Texsox

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 09:07 AM) Supposedly, when Alomar spit in the umpire's face it was in response to the umpire making a comment about his sexuality. There have been rumors about Robby for years. Whether all this is true, I don't know. If he does have the disease, I pray for him. Just from reading the articles, it seems that if he knew he had the disease, she did as well. She seemed to have all his medical visits and info. Probably a money grab. The question will be what did he know, and when did he know it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 09:19 AM) And those processes are 100% related to each other. How something is manufactured can have a direct bearing on how safe it is. etc. What something is grown in, can affect how it should be labeled. Correct. Read both websites. So you have a government agency (FDA) that already is testing new drugs to see if they are safe or not. Do you want the USDA to open a lab to perform similar tests on food items? Or do you want to combine all that testing in one agency? It's almost like outsourcing. Then do you want the USDA to begin testing cosmetics, blood supplies, x-ray machines, etc. or Do you want the FDA to begin visiting farms and packing sheds and advocating for farms? Combine all this into one mega agency sounds daunting and a recipe for a nightmare. Industry has gone small and faster, not larger and cumbersome. I think the government should follow that lead. Plus the industry doesn't want it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 09:15 AM) What about companies who fall under both? Personally, I believe all consumer protections should go under one agency. Manufacturers already interface with multiple government agencies. We would have to combine OSHA, FDA, USDA, IRS, Customs, Fire, perhaps INS, etc. As long as there are not conflicting regulations, it may not be a problem. Again, all this is conjuncture to try to understand why the agribusiness industry does not want a merger. I agree, where there is overlap, it should be eliminated. However, after poking around both websites, it was unclear to me where the overlap might be.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 08:50 AM) I think you're right, but why should it be that way? We would have to see the product delineation to determine that. One area I remember reading about are food supplements. Are the simply foods or are they drugs? The FDA seems to be more involved in food as it related to health issues. Food safety, supplements, nutrition, labeling, testing, etc. The USDA seems to be more involved in the growing, manufacturing, distribution, etc.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 08:58 AM) Exactly. You want the same philosophy to move through the whole system, that way no matter your product you know what to expect. Otherwise you lead to confusion and contradictive rules. But if your company is either controlled by the FDA or USDA, why would there be any confusion or contradictory rules? It would seem that if the industry is against the merger, they are not suffering from those problems. They also probably see a future of "we did it that way when the FDA was inspecting, why are you now asking us for something different". And what do we do with the inspectors? Hire new ones, move the existing ones to the new agency, who pays for relocation, etc. etc.

Happpy Birthdday Shipps!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 08:09 AM) 100% agree. The biggest problem with our federal government is none of the agencies is set up to cooperate with the others that are related. Their budgets are separate, as are their workloads. Its actually a disincentive to work together, because they are more worried about their budget numbers, than their productivity. In that regard they work like most private sector companies, more as competitors than partners. What I have a concern about is the cost of that communication.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 08:39 AM) But what about them both regulating different portions of our food industry? Shouldn't that fall under one agency? I believe it is by product. So they may not overlap. Kind of like, you take beef, I'll take carrots.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Feb 11, 2009 -> 08:29 AM) USDA and FDA are two very different things. Now if you want to combine them only to eliminate duplicity, fine. B ut FDA does many different things then USDA, which is why my initial reaction. I'm kind of leaning towards Kap on this one. I feel drugs and food should be in two different agencies. Perhaps a better alignment of the two would be a plus. What caught my eye is the industry opposes it. Generally, I support the industry's position. I wonder why they do not want one agency.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 06:38 PM) Yet another example how the "war" on drugs is a complete waste of cash. How does this sheriff have the luxury to not be investigating unsolved crimes or other offenses that involved innocent people getting hurt? When you are plastered all over the world as having committed a crime, doesn't it seem wrong to ignore it? And how f***ing stupid to try and sell the bong on eBay? The Sheriff is in a no win circumstance. Ignore it on the front page, and how would they ever arrest anyone for drugs again?

It's Happy Hour. Go home.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 02:47 PM) LINK You gotta love The Onion.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 03:59 PM) LOL Yes, I meant lambic, not limbic. Slip of the keyboard. the text to speech program i am playing with sounded like limp dick

QUOTE (DABearSoX @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 03:44 PM) That is not a bad idea - it would depend on the ingrediants that are used in those things - when brewing I tend to think less is more b/c strange chemicals/additives can lead to off flavors in the final product I was wondering at what stage would be optimal to introduce the flavoring. Also, those things are sweet, it may be tough to control the sweetness. I do know it takes fewer grapes to flavor a jelly than strawberry. Which is why grape jelly or lam is so damn cheap. I'd be looking at grape flavor even though I think strawberry would make a better beer.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 03:47 PM) These arguments are all over the place. $32 million in damages is what the Plaintiff alleged. That does not mean the court will award them the money, it doesnt even mean if it goes to trial they will win. Ive had a case where the Plaintiff was suing for a $1,500 security deposit. The attorney claimed $25,000 for lost economic opportunity and a bunch of other nonsense. Some attorneys will allege a crazy amount of damages so that if they negotiate for settlement they can use the $32 mil as a number to come down from. So in cases where the numbers are hard to figure out (emotional stress etc) many attorneys will just put down a huge number knowing that theyll never get close. The bottom line is that if the govt wanted to allow this behavior they could write a law to make it illegal. As of now, it does not appear to be legal. Thats the great part about our system, you can change the law. So instead of complaining about "liberal judges", you should complain about the laws as they are written. And to add to that, people are added to the lawsuit that may only be associated. The target in this suit seems to be the Sheriff, not the land owner. But since he was the aggressor, he is brought into it. Certainly most of y'all agree the Sheriff should not stand by while this guy threatens people and kicks them? Or do you?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 03:44 PM) While those soldiers may be in the wrong, that's not a case of "rancher vigilantism" and so it isn't really relevant to the topic we were discussing. Just trying to offer a glimpse of why some of the attitudes happen here on the border. Imagine if the military decides to deploy on your property without telling anyone. It is legal for a person to be on their land target shooting, or even aiming at some predators. The military shoots and kills your son. And of course no one went to trial for the kids murder. It's just some poor Mexican-American kid who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. We both know if this had been some white kid from middle America, all s*** would have come lose. Many Mexican-Americans do not trust the government or their agents. Remember the inaction of the Sheriff, that could be part of why the lawsuit is going on. It should be no surprise that landowners can also do pretty much whatever they want with any dark skinned person they come across. This guy has a pretty damn big spread. I still have not heard if it is fenced or not. If he's down on the river, he would not normally have a fence on the river, and stock he has would need access. They may have crossed without jumping any fences. But I have not gotten that confirmed.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Feb 7, 2009 -> 11:37 AM) I'm a united way guy, I do about 40-50 appeals a year for my local United Way.

Would the artificial flavoring that they use on Sno-Cones work? That has grape or strawberry as a syrup.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 12:09 PM) Let me know the first time that happens, and I'll be right there with you demanding he goes to jail for life. Otherwise, I'll continue to support a person's right to protect their property from criminals. http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2008/ballad/about.html How about the marines shooting a goat herder and then trying to cover it up.

here's the bottom line. This guy may be one of the good guys, he may not. But sit across from a few human beings and listen to their stories. The women are raped, the children are abused, and the men are beaten when some of these guys catch them. They believe, truthfully, that no one will care because they are here illegally. Most Americans, when hearing of abuses will shrug it off and say, we'll they are dangerous criminals and got what they deserve. So a woman was kicked, or a child was punched, or a guy was pushed to the ground. This is America and people should expect that. That's what we believe in. In many counties, the Sheriff watches and does nothing as this stuff happens. If he does anything, he'll lose the next election. Both sides have compelling stories. This land was part of Mexico. We waged war to take it from them. Then after the war, all Mexicans, even those that fought for the US, were basically screwed over. And that wasn't that long ago. In the Rio Grande Valley up until around 1930 a white man had never been found guilty of raping or murdering a Hispanic. The Texas Rangers were as likely to shoot a Mexican than save him. Sadly, for me at least, a lot of those attitudes exist today. You see it as a brave ranch owner preserving his property. Just as likely, he's hoping for a confrontation and a chance to hassle some "wet backs". If they have money he may accept that as payment. If the women look "hot" he may accept that. Sometimes calling the Border Patrol is the nicest thing he will do. If his story is correct, I suspect he may be somewhere in the middle. To his credit, he did add faucets so people would not break his pumps. Also likely, because I've spent enough time on a working cattle ranch, are live stock busting up pumps and such. He's quoting 10" of trash. Think about that number. Illegals are not staying in one place long enough to generate that much trash. They would have had to carry all that stuff. More often than not, they are carrying a couple one gallon plastic milk jugs for water, and a little food in their pockets. To generate that much trash takes vehicles. I know a couple ranches down here that are hiker friendly. They have many people hiking across their property. I image some may be illegal, I don't ask. But there is no where near that much trash. In fact, most illegals learn to bury/hide their trash to avoid detection. I see far more garbage from teenagers having parties away from the eyes of mom and dad. And while the focus is on the homeowner getting sued, the list is actually longer. From what I just heard, it is the Sheriff that is the true target. What hopefully will come of this is some guidelines as to what behavior is acceptable, and what is not.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 02:29 PM) Strawberry jelly, crunchy peanut butter (the real/organic kind with the oil), on sourdough. You lost me with the sourdough. I love sourdough but it just doesn't sound good for PB&J. But since you say it's good, I may try it sometimes. I have some safe PB, it's a few years old, I think I will use that. Oh, and crunchy for 80% of my sandwiches. Smooth for a change of pace. Like when I'm packing for illegals

You guys win. I'm just a stupid guy living on the border and reading and seeing this stuff daily.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 01:51 PM) Allegedly. Think they might be enticed to exaggerate or lie in order to win $32M? You're relying on the words of the illegals over the rancher because ? Because I live down here. Because I have met hundreds of illegals. Because I have friends that originally came to this country illegally. Because I have seen the vigilantes. Because a Judge allowed the case to go forward. And you based who you believe on???? You say a property owner has a right to protect his property. So why can't I kick someone and hold a gun on them while the sheriff watches? I can't believe anyone actually thinks cops should stand by while someone kicks another person and holds a gun to them. Wow.

Wow, I pay $550 a 1/2 mile from campus. And I finally gave in a turned on the air conditioning today. It was almost 80 inside the house.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 12:09 PM) That doesn't matter and you're trying to argue from an emotional stance here. It doesn't matter what they were doing. They were on his property illegally. He has had his home broken into and his property littered by people there illegally before. They have no more right to be there than the drug runners. Let me know the first time that happens, and I'll be right there with you demanding he goes to jail for life. Otherwise, I'll continue to support a person's right to protect their property from criminals. How far is he entitled to go? The Sheriff was there and allowed the man to kick a woman and continue to hold a rifle on them. I've had my home in Wildwood broken into, so f*** the next kid that hops my back fence to get their ball. I'm going to kick the mom and hold a gun on them while the cops watch, and of course y'all will defend me You don't get to make up your own laws on your property. This person trespassed, so I'm going to kick some ass for a while. But hey, you guys are experts. I just live on the border.