Texsox

Joe Cocker Feelin' Alright Steve Winwood Back in the High Life* Bob Marley Don't Worry Be Happy Tom Petty I Won't Back Down The Who We Don't Get Fooled Again *which is what you may be drinking for a while Get fired up, make the next job better.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 08:49 AM) The video: The more I think about it, he's really not right here. Couples do not need the government to tell them they are in love, or to approve their love. They already know what is in their heart. It is, as Rex has pointed out, about the benefits and rights that we as a society offer the people who link up legally. A marriage or civil union certificate on the wall doesn't prove love. Men and Women that enter this agreement doi not have to be in love to receive the benefits. So while Obermann's essay is touching and poignant, it obscures the issue. This is about hospital visitations, filing jointly on a tax return, not being forced to testify against the other in a trial, automatic rights as a survivor, etc that other couples get. This is cold, hard, black and white, differences. that need to be made equal.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 9, 2008 -> 05:07 PM) Reports are showing the federal budget will be 1 trillion in the red next year. I know a lot of people do not see this as a concern, but these numbers are staggering and very dangerous. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3496c848-ae91-11...0077b07658.html It looks like we are going to take on even more spending; sort of a 'spend our way out of this' approach. Unless, of course Obama plans on cutting spending with his reforms (which is unlikely). 1 trillion deficit could actually be a conservative number, as it could go higher with big increases in spending. In other words, more of the same. We have to do it, or so the conservatives tell me.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 07:30 AM) I laugh because this s*** happens everywhere, all of the time. It's always someone else's money. The hubris to think that some staffer would not make a call is amazing.

Please play nice or get out of the sandbox. A couple people here owe a couple beers around here. Next time y'all see each other, pay up.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 08:59 PM) Bravo Keith Olbermann! So much better of an argument than hospital visits and such.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 08:30 PM) there was a link I followed that had information about the Tylenol murders. I had previously been unware that it occured around suburban Chicago. Just reading through the story made me never want to pick up an Extra Strength Tylenol again. I was just talking with someone about all the product anti-tampering packaging and remembering how you could just open anything. We all take it for granted now. I do wonder who did it and why.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 02:20 PM) Involving yourself as a political organization does not make you partisan. The Sierra Club is non-partisan. The ACLU (who I believe should also have their tax-exempt status revoked) is non-partisan. Prop 8 was about the rights and responsibilities of thousands of people in California. The LDS actively sought to remove those rights from Californians who were not involved with the LDS and did so to the extent that they violated the spirit if not the letter of their 501©3 status. I'm sorry that you can't understand why I might be a little upset about that. About your church, did your church endorse from the pulpit? Did your church encourage its entire congregation to specifically do "everything they can" to ensure its passage or defeat? Was it a coordinated effort that was part of your church's hierarchy? If so, then yes they should lose their tax exempt status. There are all sorts of avenues the LDS could have used to get to the same goals about this proposition. Instead they chose to do something different and violated their status. You would find it hard to support groups who are trying to harm you? How do you think any gay person feels right now about the LDS? As a tax payer, by allowing tax-exempt status to stand, I am supporting the LDS. And they're trying to harm people like me. I understand you are upset at what they did. Hell, I'm upset. I hoped that California would lead the nation. But just because I do not believe what is said, I still will defend their right to say it. In my Church, technically, it was during his homily, so he was generally behind the alter for part, roaming the stage for others. He'd mention it while playing hoops, he'd mention it when dropping into any Church function. He held up the petitions, he urged us to volunteer if our hearts agreed. I happen to believe that public health is a good thing. I believe that our goal should be jobs that pay a livable wage. I believe that districts made the most sense in McAllen, so I volunteered. So have the Catholic Church lose their exemption as well. We did not campaign for a candidate. We campaigned for the propositions that were on the ballot. We got involved. That is what our nation is about. For those people that did not want to pay a livable wage, for those people that did not want health clinics, we were wrong. OK, you had a group of individuals, all members of the LDS Church, against you. Go after them, which then is perceived as attacking other groups by proxy, and those groups rise to protect themselves. I believe once the gay community is seen as at war with Americans of faith, things will change.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 12:38 PM) I'm generally an advocate of turning the other cheek. But we aren't talking violence here. Sometimes I think the only way other people may possibly understand the effect of actions like this is if they were to suffer a similar loss of something. The LDS apparatus wants to deny a section of people the right to share heath insurance, lose hospital visitation rights, and a number of other rights and responsibilities intrinsic to the bulk of their congregation. The apparatus is willing to assume the mantle of a political organization to do so. They should have to follow the law that other political organizations follow. I'm sorry that you feel that religious organizations should be exempt from following tax laws, but the laws as they stand should be equally applied. I thought this was a non partisan issue. Prop 8 did not appear as a Dem or a Rep on the ballot. Obama won California so this was not supported by Dems? And the LDS position seems rather conservative, so the Reps did not also? Show me the partisanship? I am not a member of the LDS Church and have no idea why or why not the have their opinions. You believe it is over Health Insurance and other such issues, I suspect it is something else. But this is not about their beliefs. This is about an attack on Churches who place their beliefs in action. My local Church happens to support unions. Our Church staff are members of a union. I'm certain some conservatives would love to take away our exempt status. We campaign for a living wage, not just minimum wage. I'm certain some would fault us for that. We campaigned door to door for a sales tax increase to expand our community health clinics, some would take away our exemptions for that. We campaigned against the death penalty. Again, someone would want to take away our exemptions. We campaigned for single member districts instead of at-large for our city council, we wanted all of McAllen to be represented, not just the business and "rich" areas. Again, by your rational, we should have lost our exemptions. So this is a real issue for me, not some theoretical issue. I'm not some hypocrite that sits in Church and then does nothing. Words without deeds mean nothing. So if you think you have to harm me to get what you want, then that is your decision. But that places us squarely on different sides on that issue and that is sad. I would find it hard to support groups who are trying to harm me.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 11:56 AM) While I agree that Presidents get far too much blame/credit for the economy, the reality is that this administration has been an abject disaster on so many things that its hard to count. I guess I object the most to drawing Nixon into this, I think parallels to Carter or Bush the Greater would be better comparisons to Bush the Lesser.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 11:37 AM) Not sure where this goes, so, here goes... Bush's disapproval ratings are highest... ever. Higher than Nixon, post Watergate. Unfair, and the comparison is even worse. This is, IMHO, and opinion on the current state of the economy, and not really Bush. I'll repeat again, President receive too much credit and too much blame.

There are Inaugural Balls and Galas all over the place, which is where the tickets come in. Illinois will probably have a separate event, there will be many "official events" and many groups will cash in and use the inaugural as an excuse to raise a few dollars. from http://inaugural.senate.gov/2009/tickets.cfm

Teams like trading with the Cubs because they know it will not come back to bite them in the ass. They do not have to worry about someone they traded hoisting a WS trophy

Switching gears slightly, is the strategy of openly battling Churches and hurting their membership, going to help or hinder gay rights? When tens of millions of Christians feel their tax break is being threatened, will they cave in or fight back? I see pros and cons. I hope the Sundance Festival is harmed by Hollywood's actions, plus Redford is a putz anyways and it would be nice to see his baby destroyed because of a boycott by Gay Rights groups.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 09:50 AM) Church members are free to do as they please. The mechanism of the church itself is not. Of course.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 09:13 AM) Your tax status does not abridge your freedom of speech. But it is not equal with what non Church members receive. So it could be said that Prop 8 does not abridge your right to form a couple and live together forever, it only eliminates legal benefits. It seems to me that whether you make a donation for, or against, an issue, they both should be treated the same. And I thought Propositions were different than candidates.

You are correct Green Peace is not, and the Sierra Club us actually split in two, depending on how you ear mark your donation, it may, or may not, be deductible. Now was Prop 8 listed as a Dem or Rep issue on the ballot? I thought propositions were non partisan issues?

I am studying Forensic Psychology and when we were discussing him, I realized I was one of the few with first hand memories.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 08:17 AM) Agreed. Mad props to the sweet ride Tex calls the "Second Base Machine" yep, the Julio Cruz-er Of course I don't dare drive that in the winter, I have a p.o.s. for that

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 08:51 AM) What is that supposed to mean? Drunkbomber believes that only criminals do community service. He must have had some interesting coaches

This would all be so much easier of there was a clause in the Bill of Rights clearly stating that these rights do not apply if you join a Church.

My core belief in this is not whether I agree with their stance, I think most anyone who has read what I've written here knows I do not. But I will defend their right to do that. The "Church" is actually the people. Human, flesh and blood Americans. They have joined together and formed a Charity that is recognized by the US government. We do not seem to have a problem with the NRA, Sierra Club, Green Peace, ACLU, The Task Force, Amnesty International, and others doing the same thing. They all support a specific belief system. I see no difference in an NRA magazine, a Sierra Club protest, or a Church service. It's people getting together and trying to influence society. And there is no restrictions on what the podium looks like at a Green Peace meeting or a Church meeting, that is unnecessarily clouding the issue. Why should a Sierra Club member in Illinois care about what happens in Alaska and the ANWR? Why should an ACLU member in Iowa care about a housing discrimination case in New York? Why should an NRA member in Idaho care about a city in Mississippi banning certain ammunition? And why should a Church member in Utah care about California sanctioning something they believe is wrong? How many groups that took the opposite view should lose their tax exempt status? By taking away the tax exempt status from the Americans who donate to these groups, for disagreeing with the government, or getting involved, we are punishing people for being advocates. Not to get theological here, but each organized Christian religion interprets God's word a little differently. For some it is your thoughts that are the key to heaven. For others it is your words. For still others, it is your actions. For the people who who say, "I don't need to go to Church, I do not need to read the Bible, I am a good person, God sees the good things I do". Well then, you would be agreeing with Churches like the LDS Church, Jehovah Witness, who believe they have a call to action as their key to heaven. That it isn't enough to just say the words, they would be hypocrites if they did not put their beliefs to the test and act upon them. Similar to a Sierra Club member who simultaneously writes the checks, talks about the need to protect the envirnment, then tosses their trash out their Hummer while 4 wheel driving through some protected wetlands. I do not agree with many of the groups that have tax exempt status, but I just cannot advocate punishing people for exercising their rights. I certainly can't agree with punishing them for daring to disagree with me. Rex, Wouldn't that be the same sort of discrimination that we are fighting about?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 9, 2008 -> 08:26 AM) It's not hard to be an I. It's hard to be an I who wants the benefit of a being a D or an R without doing the things that come along with that. It's a circular argument, without those benefits, it's hard to be effective. To get those benefits, you just blindly do what party bosses tell you. Those "things" are partly what sucks in our two party system.

Sasha "Rosebud" she got named for a sled? I'd want southsider2k5 for my code name but some bastard already took it

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 8, 2008 -> 11:38 PM) Except he argued against having 60 Dems in the Senate all fall. He's no longer able to be trusted if I was in the caucus. Things like seniority and chairmanships are based, to a large extent on party loyalty and benefit for the party. If you cut a deal to stay in office with the people in your caucus after you lose your party's primary, you owe them. You owe them loyalty. You owe them, at the very least, saying nothing at all if you can't support your caucus' candidate. But to do what he's done is unforgivable in party politics. You are right. Which is why I came to the conclusion it is hard to be an I. He needed that party support to get elected and reelected. He needed party support to have any influence on committees and such. The candidate is always beholden to the party. Perhaps that is one thing we could improve in our government. Our elected leaders need to be loyal to their party before being loyal to the people and entities in their districts.