Texsox

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.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 4, 2009 -> 06:17 AM) The part that saids all issues not addressed by the Constitution are left up to the states... Which is impractical in today's society. The framers of the Constitution could not foresee plane travel, the internet, telephones, etc. and the need for a cohesive national plan. We should be doing what is in our best interest, not Jefferson's. I do not think it is in our best interest to run a country in 2009 based entirely on a 200+ year old document. It has to be a living document that adapts to our needs. However, conservatives would prefer rolling back the past 50 years and reverse Roe v. Wade, restrict pornographic materials, have prayer back in schools, define marriage as one man and one woman, decency on TV, less social programs. So I guess it isn't a stretch to go back another 150+ years

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 4, 2009 -> 05:38 AM) Yes. That is exactly what I implied. There does need to be some sanity. Who knows what they were investigating. They may have been close to another, bigger, arrest, but could not get enough information or evidence. Unless someone really thinks this was what they were after. It is unfair to label the investigation a waste after the fact.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 3, 2009 -> 07:36 PM) No we don't. Not even close. That's just blatently wrong. Again, if you don't like the laws that are written, you have a majority, pass the laws you want. But the laws need to be interpreted against a Constitutional standard, not "touchy feely" crap based on someone's definition of "rights". Those rights were pretty clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. Health Insurance, Retirement, etc. for "pursuit of happiness" is not a "right". Just like all the decisions of emotional crap aren't a true basis against the Constitution. Personally, I disagree with Roe v. Wade, but I understand it's intent - I think that it's a stretch but again I understand the decision. I think it should be struck down, but not because abortion is bad, IMO, it's because it's a state issue. Just like "gay marriage". Where does it say in the Constitution that abortion is a state issue? Sounds like that touchy feely crap you do not like As soon as you said abortion is bad, I knew you would be against Roe v. Wade.

I get so few Sox games on TV down here, and we always seem to suck in those games.

QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ May 3, 2009 -> 03:30 PM) The stadiums the NFL plays in are largely financed on the taxpayer's dime. Does that amount to a legal obligation to play the Superbowl stateside? No. An ethical obligation? Arguably. I agree, however, a counter to that argument is the NFL pays taxes on their profits. Hell everybody else outsources, why not the NFL?

QUOTE (BobDylan @ May 3, 2009 -> 03:14 PM) I feel awkward. me too, yet I am strangely drawn to your sig . . .

QUOTE (shipps @ May 3, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) That just made my day. you are board

QUOTE (shipps @ May 3, 2009 -> 02:18 PM) shh honey...shh...simmer down....you are my gum drop... I better start joking around. I am gonna get a reputation around here.LOL LOL, I think you meant stop joking around

QUOTE (knightni @ May 3, 2009 -> 01:48 PM) The good news: London you get the Super Bowl The bad news: Kickoff will be 1am local time. And it will still be a sell out.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 3, 2009 -> 02:11 PM) he quoted kap. I caught it and deleted my post.

Damn, he told me I was special

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 3, 2009 -> 11:08 AM) The difference is, today, liberals want the touchy, feely to come first, not the lens of the constitution. Because, that's a way to create an activism for "rights" that are NOT guaranteed by the Constitution. There's a big difference in that and what you are suggesting. And conservatives want to paint every decision that they disagree with as touchy, feely, activism, no matter what. Just as they want to characterize any bad press as liberally biased. Far easier to divert attention than deal with the issue at hand. Do you have the "right" to walk down the street in a pink suit with a green and purple feather in your hair? Where does it guarantee you that exact right in the Constitution? As soon as a Judge thinks that that right is in the Constitution, conservatives would call it activism if they disagree.

Should Soxtalk have a Naked Picture Forum?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 3, 2009 -> 09:35 AM) And prosecutions and incarcerations. And that should be the goal of law enforcement. They should have the freedom to pick and choose which laws they uphold and which laws they ignore.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 3, 2009 -> 09:39 AM) Your first duty is to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Not explain what you feel. THEN, and NEXT, not BEFORE, do you apply your knowledge to the law. They INTERPRET, not DECIDE what the laws are. If the laws are not what they think they should be, CONGRESS re-writes the law, NOT SCOTUS. I may not like certain decisions, but if they interpret the case based on the Constitution, and not what THEY think, then I cannot argue against a decision. Exactly. And interpret is not an exact science, as language is not exact. That is why we do not have a computer handle this. Interpret is not EXACT, which is why you should want to have eight DIFFERENT people interpret, from a variety of backgrounds, instead of just one. And it is what they think the law is. That is the heart of interpret. And did you really just say that thinking is wrong? They should be thinking about what the meaning of the Constitution is. DIFFERENT people think differently. I see more value in a variety of people, from a variety of backgrounds, THINKING about what is meant in the Constitution. And many times, what comes before the court are situations that could not be foretold by the writers of the Constitution. Take something as simple today as wiretaps on phones. Think about the very first rulings. How did the writers of the Constitution handle that technology a couple plus hundred years ago? What should the Judges use as their basis when those sort of issue arise? Some one has to THINK about what is written and apply it to a situation that was not conceivable when the Constitution was written. Someone has to think about what is written and how it applies. Sometimes two competing rights are at odds with each other. Interpret the Constitution and decide freedom of speech for Nazis wishing to demonstrate versus the rights of Jews in Skokie; without thinking or feeling? Interpret the Constitution and decide who has the right to terminate a human by taking them off life support; without thinking or feeling.

QUOTE (shipps @ May 3, 2009 -> 10:15 AM) What did you think you were busted Tex? I'm flattered you would brag