Texsox

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 06:34 PM) I've noticed that presidents don't usually go out of their way to criticize each other once they're done campaigning. I don't remember Clinton ever criticizing Reagan or either of the Bushes, Bush didn't openly criticize Clinton, and he stayed quiet while Obama pummeled him before the election. Obama's probably going to stay quiet a while now. All of this talk of blame is generated by blogs, editorials, and talk radio. It will not be by name, but more along the lines of, the economy was in the toilet when we took office, we had this and then that and the "previous administration" had done this, etc. It will take us more than a to fix this and see what we have done. So can he say a year from now that the problems are still from the mess that Dubya left and it is unfair to judge his actions. Can he say that 2 years from now? I'm guessing Dems will give him 3 years or so and the GOP about 5 1/2 minutes. Actually some GOPs, , haven't even given him time to get in office.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 01:22 PM) I'm just a political junkie that likes to talk to other smart people about politics. Who happens to love the Sox enough to sign up for a fan message board. I talk more politics here in a week than I do in four years of real life. I know I have learned a lot from many of the posters here, and at the minimum have an understanding of the other side.

I love great surprises. The University Program Board sponsored a Blues Night. I figured what the hell, for free and I could use a little walk across campus. Amazing vocalist. I was really impressed. They only did about 1/2 blues, the rest was some straight up R&R and some Michael Jackson. I can not remember a voice so powerful and clear in what amounts to a bar band. They did mostly covers, but their covers from Yellow Ledbetter to Miss You were pretty damn good. Nice outdoor area near our library. Just a fun evening. I'll probably catch their full show at one of out better clubs this week.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 04:38 PM) I left that four years ago. Funny story about how that ended. But that's for another thread and another time. IIRC that was a crappy time for you in Michigan. Wishing you Peace and prosperity,

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 04:20 PM) Please take that back. Done. That was lame. Replaced with Jimmy Buffet Changes in Latitude Changes in Attitude Jimmy Buffet Get Drunk and Screw

With communications and computers things happen so much quicker than 100 years ago when many of these traditions started. Today, FDR could not declare a "Banking Holiday" and hold a fireside chat. People would be on-line withdrawing money faster than the government could close the gates. Obama gives a speech and the Dow falls in real time to what he is saying. The Feds adjust the interest rate and banks are able to follow in minutes, not the weeks it took previously.

Hell, most of what he wrote was so obvious and stuff that was written here and elsewhere by fans. But it became b.s. when Jay said it.

I can't wait to pull this one out later. 6 months and then we start counting his contributions.

He's the one talking about condom-mints ain't my fault!

Of the groups I discuss politics with, this group is the most extreme. I've always blamed it on the medium. We rarely ever see each other face to face, it's fairly anonymous here. But I'm now wondering if it is because we are all fairly rabid sports fans as well. This McCain v. Obama and other issues sometimes take on something closer to Sox v. Cubs than something from Face the Nation. Either way, we do not reflect society as a whole.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 12:45 PM) And seemingly, one definition of that word "Somewhere" is "Texas" Exactly what I was thinking, that Kap is one weird dude.

As we continue to circle down the old drain . . . Neither side being honorable enough to walk their talk.

And Tom Jones You Can Leave Your Hat On Just because it is so damn hot.

Somewhere there is a guy thinking pouring this on his girlfriend would be hot, and really, really, weird, is somewhere there is a girlfriend thinking it would be fun.

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.