far the most important limit on the federal government. It declares affirmative control over the scope of federal jurisdiction. Now, certainly, some new challenges need to be addressed (technology for example). But because the current law, the Constitution, makes it so... you have to prove why the federal government NEEDS to control something - not the other way around. Your suggestion earlier, saying that because something isn't in there that means the feds can do it, is the opposite of the intended purpose of 10A. What is impractical is deciding everything on knowledge from 200+ years ago and NOT taking into account what is in our best interest as a nation. There is no way the men who sat around and wrote the Constitution could foresee everything the Constitution would be called upon to solve. So it takes people, not machines, who can think and use their knowledge, to interpret. What I was trying to say is the decisions are usually about what is *not* obvious in the Constitution. If it was spelled out in black letter law, it would usually never get to the Supreme Court. So to suggest that the Justices should not think, just look at the law and tell us what it says, is impractical.