Texsox

It is amazing that pics had not come out sooner. That would be the one piece of evidence I would struggle with in declaring him a big time stoner. Not saying he isn't, but the fact that somehow it stayed out of the papers this long is amazing. He's got some really loyal friends, or they were too stoned to realize how much that pic would have been worth to the tabloids.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Feb 8, 2009 -> 03:47 PM) So when Microsoft was a monopoly and forced to break up, there were no other choices? Interesting comparison. What percentage of tickets in the US does Ticketmaster control? While they are number one by a nice margin, they do not control anywhere near even half the market. Microsoft on the other hand, was using their vast majority of operating system install base >90% to leverage their Office Suite and other products and eliminating competitors. http://www.ticketnews.com/node/5009 http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/04/markets/thebuzz/index.htm So depending on which category you are trying to make a monopoly case, all tickets than the combined sales of Ticketmaster and Live Nation would only be 30%, far short of a monopoly. Even with concerts, the combined share would be 80%, again, not quite a clear monopoly, and I doubt, since concerts are one subset of tickets sales, probably not enough to prove a monopoly. They are also a nice employer down here.

Are all lobbyists the same? Is there room for experts to offer advice and counsel to elected officials? Or are all paid experts painted with the same brush? SS makes great points about the President being able to select the very best people he can find. Let's say that Soxtalk Inc. developed a cool new device that needed government approval. Who here knows exactly how to get it approved? What agencies? Where do you file the paperwork? Hell, we use attorneys all the time in court, it makes sense that the average Joe or Jane would need help working through this process as well. We use experts to file our taxes, we use experts to verify our OSHA compliance, etc. etc. So it would seem that our government would be more efficient without newbies walking into offices trying to get this kind of stuff done. On the other hand, we have the sleezy, slimeball, lobbyists that we all would like see gone. I'm not certain how to regulate for one without dumping the other.

QUOTE (joesaiditstrue @ Feb 8, 2009 -> 05:04 PM) you won't be around here long You are correct. We do give everyone a chance to learn the ropes and what we accept and what we edit.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 7, 2009 -> 07:48 PM) Robin Williams is very good at serious roles, if people can get past who he is. Not just One Hour Photo, but also the remake of Insomnia from a few years ago, and a smaller role in Dead Again. Also, weird movie, but that one where Williams dies and is guided into afterlife by Cuba Gooding Jr (can't recall the name of it). I recently called Robin Williams the most underrated actor of my generation. He still cracks me up with over the top performances which ruin any serious consideration as a dramatic actor. And jumping on the western theme late, would y'all consider Lone Star a modern day western? It has become one of my favorite films after moving to the border.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 28, 2009 -> 03:53 PM) You want to cut some government waste? Here is a target rich environment - the Postal Service. The mail has basically no competition, and should be run at cost. Plain and simple. And yet, this agency actually spends all kinds of money on advertising. Seriously - they spend 9 figures a year on advertising. That is 100% waste, right there. And this year, the USPS may need to cut back service because they are so deep in the hole. The provision of necessary government services should charge what they cost - not more, not less. Its really damn simple. If they can't make their expectations, then raise the prices. If fewer people use it... GOOD. That is less money going to a government agency, and probably some of it goes to other areas of the private sector. Really, no competition? UPS, Fed Ex, Airborne, email, fax, etc. There is no competition for the .42 letter, no one wants that business. But the other stuff is bank and allows the USPS to keep delivering letters for that price. And the USPS relies on volume. Why are their no competitors? Because shipping an envelope from Hopeville, Maine to Beartown, Oregon is damn expensive without a whole plane load of stuff moving from hub to hub. And the stuff flat out arrives. Not so in many other countries.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 01:02 PM) I think that the argument should be based on Cigarettes and Alcohol cause death, etc. Anything that is less harmful than those 2, which has more benefit than those 2, should be legal. Then the argument could be on marijuana being illegal, cigarettes and alcohol should be illegal as well. Same logic.You want to use one to jude the other, than you would have to accept either situation.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 8, 2009 -> 02:30 PM) try getting a non-ticketmaster event going in the United center? Not gonna happen. The United Center has choices. That was my point. The monopoly would really only come into play if the venues had no other choices. In the end it is the venues that decide how to sell their tickets.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Feb 8, 2009 -> 12:12 PM) I wonder how Ticketmaster gets around being classified as a monopoly, especially considering this stunt where they are redirecting customers to their subsidiary scalping sites. They clearly have their fingers wrapped pretty tightly around the market They get around it by not being a monopoly. Think about all the venues there are, the venues have a choice in how and where they sell tickets. Many have their own box office.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 7, 2009 -> 06:02 PM) How about the fictional character "Texsox"? s***, I've tried to kill him a few times. He's probably 50% reality at this point.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2009 -> 02:44 PM) I prefer no restrictions. The President should be able to pick whomever he wants to work for him. Why should the most powerful man in the world have to have second rate employees because of who they used to work for? That makes no sense to me. I assume you mean no restriction beyond requiring congressional approve for some positions. I agree he should be able to pick his people, and the voters should know who he is picking and why. Later, in theory, we could use that information to decide our next vote. Which is why I like the gate with exceptions.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Feb 8, 2009 -> 10:50 AM) Oh I would. Boras wants to do his job and he is not going to unless Crede gets a contract fixed

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Feb 6, 2009 -> 10:43 PM) Jesus Christ That would be stretching the definition of faculty. While he certainly does teach, I do not believe he qualifies for this assignment.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 12:09 AM) Other than the Sox, I'm a bandwagon fan for every other team I root for. I enjoy the Bears having success, but if they suck I don't lose any sleep over it. If they win it all, I'll celebrate it. I loved the Bulls during the MJ era, but haven't watched a full Bulls game this year. I'm just now getting back to being a Blackhawks fan, but I have been deprived of hockey since ESPN stopped showing games. I now have DirectTV and the NHL Center Ice package. But, I wouldn't have paid much more than cursory attention to the Hawks for the last decade or so. So, you can slam me for my 'fandom' of the Bears, Bulls and Hawks ... then ask me if I care. I now can tell you more about the Spurs than the Bulls, but I still would cheer long and loud for the Bulls. I can now tell you more about the Hidalgo Killer Bees than the Blackhawks, but I'd break out my Hawks gear and hit the local sports bar if they were in the finals. I want every damn casual fan and bandwagon jumper to screw the Cubs and come on over to the Sox.

I like both of those ideas. I'm also thinking either Stewie Griffin or perhaps Dr. Cox

So many choices, so many ideas. I have to write a full length obituary of a fictional character, the Professor of the course, or any faculty member who would be willing to answer some background info and etc. I'm thinking the fictional character wouold be the most fun. But which one. Ribbie is too obscure here, so it needs to be someone reasonably well known.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Feb 6, 2009 -> 08:28 PM) If you buy something from a charity, is it tax deductible? I bought a couple of the legacy bricks from the Sox. Can I write that off? Generally speaking the organization has to be a 501©3 charity for your purchase to be tax deductible. Not all not for profits are charities. Your deduction is the net between what you paid minus any goods or services you received in return for your donation. The example is if you bought a mountain bike at a charity auction, the deduction would be what you paid less the retail value of the bike. Often times, strictly speaking, very little is actually tax deductible. Even the rubber chicken or BBQ from the dinner would be deducted from your contribution. Most charities will send you a letter detailing what portion of your gift is deductible. On large gifts you would be required to obtain the fed tax id number of the charity. Welcome to my world. Would you also like to make a donation to the Rio Grande Council, Boy Scouts of America? I kicked off my annual Friends of Scouting campaign a couple weeks ago and am way behind last years numbers.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 6, 2009 -> 03:18 PM) Black calf-length control socks are mandatory at your age, I assume. B) What else would I wear with my favorite shorts? bastard

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 6, 2009 -> 04:14 PM) Obama is looking to bring in a "performance czar", and make government run more efficiently. Cut the fat. This is his initiative. Which is a good one. But see, if you are going to do that, you already are going to have some consternation among government employees. It is key, for that kind of effort, to not upset them any further. Do you really think they will be willing to help with the effort, when they see rules put against them that don't apply to higher ups? What they saw was years of lobbyists being employed with no checks or balances. Now there is at least a small check and some public record. On the dark side, they could be saying, damn. Obama's trying to take away my free lunch, hockey tickets, probably think he's Don Quixote tilting at windmills. At the best, they see it as a gesture in the right direction.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 6, 2009 -> 04:05 PM) He could've left himself more wiggle room than he did in the executive order, or at least laid out more specific guidelines for possible exceptions. Come to think of it, I haven't read the EO personally, maybe he did. People tend to deliberately miss things like that so it's entirely possible. he's writing waivers, maybe that is the "wiggle" room.

Chronological PF Flyers Converse All-Stars Adidas All-Stars Teva Dozers

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 6, 2009 -> 02:59 PM) Oh good god, are you really searching for an arguement today or what? lol. We flat out got lied to. He said lobbyists, "won't find a job in my White House," Now they can as long as they are "qualified". It was a BS soundbyte for the campaign trail that he never had any intent of following through on. It would be different if this hadn't have happened multiple times before. nope conversation. I agree 100% that this is not what the sound byte (bite?) was. I'll even say it was lying. But I like this better. I think of this more like you don't get everything you want when you become President. In this case, like others, I'm glad this President is not getting what he campaigned for. I trust Mr. Gates and if he wants this guy, I think it would have been a shame if there was not a mechanism to at least make it possible. So let's call Obama a liar about this. But which policy do you prefer? No lobbyist under an conditions Lobbyists by exception No restrictions I'll take the second. Especially if they are all on the public record. I like flexibility.

It seemed to me that the entire process happened way quicker than I ever imagined and with far less testimony or facts that what I would have expected. I get that Mark Fuhrman framed a guilty guy sort of feeling.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 6, 2009 -> 02:49 PM) Obama is the one who suggested that lobbyists were evil, not me. Ask him. I didn't see Obama posting the article. Makes me wonder why you posted it if you don't want to discuss it. I think it is a good policy, and appreciate that waivers are possible. It's better than what we had.