Texsox

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 07:16 PM) I always forget which is which. McCain has sponsored a lot of great initiatives, but this wasn't one of them.

Close, it was the 2002 BiPartisan Campaign Reform Act.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 10:05 AM) why didn't anybody tell me Puddle of Mudd concerts suck? I left like an hour into it and just went to the bar to get hammered. Now I have a headache. QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 10:28 AM) The fact that the band came to the Dakota's should have been the first hint that they blow. QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:34 PM) Gage with a rare moment of hilarity. I been waiting three years for Gage to say something close to POTM worthy . . .

Yawn. The twins just grabbed a bite of our ass. I'll worry about the Tigers, if, they get close.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:53 PM) You know what I find interesting about this discussion? For years, hell for as long as I can remember, people have been basically mourning how apathetic voters were in this country. We had barely 50% of the country showing up to vote. People felt like their votes don't make a difference. People were turned off by negative campaigning and stayed home. So many other democracies were working so much better than us. Country x has an 85% voter turnout rate, country y has a 90% voter turnout rate, we practically developed democracy and we can't even get people to turn out. On and on, op-ed piece, editorial, whatever. Now, one side puts out a candidate that people are genuinely excited about. There's a flood of new voter registrations. The supposedly apathetic young people are working in record numbers and at least in the primaries were turning out in record numbers. There's an air of excitement around this election that I haven't seen in my lifetime. People genuinely want to talk politics, people who debated in October of 2003 never bothering to vote again are actually excited about maybe having a chance in the next 4 years to fix some of these messes the last disaster has made. And after all those statements about how bad it was for this country to barely get people coming to the polls, when we finally get a measure of excitement, especially amongst the younger folks (Hiya!), we're told how scary it is, how bad it's making our candidate look, how we should just calm down, how we're just embarrassing ourselves, how we're driving away voters because we're working too hard. Take your pick. Either enjoy the crap we've put up with in the White House for what, 20 years now, because good people found enough to hate about the process that they didn't turn out and vote, or enjoy having something a little better because people got back involved and tried to make a difference. Giving someone a pass because people are excited about the election isn't logical. There are standards that should still apply. People have been excited about candidate and against certain candidates every election since I've been around. The anti-Reagan crowds were as vocal as the pro-Reagan crowds. Clinton had his own electrifying effect during his first race. In fact, I think even more than Obama. Perhaps because I see similarities in both. Voters are telling you how to change their vote, how to win their support, and if a campaign does not want to listen, that will insure 20 more years. We do not want your vote because we're excited!!!!!! OBAMA ROX!!!!! You SUK!! There was an author on Colbert or Daily Show that proposed that today campaigns basically hold up a mirror to the voter and claim they are just like us. I think that is true. When the campaign, and I mean both the official and the "water cooler, internet message board" is portraying the candidate as being very unlike ourselves, the support dims. Obama will need support from groups other then the excitable kids. And btw, new voters have been excited in every Presidential race since I've been around. They think they invented sex, drugs, and rock n roll, along with candidates. remember Clinton appearing on MTV!! Woah! Boxers or Briefs? Inhale? Electrifying the youth.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:46 PM) It wouldn't surprise me if there were. But that's not a reason to throw out the data we currently have. Like any supposedly scientifically done study, if we threw out every bit of research because people had done things wrong in the past we'd never have gotten past Newton. Is this man funded by the "Marijuana industry" or did he clearly do something wrong? Beats me. He admits to being a user, so he has motivation to work on that side, but you can't just toss data aside without giving me some sort of reason. I agree. But any self reporting study is suspect. Plus, from other studies I've read, marijuana has changed over the past few decades. Whether from selected breeding or natural mutations. Without a consistent operational definition for marijuana, it will be tough to really understand the data.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:33 PM) By the way folks, it's really not that hard to google "Marijuana cancer link" and see what comes up. Clearly it's not a conclusive, double-blind study or anything along those lines, but if we're going to discuss whether or not smoking marijuana causes cancer, let's at least look at the data currently available, which says it doesn't. Seems like there have been other studies. IIRC weren't there a lot of studies that showed how wonderful tobacco was?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:28 PM) Common sense - how many marijuana smokers do you know who smoke 10+ joints per day for an extended period of time? Your average user isn't Snoop Dogg. Common sense tells me that there may be different substances between the two and they may have different rates of toxicity. How many cigarette smokers inhale and hold the smoke as much as pot smokers. I also do not know if a rolled filter cigarette is different then a pipe, or unfiltered. Also how many cigarette smokers burn their fingers trying to smoke the last bit of a cigarette?

I was puzzling over this, Basically there is no personal limit on how much a person could have insured. One could, in theory, have millions and millions covered, as long as it was in separate institutions, or different account types at the same bank. So why force people to spread the money around? Is there a difference in covering 10 people for $10,000,000 or 1000 people for $10,000,000 (same amount)?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:55 PM) If you got cancer from smoking marijuana that must mean you were fried to the point of being functionally retarded every day for like 15 years. really, how did you arrive at that amount?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:49 PM) Sorry but I honestly can't think of a more lame reason not to vote for someone. I did not say that was my reason. Much earlier, at the start of the primary season, I said that Obama v. McCain would be my ideal choice. I like much about both and could at least walk away from the result feeling good. Now 3,000 negative posts later, I've changed my opinion. If his greatest supporters can't find a reason to vote for him, how could I?

http://sendables.jibjab.com/ Not bad.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:18 PM) I don't have the ability to prove it. If I find the guy, I'll ask him to explain it to me again. Not finding a study that confirms or denies something is far different then actually finding a study. Basically all research is funded by someone. So try and imagine who would spend the millions of dollars the research would cost. If they used human subjects, they would need to find someone willing to commit an illegal act, repeatedly, over some time. Another problem with studying pot and cancer is there is no standard propduction. Impurities could be introduced by unregulated producers. Just testing for "pure" ingrediants probably would not be of much significance. So it could be pot does contribute to cancer, it just has never been studied.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:10 PM) You're basically saying Athomeboy matters as much as John McCain here and therefore they should be held to the same standards of behavior. Not at all. In fact all the negativity from a few Obama supporters has dropped the care factor to beyond zero. What was left of my hope for Obama has deteriorated into an active desire to see him lose. Imagine one of the most liberal posters here so turned off by Obama supporters I can't even feel a little happy if he wins. What I am saying is I find it hilarious that someone would post over and over nothing but negative posts about a candidate, even calling those around McCain his attack surrogates, all the while being an attack surrogate for the opponent. Something about the kettle and pot. If these negative ads are so bad, why do so many of Obama supporters personally use them? Do as I say, not as I do? With supporters like that, Obama doesn't need an opponent.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 02:05 PM) Well, you'd have to admit that the tar in your lungs wouldn't be good. But that's such a bs line of logic. Let's refuse people the right to use cars or to eat fast food. God knows how many trillions of dollars governments spend on those health care related costs (yet another reason why a government funded health care is a terrible idea). bs line of logic? We would be taking an illegal substance and legalizing it. You are describing legal things and then making them illegal. The bs logic would be since A is bad we should allow all bad things as well. Would legalizing cause usage to increase or decrease? I believe it would increase. So why would it be a bs line of reasoning to actually look at the risks and health costs before taking that step? It would seem that a prudent thing to do is analyze all factors before acting.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 01:56 PM) I define negative as spending a majority of your time pointing out how the other person is a bad guy have you looked at your last 3,000 posts

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 01:40 PM) Cindy McCain on the Today Show, May 8, 2008: "What you're going to see is a great debate. Which is what the American public deserves. None of this negative stuff, though. You won't see it come out of our side at all." And how should this make me want to vote for Obama? What in your bolded message should make me want to vote for Obama? Or is this an example of the negative campaign strategies you oppose? The most negative stuff I have seen this campaign are your posts

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 01:52 PM) To my knowledge there are no links between marijuana use and cancer. There was a guy on another board I go to that had access to databases of medical studies (not open membership unfortunately or I'd go dig it up) and he couldn't find any studies that said there was. I wonder who would fund such a study? To determine if an illegal substance also caused cancer? I'd have been more surprised if he found one.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 01:06 PM) Based on the record number of people who voted in the Dem primary I beg to differ. Based on the tighest primary race in my lifetime fueling voting late into the primary season, I stand by my statement. Negative ads would have been extint a few decades ago of they didn't work.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 10:52 AM) The Age issue went away after 9/11 when the US cracked down on the fake birth certificates and that sort of stuff. The young players just can't get away with that phony documentation anymore, at least not when it comes to them playing professionally within the states (minor league or major league level). If they are playing in the Venezuelan leagues there is the possibility that they aren't the age they indicate. Realistically the only players who could be of the wrong age are players who already were granted visas pre 9/11 (El Duque, Contreras, etc). While tougher, it still is not impossible. Plus, it is easy enough in Latin America countries, where mordida or "little bite" is a way of life, to bribe an official and have an altered birth certificate. Is it as bad as it was? No. It is way better. Would I accept absolutely their ages are correct? No.

QUOTE (DABearSoX @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 11:17 AM) THIS.SEASON.IS.OVER. GREAT! We won the division by .5 games and play Tampa Bay in the 1st Round!!

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 01:02 PM) You and I know that but the average American who doesn't pay much attention as we do will look at things like commercials and newspaper headlines. Most people don't spend several hours per week reading political blogs and what not. Which is why negative ads work so great. Fear is a far bigger motivator then hope.

Makes a lot of sense, but it has made sense for fifty years. And I was thinking the smoking bans around the country may make it easier to pass this. It would be unlikely to have pot smokers in bars, etc. since tobacco has been banned in so many places. Have they ever developed an instant roadside check so that the impaired driver issue could be better resolved? That to me is still a huge hurdle. We can nail drunk drivers pretty easy, we would need the same for pot smokers if this was to pass.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 12:37 PM) I don't know why he should be president. He's too busy complaining about his opponent to tell me why I should vote for him. Really? I was just looking at his web site and there was plenty of information there. Unless your mind is already made up.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 30, 2008 -> 12:49 PM) That money has to come from somewhere when a bank fails (taxpayers). Also, don't keep more than $100k in a single bank account. If you really want that much cash just sitting there, open up a second account. Which basically means the entire amount would be covered anyways. I did a little reseach, the anount was raised to $100,000 in 1980.