Texsox

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Nov 3, 2008 -> 03:02 AM) Point taken, but let's take a stroll into baseball's glorious past shall we...? Look through out all of society. Sports, entertainment, real estate, teachers, politicians, sales reps, accountants, assembly line workers. All sad.

Anyone have a crack repaired in their windshield? My insurance company repairs chips at no cost to me so I had it done. Now I'm not certain if they did a good or horsefeather job. I can still see some of the line, but the chip is gone. Since it didn't cost me anything, they even came to my house and did it, I'm not going to complain. So now my sweet Pacer is looking new again. Cuz, man they don't make them like this anymore.

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 02:24 PM) I'd say Hillary and Palin's nominations blow that theory to s***. Didn't you sell all the 'Palin in 2012' signs? Sure they didn't make it to the presidency, but do you see a homosexual even making the ticket? It won't happen for quite a while and that generation will look back on us and laugh. Kind of how we look back and think 'Can you believe there was a time when women and blacks were not allowed to vote??!!' People evolve, most just aren't there yet. Hey, we don't allow homosexuals to vote do we??!! This became so absurd I can't take it seriously.

It has to be hard to be an I

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 02:20 PM) Then you run into the problem of what community service is acceptable for the grants? As a Republican, I in no way, shape or form think that ACORN is a program worthy of government money, especially since they are such a biased organization for Democrats. However, I can see them as being listed as an appropriate program to satisfy the requirements. I know there is an organization out there similat to ACORN that supposedly works to register Republicans, and it would be wrong for them as well to be used for this. So when they are set up outside a store, how do they know who is a Dem and who is a Rep? I am wondering what is being indoctrinated here. Perhaps that in order to live in this country there is a price to pay in time, talent, and treasure. That you can't just take, take, take and it's not just me, me, me. That the government isn't just going to give you something without you putting a little of yourself into it. Yep, I can see why a conservative would be against that. They always do like that make the government give me stuff for doing nothing. I'm really surprised you are against this. I guess there is some liberal in you after all.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 02:17 PM) The slippery slope thing is the WHOLE point. What is to prevent this from becoming an all-encompassing program with citizens of all ages having to do 'service' work? Seems right now that there are a whole bunch of people in here that have no problem with the government telling them that their kids have to spend 100 hours or so doing something that they probably dont want to do. So, willing to give away your freedom for this? Where is your line that can't be crossed? Will you all feel that way when it evolves into adults having to do service work in order to get a tax refund? You don't HAVE to do the work, but if you want a refund, well, then you know what your 'choice' will be. And it is not far fetched to think it couldn't happen. Have you ever known a government program to STOP growing? Whoever administers this will find some way to expand their power and scope, and none of the possibilities are good. Wait, we work instead of paying taxes to have someone else do the work? Interesting proposal. You save the government $X and you get to keep some/all of it. Kind of like user fees in reverse. Make the people who take the most, pay the most. Those that take less, by contributing, pay less.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 02:10 PM) Whoa Tex. No where did I say or suggest that volunteering was bad. Perhaps you missed it in the very forst post that myself, wife and oldest son all volunteer. Forcing someone to volunteer is wrong. Making it a condition to graduate is wrong. It did seem out of character for you.

I am kind of sad to see Old Joe acting this way. I can't say he doesn't deserve the treatment he is receiving. But I find no joy in watching it happen. In a small way he represents someone like we've talked about here. A true centralist who embraces planks from both platforms.

I just saw this one today. On a rather large, looks like he lives in his parents basement and never had a date Video Games Ruined My Life Fortunately, I Have Two Extra Lives!

QUOTE (BearSox @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:32 AM) If a gay is ever elected as president of the united states, I'm moving. Fortunately there are a couple countries that share your attitude. Iraq for one. You will have to avoid all of North America, all of South America, and most of Europe. But with all the aid we'll be pumping into Iraq, it should be a very nice place to live. You may also consider Iran, they have no gays either. Enjoy

QUOTE (BearSox @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:07 AM) So, by your point of view, would it be okay for a brother and sister to have children, even though their kids would very much likely be deformed? The point is that this is about legal rights and benefits, not about sex. If the sole purpose is for those benefits it shouldn't matter who is linked with who. It isn't a license to have sex, it's just a legal contract for who your employer will be obligated to cover for insurance, who will not have to testify in a trail against the other, etc, etc. Equality in laws.Why should a brother and sister have to pay higher single tax rates than a man and a woman who the government recognizes as joined together? If anything, it will increase the coupled rates in this country. Why would anyone want to stay single? Link up with someone, then get divorced if you find someone you want to live with forever and all that. The dumped legal partner would then link with someone else. And hopefully, in an issue close to my heart, it should end the entire "are they really a couple" when it comes to immigration. The government stepping in and voiding marriages should be wrong. If someone wants to form a union and it results in someone gaining citizenship, so be it. Those inquisitions should end.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:51 AM) There is actually a really valid point in here, and it goes back to all of the college students who are saying that they are "too busy". Its a life choice. For people who have to have the money, it is a choice of going to college or not. At that point, you most likely make the life choice to give up something that you think is ultra-important right now, such as a social life, sport, club etc. Guess what, that prepares you well for the real world where you make those very same types of choices during your life. Look no further than having kids. I don't have to tell anyone on here about how much you sacrifice of yourself after you have kids. Its a good thing to have that life lesson earlier, rather than later in life.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:37 AM) I got you Tex, you're right, I just thought I was arguing against something else at first. I guessed that. But racism is such a charged topic that I wanted to clarify. The fact that it is so charged, is exactly why their could be this kind of effect. And we really do not know if A. People were accurate in their responses or B. Pollsters accurately factored in for a Bradley Effect. I'm am hoping that it is A and believe it probably is.

I just did a quick check of my records for two small counties in South Texas, we have over 4,000 adult volunteers. Based on job codes and the sizes of units, at least 2,500 to 3,000 give 100 or more hours per year. Many, many will give one full week, 24/7, with their units at a summer camp. That's at least 150 hours right there. Then add weekly meetings, another 100+ hours. One weekend campout per month, another 48 - 36 hours per month. So basically I know of close to a thousand parents who will give in excess of 500 hours per year.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 11:29 AM) I think all the focus here on students, which was most of that part listed, is being short-sighted. There was also these gems there. 1) Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, 2) Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55 So, even after you get out of school, it seems like he wants free labor for life. Anybody here in their 30's or 40's with 2 or 3 kids and a job have 50 - 100 extra hours to spare? Damn right, you see them coaching baseball, football, soccer, you see them volunteering in the school, at football games selling popcorn, at Scout meetings, all over the place. I guess they are idiots trying to better their community instead of sitting on their ass asking for someone else to do it. But don't worry, when your kids are in those programs, someone else will do it for you.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:53 AM) I probably did misunderstand because it kept getting repeated over and over and eventually I forgot what it actually meant. A better way to think of this, and perhaps it is a good example, you bump into Athomeboy in a dark alley and he asks you who you are voting for. Of course you would have said Obama, even if you were voting McCain. Not because you were a racist, but because it is what you believe the pollster is wanting to hear. I'm certain almost everyone has done this a time or two. A candidate knocks on your door during a Sox game. Damn right I'm voting for you, now get on down the road and reach those undedecided. I remember when Nielsen of the TV ratings was switching from pen and notebook reporting to computer based monitoring in homes. They mentioned that they adjusted their numbers when it was self reporting because X% of families will self report Disney and Masterpiece Theater when they were really watching WWF and Dukes of Hazard. They were excited about testing their hypothesis about how many were giving false information. I find polling fascinating. The science keeps getting better. The results more accurate.

When community service went from something important and the people who performed it were considered good and nice to something that celebrities were forced into for killing their spouses in California, our communities started to crumble. So go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend . . .

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 10:54 AM) PA actually brought this point up in another thread. He said that his grandmother and her sister would really benefit from having some sort of legal union between them. The truth is, I think we need to get away from this idea of government sanctioned "marriage" as we would think about religious "marriage." The government really has no right to say what legal aged consenting adults you may enter into a contract with. On the surface that sounds great. Actually we have given the government the right to determine what a contract is. Think about how contracts are enforced and by who in a modern society. The government determines what a legal age is. The determine what is and is not, an allowable contract. And also you are smacking up against the notion that current and future marriages must somehow be changed or altered to make room for a new style of "marriage" in America. ain't.gonna.happen.

If you are going to drop the coin flip Head to Head Division League Coin Flip The bias becomes if one team plays more home games against the other.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 09:48 AM) That's a point that I have long believed that a lot of people never considered. If the argument is that people should be able to marry who they want, why should they be limited to just one spouse? Or, as I have said before, why should sex, or the potential for sex, matter? If what we are talking about here are certain legal rights and benefits, shouldn't a brother and sister be able to enjoy those rights? Perhaps a parent and child? We are talking after all, two people who wish to enjoy the legal benefits and protections that a union allows. Why should anyone, especially the government, care who shares these benefits?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 08:13 AM) Tex, you're really twisting the logic into knots here and getting far, far away from what the original definition is. The Bradley Effect doesn't account for the opinions of the vast majority of non-racist McCain voters because it's assumed they are reporting their votes accurately to the pollsters. The theory suggests that people are secretly racist and lying about claiming they are voting for the black candidate when they know they won't, nothing more. When you add other factors into it then it just dies along with all the other statistical factors. In the states where it's believed race (where it would hurt Obama) was a factor, the polls were accurate. The theory is people will say they are voting for the black candidate because they believe it will make them seem more socially desirable to the pollster. They want the pollster to believe they are a "good person" and not swayed by race. A racist would not have that concern. The people that would have that concern are the people who are not racist but do not want anyone to think that they are. With all the talk about a vote for McCain is a vote for racism, some people would want to avoid that. A racist person would not believe that he would appear more socially desirable by voting for a black candidate. In fact, they would believe it would make them less socially desirable. Who would fear that criticism? A racist? Or a non racist person? Did you ever try to reason with a racist person? Do you think they really care if they are criticized? They do not believe they are wrong, and in fact, it is the other people who are wrong and just do not understand.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 08:38 AM) I'm I the only one that finds it a bit ironic that the Mormons, who have a long history of polygamy, have pumped in tens of millions of dollars into this Prop? Perhaps. The tenants of that religion are very much conservative family orientated. I can't think of a single LDS family I know who have been divorced. They spend a lot of time as a family and have some fairly strict rules in how families should operate. They offer a lot of programs for the family. polygamy is still between men and women. The irony would be that recognizing non traditional unions in this country would be a step towards polygamy. Why should the government care what consenting adults do in their own homes?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2008 -> 07:40 AM) OK, so, if the church in question did indeed funnel money for a political cause, doesn't that mean they should lose their tax-exempt status? Then also take it away from the NRA, AARP, Heart Association, Salvation Army, American Red Cross, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and especially the DNC and the RNC, and every other group of people who have tax-exempt status and try to influence voting through their members and through donations. Remember the tax exempt status is a benefit to the people (voters) who donate money to those groups. We donate to those groups because we presumably agree with their mission and want to see that mission realized. Pursuing those ideals through legislative and political avenues is part of the Democratic process and exactly what people expect when, for example, they donate to the NRA. Changes in laws is for some the greatest impact that a charity can achieve. What you are suggesting is taking away YOUR* tax break for donating to those charities. Then, in taking away their tax break when purchasing goods and services, they would not be able to do as much with YOUR donation, meaning YOU would need to donated more dollars to have the same affect. I'm not certain there would be much support for that. *Of course I use this generically.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 12:35 PM) The Bradley Effect is a significant variation in the final results from pre-election polls due to racism. If it is such a small number of people that it is negligible, it isn't the Bradley Effect any more. That's just statistical noise at that point. Not exactly. Taking this past election as an example. There are many non-racist conservative voters who voted McCain. The Bradley effect would claim that they would tell pollsters they are voting Obama because they believe they would look better in the pollster's eyes. Or they want to avoid being labeled as racist. The motivation is usually not racism. In fact, a racist person would be much less likely to admit to voting for Obama to anyone. Think in this election someone who is socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That would be the type of person that would give an inaccurate answer to the pollster. Not the racist person who would be very willing to have it known he isn't voting for a black person. Think about how some groups tried to paint all McCain voters as racist. We know that is not true, but why hassle with some pollster about it? The social desirability factor is well researched and accepted. This is just a variant on that. People lie to pollsters all the time, the best example is income.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 09:18 PM) You do get your masters before you PhD usually, but some programs don't include a masters--you just go straight for the PhD. I think one of my friends did that at Albany. I have had several friends leave my program after the masters; most of them don't regret it because they realize they didn't want the PhD, but most of them do wish they were able to find a job using their degree. My point is just to talk to people that have an MA in Clinical/Counseling around your area and see what type of availability/pay you're looking at. Thank you. The three options here at UTPA are Clinical, Experimental, and a brand new Behavioral Analysis Program just starting up this next fall. And I'm tied to here. I'm looking into thye Behavioral program, I honestly do not know anything about it besides the little I saw at the abainternational.org web site.