Texsox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 11:17 AM) That is what the vetting process is for. Agreed. But we have had these sorts of surprises for 20+ years. Are we seriously going to believe any administration can solve this? We have an entire process, including the hearings. I'm not going to blame any President or staff when the process turns up these sorts of issues. When these sort of issues are not discovered until the person takes office, then we can look at the process and begin to see where mistakes were made. So while some go flipping based on who the President is, I'm staying consistent. It's kind of nice

The entire vetting issue has gotten too out of hand. And just like I said for Bush's picks, I can say here, discovering this stuff is why we have confirmation hearings. The process is working as long as this stuff is discovered and dealt with.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 10:57 AM) I think a fairer question would be what does it say about the Obama/Biden group that they have repeated nominated people with major legal issues. There are only a few possibilities here which I can think of... 1. They didn't know, and the vetting process was a failure 2. They knew and didn't think the public would care, so they tried to fly them through 3. They knew and didn't think that even if there was a public notice of the problems, that the political capital of their win in November would be enough for their nominees to get in anyway. All three of these sound like things the Bush administration was ragged on for eight years. 4. The people nominated did not know of their personal issues. 5. The people nominated did not disclose all of their personal issues. Let's not let off these people scott free.

I imagine most people here have had some pretty straightforward tax returns. Perhaps my judgment is clouded by years of working overseas, being paid as an outside vendor, owning a business, etc. As I mentioned before, I have been audited, and have lost. It could be said I was evading taxes, but that gives a connotation that I believe is unfair. How many here are evading taxes by not claiming income from their eBay sales? How many have paid the neighborhood teenager to babysit? You pay her $10-$20 once a week and soon she has an income that should be declared. Did you file the necessary paperwork?

I've been audited and lost over deductions for income I earned while working in Mexico. I assume then that Biden might consider me unpatriotic, but I would not agree. I filed what my tax preparer thought was a proper return.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 10:22 AM) Tex, politicians should have the CLEANEST tax returns you can imagine, since you know it always comes back to bite them in the ass when they don't. Do you seriously give Rangel a pass for his failure to pay taxes? And this isnt the first tax problem for Daschel. I posed a serious question. if Biden claims that it is patriotic to pay our fair share of taxes, is he then calling Daschel, Rangel and the others unpatriotic? Or do they get a pass because of the D after their names? Are you seriously concerned about a comment that Biden made? OK, based on Biden's comment, Biden should consider them unpatriotic. I'm not certain how important Biden's opinion on patriotism is. But it seems that you are very concerned about Biden's definition. I'm wondering why

Really, you should ask an expert how to impress and charm your girlfriend, ask your wife!

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 07:45 PM) Third, always state the "no laughing during sex" rule* *FOTC Actually it is OK to laugh, just don't point! THAT'S a mood ruiner.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 09:24 AM) Cuckold, or cockloft (even better). Its up in the roof of a cathedral. I won't even try to Google it at work, but its a real word. The google search is NSFW. based on this definition Based on cockloft, it is sfw, from a firefighting jargon list . . .

I've defended every President when facts come out about cabinet picks that derail a nominee. I hold the person being nominated to a higher standard than the person doing the nominating. Sadly, party loyalists strive to make each of these an indictment on our President. It seems unfair to me to hold the person who is least involved in fact finding, to a higher standard than the person being nominated. Nannygate is a couple decades old, anyone being interviewed should be expected to know if they paid taxes on their domestic help.

I have given every politician a pass on most tax issues that arise from deductions, unusual income, etc. I've even given them passes in the household help. How many of us have used unlicensed day care provided by friends and paid cash, I know I have. It was the best quality program for an affordable price in the neighborhood. I would hazard a guess that most public officials have a higher rate of clean returns than the average taxpayer of the same income range. Can you "buy" patriotism? I guess so. And it is nice that Alpha is agreeing with a Dem, that may be the first time.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Jan 31, 2009 -> 02:59 PM) I think it's unfair to judge a GM by the number of winning seasons he has,I agree it is unfair. I also agree it's job #1 and the best way to judge the impact he is having. There are a few jobs where it is easy to evaluate how good of a job the person is doing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2009 -> 04:56 PM) Sarah Palin was the best Republican VP candidate in the last 10 years. Exactly my point. But I guess we should be use to the usual flow chart Republican screws up It gets reported Screams of media bias Nitpicking the messenger instead of the message.

A couple items are already over the appraisal. There are some cool items there. I love the signed books by the Nobel Prize recipients. Or the baseball.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 31, 2009 -> 04:14 PM) I thought the media went after Palin because she was unqualified to be Vice President, and as we found out later, didn't know simple things like the fact Africa is a continent. I think the media's rush to deify Obama was pretty laughable, but I don't think they necesarily ripped on McCain/Palin unfairly. Of course they did. That is the only way some people can explain any problems with the GOP.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jan 31, 2009 -> 12:28 PM) Cubano, if you want to see some of the media's bais against Palin, look at a bunch of the stories about her since the election, and see how many times they mention 'failed vice-presidential candidate' in reference to her. It is dwindling down now, but was pretty bad for a while. I don't recall ever seeing an article about the Goracle mentioning him as the 'failed presidential candidate'. While she may not have much of a chance in the coming years, there is something about her that scraes a large portion of the media and the rabid left, as they just can't let go of her. Now the obvious response to follow this post will be somethign to the effect of her starting a PAC and stuff, but regardless, there are those on the fringe that just can't let go. As you noted, they are dwindling for Palin, just like they did for Gore. Immediately after the election, Gore was tagged with the same line. It's a shame the GOP just can't break into the media business. Perhaps if they were more successful in business they could have the wealth to report the news.

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Jan 30, 2009 -> 03:10 AM) You might just have to be 'guy on the couch' somewhere for those few months. That's the best solution if he can find it. Step one, post a message on a board . . . hmmmm

"The fix was in" "Will you still cover me if I have something to say, or is this the last hurrah?" Thanks Gov. In Texas, when we have a s***ty Governor, we get him a new job in Washington . . .

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 09:35 PM) If the HOF were to create a rule that stated: If you do X, Y or Z you will be considered ineligible for the HOF, then I think it would be fine to disallow people based on that criteria. Here is what I could find of the rules: http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/rules.jsp When Bonds has retired for 5 years which of those criteria will he not meet? Btw, I believe Rose does not meet 5 as he is banned from baseball. Looks like my assumption was correct: Ok, he's eligible. Why would you want to enshrine a cheater? Is this an example of baseball's best? Should we show the kids that you can be honored if you cheat? Do you believe it is OK he cheated? He took a drug that his Doctors would not tell him what it was. You believe that is plausible He could not go to Walgreen's and have it filled, he never asked. You believe that is plausible He continued to take it for years, never asked what it was doing to him. You believe that is plausible He never insisted on knowing if it was legal or illegal. You believe that is plausible He grew much larger than he ever was, never asked if it was connected to the drugs. You believe that is plausible He just blindly kept taking the drugs and hitting homeruns. Denying until he was caught, that he took anything.

I'm not going to condone any steroid use, but I have an easier time understanding some kid in AA or AAA trying to make a living and hanging on to his dream one more year than a superstar, who was already having a HoF career, cheating to break records.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 09:24 PM) The records mean more than the HOF, until baseball removes them as the record holders the HOF is a joke without the all time hit leader and all time home run king. It would be like saying and in this corner I have all the greatest boxers in the world, except Ali, because Ali broke the law and went to jail so hes not allowed to be considered a good fighter. So I personally find it a joke that the people who MLB considers the legitimate record holders are not represented at a place that is supposed to be about the history of the sport. Are you saying that the HoF becomes a joke if they stop letting cheaters in? In this display we have Barry Bonds, he cheated his way to the highest hit count and home run count in baseball history. That sounds like a great Hall of Fame. Moral of the story, if you cheat and amass the greatest records, it is OK!

Are you seriously saying the HoF becomes a joke if they STOP letting cheaters in and clean up their act?

It does not seem plausible for a professional athlete to take a drug without knowing what it is. Especially if his Doctors were unwilling to tell him. Here take this, but don't ask me what it is. And it is crazy to think that if one cheater gets in to the HoF, that every cheater for the rest of history should be allowed in. It is not required anywhere to continue to make the same mistake forever. It is interesting, using the "he didn't know" theory, that he wasn't worried that the drug would hurt his performance. He just seemed unconcerned what it would do or how. He wasn't concerned about how it would affect his baseball career. He just took it because someone told him to take it. No second opinion. He just didn't care one way or the other. Yeah, that's plausible. And look it up. A one in a million chance is not plausible. Possible? yes. But not plausible.

So he never asked if the drug was legal or not? He just took it. He had no idea what he was using for years?? Which, at the minimum, proves he didn't care if he was cheating or not. I'm outta hear. You can't wake someone pretending to be asleep.

You said he was smart enough not to ask. Why wouldn't he ask if it was a legal drug?