Texsox

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.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 03:25 PM) You didn't answer the question. You just asked more questions. which question? I am trying to learn here, Economics isn't my field, it is yours. I'm just trying to understand.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 03:15 PM) What programs would you cut today to elimitate a $500 billion deficit? That's why we will never have a balaned budget. So how long can we go borrowing money? What happens when no one will lend us any more money?And why wasn't a 500 billion deficit enough? Why did we have to add to the deficit with a stimulus check?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 03:08 PM) Except we wouldn't because we would be tax revenue running deficits, and would have to cut spending. So we could never size the government to the lowest revenue levels? When times are bad, is it how much the government spends, or does it have to be a deficit? Allow me to rephrase. Projected revenues for a given year are X You are saying that in good years the government spending should be X-Y and in down times X+Y producing a deficit. Correct? Why can't we stick with just spending X in tough times and spending X-Y in good times? It seems the amount the government is spending doesn't matter as long as it is a deficit.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 03:01 PM) Under your theory, those programs would be getting cut at the time they are needed most, because tax revenues go down during a recession. No, we would be balanced then, and a surplus when times are good and we cut back on spending.

You don't think the media is skipping out on Steven's coverage because he's a Rep to focus on a negative Obama story? How can that be? They are biased!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:50 PM) I agree, and I'll take my responsibility for my vote for Bush in 2000. Big mistake. I give anyone a pass in 2000, what I'm still trying to figure out is how he got a second term?!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:43 PM) I agree, and so do most people I know. Actually, I've seen a lot of people on here say something similar, especially those who've been through a number of elections. Then there's Kap. I really wish McCain had won the nomination in 2000 and was retiring and Obama taking over. McCain, and the country, got screwed in 2000 and we elected the guy who did the screwing.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:42 PM) I was drinking Planter's Punch last night but I have some Pimento Dram steeping and I think it's a Jamaica Punch night tonight. It was a sad moment when the gallon was empty. I figure I got a bargain. $20 plus a $10 tip. He is my favorite. He even tossed in the use of a couple glasses but no paper umbrellas.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 02:36 PM) That's great in theory, but terrible in reality. That was the type of policies that got us into the great depression and the scares and panics of the past. If we are going to have a government involved in day to day fiscal policy, their role is to spend when no one else will spend. They should not spend when things are going well. That is when they should be cutting spending down to a balanced budget. Its counterintuitive, but in application, it is the one way that cuts recessions short and prevents bubbles. So borrow money from China and give it to us? Does it matter what they spend it on? Because it would seem when times are bad, spending on social programs would benefit the people hardest hit. And why does it have to be debt?

I agree with y'all

QUOTE (Chet Lemon @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 09:30 AM) Indicted on 7 counts--and convicted on 7 counts QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 09:51 AM) I believe this means that he will not be able to vote for himself. From the Ted Stevens Thread in the 'Buster