Texsox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 11:34 AM) My philosophy is to drop the incentives. Then there would be no need for civil unions or marriages in a government, legal context. Only a religious context. That would be workable.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 10:47 AM) I think Hancock and Co. specifically chose not to think of things like this. It is my opinion, from my readings of the federalist papers and the Constitution, etc., that the intention was to steer clear of regulating personal relationships. things like this? I believe you are correct. Further, I doubt that this specific issue was even a thought then.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 10:42 AM) Exactly. There is an incentive to marriage. That is the problem. Bingo. So the question becomes to be either drop all government sanctioned incentives, or open them up to everyone? IMHO opening them up to everyone is the right thing to do.

It seems the New Deal has been mentioned in a few threads and I thought it would be interesting to hear everyone's take on if it was good or bad. positive or negative.

Is this a moving company that offers short term storage or a self storage facility? It seems it is a moving company that is offering the short term storage with the expectation they would be doing the long distance move. I'm basinig this on the fact that some items were mixed together and the not taking a debit card.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 10:23 AM) It provides those things because the government again is trying to legislate good behavior. This mess is the result of that type of thinking. It provides tax benefits, and other legal protections which I thought was the debate, not who can hear "Here Comes The Bride" from the church organist. The 'mess' is because 200+ years ago they could not comprehend we would face this question. Blame Hancock and Co. for not thinking of this. And there will be other such 'messes' along the way, and I doubt we could foresee them now.

QUOTE (mreye @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 09:32 AM) Sounds like craziness to me. But then again so does any kids birthday party. Why did I have to have so many? It sounds like fun because we're guys and would be relegated to the back of the room with the other dads and really have nothing to do but whip out the debit card.

QUOTE (mreye @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 09:40 AM) I may be wrong here, but I would let him pick up the stuff that isn't yours immediately (It's not yours afterall - why inconvenience another innocent party) and then sue him in small claims court for the $250 and your missing items. I think the goodwill will gain you points in the court's eyes. Not wrong. You are correct. QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 10:23 AM) When you rented the storage unit you signed a contract. You need to read that very carefully and see what you signed before you make any decisions. That could tell you everything including venue for any disputes. For example, I had a dispute a long time ago with a well known auto repair chain. The contract I signed stated any conflict resolution would occur in their home state of New York. That really sucked. At the time I was too inexperienced to realize I could have sued in Illinois anyways and forced the court to decide if that was a reasonable clause because the entire transaction was completed in Illinois.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 09:08 AM) I disagree 100%. One is a result of church traditions, the other is a legal binding contract. Big difference IMO. Allow me then to rephrase. That church tradition provides the same legal rights and benefits of the legal tradition. What our country has done, in effect, is to "deputize" clergy to perform the same exact role that a judge performs in securing the existing "contracts". Unless you are suggesting that there be different legal benefits and rights between a marriage and a civil union, the end result is the same. All we would be doing is slapping a different label on it based on who presides. In the end a judge will perform a civil union and some clergy will perform a marriage and both couples/groups walk away with the same rights and benefits of each other. That is why I say they are the same. The debate isn't about who gets the Church ceremony and who gets to appear before a judge, its about the rights and benefits and those should be the same. All we are doing to preserving a label for a religious ceremony and trying an end around some of the objections. But the objections are to the rights and benefits IMO, not about the label.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 09:03 AM) Well, that venue can hold the chaos And I doubt anyone here needs a map to get there

Have we forgotten about spending? We just give them a pass on doing anything about spending. We don't care how much you spend as long as it doesn't come out of our pockets. Borrow some money somewhere and give it to us.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 08:41 AM) LOL, an open soxtalk invitation would be disastrous for any event. The team has 81 such parties every summer. Some years even more

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 08:39 AM) I used two here because, as I understand it, the Proposition eight proposal is dealing the marriage of two people. I thought it would be prudent to stay on subject. Stay on subject? When has that ever happened? I understand. Then you may wish to ignore most of what I just added. I was rambling.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 08:10 AM) This is exactly what happens when the government gets in the business of legislating morals of any kind. My point of view is that marriage should not be left up to government. They have offered all of these economic incentives to do things right (sound familiar in any other areas?) when it comes to family and marriage. Marriages should be a church institution, period. The government needs to worry about contract law. If two people want to enter into a partnership, the government has no business in stopping them. If two gay people want to spend their lives together, let them. If two straight people want to spend their lives together, let them. The thing that bothers me about the modern practice of Christianity, is that one of the big things in there is that we are not to judge. Even if I believe gay marriage is wrong, it is not up to me to pass judgement on those who practice it. The bible teaches that with as much wrong as I do, I have no room to talk, lest those same people pass judgement on my sins. If we were actually looking at true separation of church and state, marriage would not be a government sanctioned institution. Again these are the unintended consequeces of government interference in our lives. Why just two? Three or more people can own a business together and enter into other legal contracts. While I certainly agree with your conclusion, the Christian argument is slightly off. Of course we are allowed to judge. We are allowed to lock people up for violating various laws. The best comparison I can come up with here is trespassing laws. Obviously when the earth was created, lines were not drawn and the real estate divided up. I don't think God intended NSS to have those 10 acres in New Mexico for his use only. We created that rule and our society accepts that and we pass judgement on those that dare to break that rule and trespass. I don't see it in conflict with Christian teachings. I also believe this debate gets bogged down too much in semantically sleight of hand. Marriage - the legal union of two people which enables them to receive certain rights and benefits. Civil Union - the legal union of two people which enables them to receive certain rights and benefits. The end result is the same. Most people are not fooled by that. The government has authorized certain individuals to judge that these two people as having entered a pairing. They authorized Judges and Clergy for example. In the laws eyes, they are the same already. Your benefits and legal rights do not change no matter who officiates. So I think if we try and fool the American public, it will make it harder to do, what I believe, is the right thing. The goal is to give any two people the same rights and benefits of a pairing that any two other people get. Sex should be taken out of the equation. We should not care if a couple has or does not have sex within this legal contract. Sex should not be a factor at all. This should also allow brothers and sisters to share those rights and benefits, etc. And seriously, why should anyone care if a brother and sister are having sex? It doesn't affect anyone but themselves.

QUOTE (Steff @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 09:48 PM) Doing it at the Children's Museum. Her birthday is next month so I'll let you know how it goes after it goes. :-) It sounds like fun.

I guess I wasn't quite clear enough. These are NOT MY VIEWS, I was just trying to explain why some people care about things that will not affect themselves directly. So if someone would like to challenge the exact view find someone with those views and challenge them. If after 6 years of posting here anyone thinks I would not support gay marriage then they can't comprehend very well. How about this example, I donate to a charity that helps abandoned kids in Oakland because I believe it will make Oakland a better place to live. I don't live there, do not really plan on living there, if it is a better or worse place, it will not affect me. But I do because I think if we make Oakland better we make California better. We make California better we make the US better. We make the US better, and we make the planet better.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 10:15 PM) So, did you just compare tolerating homosexuals to tolerating the mass murder of Jews? I thought I was quite clear that I was only trying to explain why SOME PEOPLE believe they should be involved in something that does not affect them. The Sodom and Gomorrah elements make, FOR SOME, the same annihilation threat real. A society that allows such sin to be accepted casts their lot like the inhabitants of Sodom.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 03:58 PM) Why should they care about what happens in California? This is a big issue to me because I just have no idea how people can be so close minded to something that has zero affect on their own lives. It really upsets me how people can be so adamantly against something that would make another person happy, while changing nothing in anyones lives. The theory goes, you cannot live, for example, in a brothel, without being affected. Desensitization is a well studied part of the human experience and if we keep surrounding ourselves with immoral acts we all become immoral. Good decent people, for example, supported the Nazis because the Nazis were woven into the fabric of the society. We accept sixteen year-olds pregnant and then we have more sixteen year-old pregnancies.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 09:16 PM) Um, no, he has more money then God and wants to wipe the map so he can claim (add REVERB - VICTORRRRYYYYYY) EVERYWHERE! And a "TRUE MANDATE OF CHANGE"... unlike the doofus ass we have for a president now said 4 years ago. He will even offer a colorful county by county map to prove a 1% victory was actually a landslide You gotta love 'em. It's a crappy process and pretty damn sleazy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 07:57 PM) I think that we are close to the same page now. To be clear I do not like to see deficit spending in times of good economic conditions. I believe we have seen that they contribute to bubbles. Prudently drawing down spending levels to tax revenue levels is what I would like to see. But during times of recession, war, or other national problems, the governments role after the New Deal has been to be the spender of last resort, for lack of a better expression. Taking that role away would lead to larger and more frequent recessions/depressions. I understand that role, but the emergencies now seem to be more based on approval ratings and election cycles. And actually we can't deficit spend in the good times, we need that surplus to pay off the last rounds of loans. As I have summarized before, I'll live with tax and spend or don't tax and don't spend, we can survive either of those, but the don't tax and spend will leave us in the same shape the Soviet Union found themselves a couple decades back.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 06:14 PM) If Nix is in the White Sox plans, KW is crazier than Ozzie. All your scouting reports are from 2004. That's 5 seasons ago. He hasn't been a Rockies top 10 prospect for 3 years. He's a guy who has some ability and an outside chance to be a bench player. I wouldn't read anything more into this than that. Amazing how much excitement another all or nothing hitter who hasn't proven squat gets around here. He's a strikeout machine. what he said

I'm really trying to get excited but I keep yawning.

Steff, what birthday party did you decide on and how did it go?

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:50 PM) Hell, that is a bargain. If I send you a jug can you get it filled for me? I owe him, I know.

SS, I was thinking about your points and tell me if this makes sense. Currently there is a 500B deficit. I understand that cutting the spending now to cover that deficit would be bad, and raising taxes would also have a negative effect. So we have to hope the economy recovers before we go bankrupt. So when we do experience better times, we start cutting or holding spending the same to where when we go through the next rough patch, we drop back to a balanced budget. It seems we can actually live within our means. So down the road when revenues are projected at X we can spend X and not X+Y. It seems that the government needs to continue to spend at their levels, not that they need to run a deficit.