Texsox

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.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 8, 2008 -> 08:08 AM) If he gets to appoint any Supremes, he can certainly start down that road. Besides, he doesn't have to wait for that. BTAF has the power to institute regulation that don't need to go thru congress regarding firearms manufacturing and distribution, so a few well placed individuals there can find a way to curtail a majority of the 'scary' firearms thru regulation, resulting in a defacto ban on certain styles of guns without having to try and pass any laws. Exactly! Obama will make more changes, more seismic shifts in America than any other President in history. And unlike Bush with his faith based initiatives, unlike Clinton with health care, Obama alone has the power to make change. His stuff will happen. His stuff is inevitable. So just accept the change, we are powerless to fight. Everything in America will change.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 8, 2008 -> 07:53 AM) Apparently they are now removing the word 'require' from the website and using more friendly terms like 'encourage'. That's OK we can still make him look bad. All McCain supporters need to start yelling FLIP FLOPPER! FLIP FLOPPER! FLIP FLOPPER! FLIP FLOPPER! He can't stick to a plan for 2 days without bending to the wind! Must have been some negative poll data. I also heard we all better join the NRA because he's going to take away our guns his first week. Evidently he has eliminated Congress and the Courts as well.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 05:50 PM) So basically, this is a plan to make students required to do the same punishment handed down to criminals? Sounds good to me, Im done with school. Won't happen. People won't get off their butts. They expect the government to just hand them everything. You'll be able to stay in school and get them sweet government checks. And criminals generally do not help in classrooms, coach sports in youth leagues, and other avenues for service to their communities. Just ask Fraternity members who do community service as part of their commitment to their frat. But, hey if it makes you feel like a criminal, just sit there and laugh at the do gooders and enjoy that handout.

QUOTE (GarlandFan20 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 05:32 PM) I believe that's a Threadless.com shirt. I love Threadless, they have a lot of creative/witty designs. http://www.typetees.com/product/921/Video_...two_extra_lives That one is better. This one was plain text on a white Y. Now put it on a guy who probably never had a date and realizes he may never have a date.

QUOTE (GarlandFan20 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 05:32 PM) I believe that's a Threadless.com shirt. I love Threadless, they have a lot of creative/witty designs. http://www.typetees.com/product/921/Video_...two_extra_lives That one is better. This one was plain text on a white Y. Now put it on a guy who probably never had a date and realizes he may never have a date.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 06:56 PM) But the issue is, Lieberman got ALL of those things from the Dems in 06, despite losing in the Dem primary. Only a handful of Dems avoided endorsing him, he got plenty of fundraising help including other people from the party making appearances for him, he still wound up with his (useless, Bush-covering) committee chair, and so on. I was thinking a true (I) coming from out of no where.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 05:26 PM) We're going to disagree. You want to take away someone's tax break because you don't agree with them. Well I don't always agree with the ACLU, AARP, NRA, Sierra Club, but they all get involved in trying to promote the changes they want to see. Taking away their tax exempt status is a nice way to raise taxes on people who get involved in our communities, and that is just wrong. It's the old, I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. I don't know why around here you have to be a f***ing athiest to get involved in government. These are Americans also. Deal with it. We all have our agendas, we all want change, and this is just part of the process. What you are suggesting is if someone dares take on the government the government is going to punish them by taking away their tax status. So if the Sierra CLub dares try to stop development in a National Forest, take away their tax exempt status. If the AARP takes on teh government over Social Security or Meicare, take away their tax exempt status. Sorry, that is wrong and I'm shocked you would evenb suggest it. I typed this as I was rushing out the door. I just reread it and come off as a jerk. Sorry Rex for the tone of my post.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 03:54 PM) It's easy to be an I. It's hard to be an opportunist when all your bets don't pay off. He's a schill for whoever will possibly get him his next advantage. Lose an election? Refile as an independent. But then cut a deal with his caucus so he doesn't lose seniority and still wins the election. He embraces nothing but what's good for him. And what's good for him is the back bench in the Senate. It's hard to get elected, it's hard to introduce any legislation, you have to decide to caucus with one of the other. No national committee to help. No fund raising doors opening up for you because of the D or R. No extra campaign help with out the D or R. It's called a two party system for a reason. I can't see how it is easier.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 04:51 PM) Given how hard the LDS got involved with this campaign, they should lose their nonprofit church status. We're going to disagree. You want to take away someone's tax break because you don't agree with them. Well I don't always agree with the ACLU, AARP, NRA, Sierra Club, but they all get involved in trying to promote the changes they want to see. Taking away their tax exempt status is a nice way to raise taxes on people who get involved in our communities, and that is just wrong. It's the old, I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. I don't know why around here you have to be a f***ing athiest to get involved in government. These are Americans also. Deal with it. We all have our agendas, we all want change, and this is just part of the process. What you are suggesting is if someone dares take on the government the government is going to punish them by taking away their tax status. So if the Sierra CLub dares try to stop development in a National Forest, take away their tax exempt status. If the AARP takes on teh government over Social Security or Meicare, take away their tax exempt status. Sorry, that is wrong and I'm shocked you would evenb suggest it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 02:49 PM) Last week (I don't recall this), I had told my mother that I REALLY wanted this t-shirt I saw. At the time, I was in a phase where I was really into military stuff, and I just thought this was the coolest shirt ever. It was worn by a woman with... large breasts. Wondering how these are connected? The shirt had two tanks on it, guns a blazin', one on each boob, and said "Tanks for the Mammaries". I had no idea. But my mother still laughs about it to this day. fixed kudos for using three different euphemisms for hooters. Shall we start a list

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 02:26 PM) Alaska hot springs here I come. You haven't ahem "customized" the cut out, have you?