Texsox

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 12:41 PM) Palin talking gibberish again. She apparently wrote a request to Obama, to keep on the books a last minute law that Bush signed, allowing for people to carry concealed weapons in national parks (as long as the follow existing state regs in effect). Now, putting aside the issue itself (where some good arguments could be made either way), let's look at a quote from Palin: Please stop talking about things you clearly know nothing about. We are talking about CONCEALED weapons (unless the article is wrong). That means pistols. A handgun against a Grizzly you'd encounter in Alaska is worthless, you might as well use a tennis racket. And anything smaller than a Grizz or Polar Bear, you aren't going to get attacked by anyway. The only gun that is any real use against a Grizzly or Polar Bear, is either a large bore shotgun, or a serious high powered rifle. I am sooooooo glad she wasn't elected to high national office. She really is the female equivalent of W. CAVEAT: The article states this is about concealed weapons, but at other times, talks about loaded weapons generally. If this is referring to guns in general, its a very different story, and nevermind. Gee, I hate to disagree, but a .44 mag and a coupled decent, reasonably placed shots, could do wonders. The best likelihood would be to have the bear flee, unless you really nail a great shot, which is unlikely in this situation. We will agree that there are plenty more useful ways to avoid the situation, bear bagging food, making noise, being aware of your surroundings, but I will not totally discount the use of a high caliber handgun.

My God, I hope that a posting error wasn't at the heart of this. Tried to pay would seem the opposite of inexplicably not reflected.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 02:12 PM) Bobby would slather Bmac in BBQ sauce and eat him. What an image! /pounding forehead delete delete delete

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 02:05 PM) That is a pretty lame argument Tex. What percentage of the people actually kept blacks from their swimming pools or rest rooms? I do not thnk SS really thought through his comment. 1 or 2% of a population can have disastrous affects, while 25 or 30% of the population can barely make a whimper. It's all about the scale of the action, not about how many people are doing it.

QUOTE (RibbieRubarb @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 01:40 PM) Very nice!....though I don't think he ever married Stacey. Hmm, I know she had power of attorney while he was undergoing the operation, I believe my wource was a wiki, and that can never be wrong

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 11:55 AM) And that is what makes me a republican. I don't believe in penalizing 98% of the country for the actions of 1 or 2% of it. Really, I thought you supported the war in Iraq? Actions are more about the impact of the actions, not about how many are making them. When the actions are on a huge scale, they have to be stopped, even if it is only 1 or 2%. Hell we are at war with Iraq because 1 or 2% of the population acted in ways we disagreed with. Which is why I'm mostly a Democrat.

Reading what people here are saying about the author, I guess y'all don't read any biographies, or really any non-fiction.

To me, a monster is a fictional character and we are discussing who may be closer to this concept of a "monster". At the core is conscious and value systems. If I was to place Carter and Reagan on this scale, with no conscious on one side and a "God-like" one on the other, I'd have Reagan closer to monster than Carter. However, neither one would be close enough to really call a monster.

QUOTE (mreye @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 09:12 AM) This poll is idiotic and only intended to piss off right wingers. Will I be allowed the same freedom to post a poll that's derogatory and intended to piss off African Americans? Why would you want to piss off African Americans?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 18, 2009 -> 02:31 PM) I don't like the way he phrased that but I agree with the general idea behind it, that people go out of their way to avoid confronting racial matters. I usually do it, because I can't have a conversation about race with random people since the discussion is almost always retarded. To see what I mean just look at some of the comments on that article, f***ing christ. Ah come on, what the hell do you know . . . The conversations can be retarded, even with intelligent people because we are suppose to ignore the 800 pound gorilla, which is our differences. The differences like living in a country where you are welcome at 99% of the places, not 90%. The differences of being denied opportunity because of the differences we aren't suppose to talk about. The differences of driving through a neighborhood and having everyone stare because you must be a gang bamger or an illegal.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 07:50 AM) I'm saying its both. Burris is ambitious to the point of being willing to do anything to get an elected position. So willing, that he didn't mind going in under a very dark cloud. Seperately, listen to the man talk. Watch how he handles things. I just don't think he's very bright. The combination of enormous ambition and relative lack of smarts (compared to his political peers) is a combination that results in exactly what you are seeing. I attributed some of the apparent slowness as age and trying to parse every word.

Today athletes in all sports have to maintain a much higher peak than in the past. Looking around and comparing stats from the 50s and 60s, these guys are in better shape and sharper. So I do have some empathy for Thome. Plus, he's an old man competing with kids almost half his age. On the shut up and quit whining point, those guys in the 50s and 60s also worked real world jobs in the off season to pay the bills. Also, when we read that some guys are on the decline side of their career, this is some of why

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 07:43 AM) That's exactly right. Reagan just plain did more, good and bad. Carter was kind of along for the ride. And for his greatest triumph, Reagan needed Carter (and Ford / Nixon). Making American's proud of their country again. Put that swagger back in our walk. Bigger than life. Single handily tore down the Berlin Wall. I wonder which future Russian leader will get America to tear down our wall in a few decades.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 07:41 AM) No... stemming from severe lacking in spine and IQ. Every politician has a line they are willing to walk up to, but not cross, to get elected. That line is way too far out for a lot of them, but its there. And the line is different for different people, as well as different over time for each one. Burris sets a new standard for having the line be so far out that he can't even see it anymore. He is 100% pure opportunist, much more so even than most of his political cohorts. Lack of IQ put Burris in that spot? I'm not going to debate that with you, you have a much better vantage point. It just seemed to me that it wold not take that much intelligence to understand this situation. Are you suggesting then that Blago took advantage of some dumb guy who could not understand what was happening? I guess I'm wondering what Burris was too stupid to know/understand? From 1,500 miles away, it looked more like blind ambition, not just some stupid guy.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 07:25 AM) Ambition and thick skin are fine. Those are not the issues with Burris. The issues with Burris are about corruption, and frankly, cluelessness. Stemming from ambition and believing he can withstand anything.

Neither. But to take this seriously for a moment, Reagan did more. More good, and more bad. The "don't tax and spend, spend, spend" form of government started with Reagan. It empowered every person we sent to Washington to fund every dam program imaginable, and someone else will pay for it.

You have to be ambitious to run for state wide office with a very thick skin. I guess we should not be surprised by this, but terribly disappointed.

The final submission, which may now get me caught up in the plagiarizer software at my university

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 18, 2009 -> 07:21 AM) First off, I never said anyone gets a free pass to cheat. ARods test was taken under the presumption it was annonymous or he had no responsibility to even take it. MLB has changed the rules. When ARod was positive there was no penalty. You can't go back and charge all the guys who blew a .15 40 years ago with drunk driving. Its time to move on. I just don't understand your thinking that amphetimines were nothing. Its common knowledge they were in every clubhouse. Amphetimines were illegal,no? Good for you if you went to look for something in your garage and found a bag of amphetimines and proceed to pat your son on the back and say, at least they weren't steroids.(This is just a hypothetical, I don't know even if you have a son and I'm not implying this would occur) Why do you think amphetimine use is OK? Just because it wasn't universally considered that DUI wasn't that big of a deal 30-40 years ago by a lot of society, didn't make it right. Hence, the laws were change. It also wasn't frowned upon for a pregnant woman to smoke and get wasted, now it is. Amphetimines were PEDs. They were cheating. If 30 years ago, the players thought it was no big deal, so what. The players today have the same attitude toward steroids. If you can go back 6 years for ARod's test, when there were no penalties, why can't you go back 40 and if you found out Willie Mays was hopped up on amphetimines, for which there now is a test, shouldn't his HOF status be reconsidered? Dick, two options A. We made a big mistake in the 1970s by not cracking down on the amphetamine usage. So now our hands are tied and we can't do anything about steroids or B. We made a big mistake in the 1970s by not cracking down on the amphetamine usage. We are not going to make that same mistake again with steroids, we are going to do something. I pick B. Explain why baseball should make the same mistake twice?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 18, 2009 -> 06:51 AM) KW's take from mlb.com: "There are guys in previous generations who are really outspoken on it, and there's a certain hypocrisy in it," he said. "Let's say you are talking the (19)70s and the '80s, then you are talking there was a lot of amphetamines usage as a performance enhancer. "So, if you are one of those guys, and I've heard guys that I know did that type of thing, criticizing the guys doing the state-of-the-art thing in the mid-'80s into the '90s and (next decade), OK, well, it's a little hypocritical." This is the point I've been trying to make. Many of the players we all cherish and take for granted as "clean" were doing things that were, at least at the time, just as bad IMO. What's the difference between taking amphetimines and steroids as far as the 5 mph over the limit vs. 45 mph over the limit? If steroids were known to enhance performance, and for many years, lifting weights was discouraged, I'm sure the "steroid era" would have began a lot sooner. Dick, if you do not see the performance difference between amphetamines and steroids, you will never understand the speeding analogy. If they truly are equivelent in how they enhanced performance players would not have switched. It is clear to everyone, especially the athletes, that steroids were of a much bigger benefit with much less risk to getting caught. Again, just because people got away with stuff in the past does not give everyone in the future a free pass to cheat. At some point society changes the rules based on current attitudes. Use that argument in court when you receive a DUI at .09; That blood alcohol level was legal a couple years ago and thirty years ago you could be .15 and the cop would just make certain someone came to get you. So finally standing up and saying enough is enough, we will not take this anymore is common in our society. As we gain new knowledge, society must make new decisions. The argument that "hey we didn't know about it, and this is just another form of something we allowed, albeit worse" just is not valid.

While it certainly seems admirable to equate all cheating and treat it all the same, that just is not how society has operated. Like degrees of speeding, so to are degrees of cheating. Finding a ball with a scuff mark and not alerting the ump is cheating, but would receive a wink from most players. Steroids, IMNSHO, is the worse bit of cheating I can imagine. Undetectable on the field, no way for the ump to catch the cheater No way for the other team to catch the cheater Cheating 100% of the time, no way to "turn it off" Produces far more benefits than scuffing the ball or corking a bat with far less chance of getting caught (then) So I believe the punishments shoud also be in scale with the level of cheating. Much like we have a sliding scale with speeding or stealing, so too should this. Hell, Baseball has sliding scales everywhere. Examine behavior with an umpire. "That was a terrible call" -- walk to the bench "That was a f***ing terrible call" -- still walk to the bench "You are one f***ing terrible umpire, how the &^$^%# did you ever get this job"? -- take a shower "You are one f***ing terrible umpire, how the &^$^%# did you ever get this job"? while kicking dirt on the ump and flipping him off = + a fine "You are one f***ing terrible umpire, how the &^$^%# did you ever get this job"? while kicking ump = ++fine ++ suspension

I'm digging the lemon pepper and garlic parmesan. I've gotten away from the usual wet red ones. I also like shrimp that have been given the same treatment. My ex snagged the commercial deep fryer I owned, I use to love making them at home.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 17, 2009 -> 05:17 PM) So, is she single? Yes, and a conservative, Rush Limbaugh agreeing, Young Republican. Like dear old Dad

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 17, 2009 -> 05:07 PM) I'm not shocked. Anyone who was willing to take a job from Blogo wasnt on the up and up. Texsox... love the sig I had to look. I expected you to see it right away. LOL That was a funny thread.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Feb 17, 2009 -> 02:15 PM) im so over this whole story. The seat is up for re-election in 21 months. Only 21 months, I hear Blago will be his chief fund raiser . . .