Texsox

QUOTE (shipps @ Jun 1, 2008 -> 11:13 AM) I do that all the time with this guy.It is like embedded in my mind to call him Phil Collins. I keep trying but have No Reply At All

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 1, 2008 -> 10:21 AM) Obama would not have left if he weren't running for president, IMO, and that's what makes this a story. I would expect anyone running for President to make a lot of changes, and even more after being elected. I do not agree with 100% of what I hear in my Church. Staying is a luxury I have because no one would scrutinize every word of every sermon and try to hang that on me. I do not know of any couples where they agree 100% on everything, why should any other human relationship be different? At what point do you leave? If you have friends in the Church, you are involved with some of the programs, etc. and hear one thing you disagree with, do you run out the door? Two things? Ten? I don't know. It's like the frog and the hot water. You put a frog in hot water and he jumps out. Put the frog in warm water and gradually turn up the heat, and he stays. So Obama stays, then events in his life, needing for everything to "look" right and be explained in a 30 second sound byte, takes over and he leaves.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 1, 2008 -> 10:04 AM) Hang on too long? I thought he never heard any of the questionable sermons? Sounds more like he is ditching this as quick as possible according to Obama's recallection of things. I thought much of this was brought up over the past 4 months or so. Big events become mile stones in relationships. Think of the friendships that were torn apart with the Vietnam draft and protests. And we change. I had friends in college who were still into the partying scene ten years later. Basically we stopped calling each other, our interests had changed. People change Churches. When Fr. Jerry moved from Holy Spirit Parish down here, attendance dipped. But I'm not discounting the political realities of the situation. But that works two ways. Friends and associates of candidates suddenly have a wider audience then ever before. If they suddenly start making statements that the candidate doesn't agree with, the candidate should sever ties. I'm just pointing out this is a very human situation that most of us have faced in our lives. We change, friends change, and friendships are lost. Hell, couples divirce after twenty plus years.

Ozzie's job is to get the best out of every player. To do that, he better not have a double standard, he better have 25 different standards, one for each player. What might be great for Buerhle, could be a disaster foir Jenks.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ May 31, 2008 -> 03:50 PM) My team just lost is districts today, man its tough to go out, especially when you know that youre never playing for that team again and may not play baseball at a competitive level ever again. Bad day today. No American Legion league around? No fast pitch league?

QUOTE (shipps @ Jun 1, 2008 -> 10:29 AM) No matter what is voted in I bet Jim still sends you a list of his favorite beer. I'd rather he send me a case of his favorit beer . . .

This was a no win situation. As far as calling someone a friend for twenty years, we've all had friends who change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Saying good bye to an old friend is difficult, but sometimes it just has to happen. You want to give that friend every benefit of the doubt, and perhaps the error is to hang on too long. Seems like a very human response on his part. Of course what this really shows is why McCain would be a better President

This was so much fun this morning . . . "You have won a *FREE* portable stereo system!" "That is great, do you have my address?" "Yes we do and we wou . . . "GREAT! ship it to me!" Maybe someday I'll get on the do not call list, but I really love these guys.

There is no "perfect" or for that matter "good" solution that is 100% fair to everyone. The most important consideration, IMHO is to the individual voter in those states.

QUOTE (shipps @ May 31, 2008 -> 08:33 AM) But head to head voting might eliminate a hotter girl earlier than a girl who isnt as hot just because of the matchup. True, but she would not have won, regardless of when the match up occured. It would only effect the lower rankings.

QUOTE (shipps @ May 31, 2008 -> 08:14 AM) Ya your right.We should limit it to the hottest chix in the sports world.And that still might not be enough limitation. I'd just take the first twenty names that came to mind. Unlike the first two lists, this one is so temporary. We could do the list annually and it would change so much, but the other two would be more stable. I think that makes for a more interesting list. The Hot Chix works better as "match play" with head to head voting. These lists are fun because there are maybe 30-40 possibilities that most of us think of. Arranging them becomes the debate. Basically, Hottest Chix in a current TV Drama, where we are mostly debating the same women, would be more interesting then just any hot chix.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ May 23, 2008 -> 11:00 PM) Well cheating is generally pretty stupid and people who cheat are generally being stupid to do so. With that in mind, it should be no surprise that people cheat down the majority of the time, because the act itself is stupid, and thus the taste of the person doing it will often follow suit in that regard. They will cheat up or down based on availability, willingness, and a host of other factors. BTW, most women cheat because they are bored, men for acceptance and power.

If we do settle on a Hot Chix list, how about limiting the possibilities in some way. Perhaps pick either models, actors, musicians, athletes, era, TV, or etc. With a limitless pool, the winner may be on two lists and you could wind up with 100 names all with one vote.

Happy Birthday!! I do miss the old work days when you were banking.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 30, 2008 -> 09:27 PM) Or unions? Exactly, and when the government starts restricting speech about itself, we're in trouble. I assume they would allow positive messages and cheering.

Everyone here has the opportunity to edit or delete their own posts. You put it up, you can put it down. Seems like a friendly thing to do. No one here is earning a living off this, we aren't after Pulitzer prizes. When we get so full of ourselves we can't allow people to retract their posts, priorities are seriously out of order.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 30, 2008 -> 03:17 PM) Please, name some. When I contribute to a 527, or to a candidate, it is not a tax deductible contribution. When I give to the NRA, it's tax deductible, but that money is at some level required to be used for work other than political work. If you're going to be working for one side, then the money you raise can't be tax-deductible. The NRA directly donates to candidates. They publish voters guides to the candidates most gun friendly. Are you seriously advocating the government establishing what Churches can discuss in their buildings? How would you enforce it? Could Pastors send in sermons to a government agency for pre-approval so they do not run afoul of the new laws? Apathy is rampant in our society, why stop Americans from getting involved? And why stop at Churches? How about the Lions, Elk Club, Rotary Int'l, DAR, should they too be forbidden to discuss politics or have their tax exempt status revoked?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 30, 2008 -> 03:10 PM) No one's asking you to do any of those things. The whole reason this is a question is not because there's some logical reason why it's a bad thing for religious people to have an influence on politics, or because they shouldn't be able to talk about some things...it's because of the gigantic tax advantages given to religious institutions. If you want to be a tax advantaged charity, then at some level, you do need to be below the fray. Otherewise, you're in the classic situation of one party getting in power and giving bigger tax advantages to charities that do the work supporting that party. Once you clean up groups like the NRA, AARP, NAACP, then start talking about Churches. What party do Churches belong to? Two of the biggest Bible thumpers around here are PA (who is noticeably absent lately) and myself. So which party has the advantage?

Then why not mention of tremendous amount of community service that is given by those same Churches? AMERICANS allowed that tax advantage. They also offer tax free advantages to purely partisan groups as well. Why not start there?

I am an American. I work a job, I volunteer in my community, and I damn well will not give up my rights to make an impact in my community, nation, and world, because I attend Church. My opinion and vote is just as valid as an atheist. People can gather any damn place they want to discuss how to make their community and nation better.

Isn't the woman with the glasses from Top Chef? Her and her gf were both in this season's shows.

Link

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 30, 2008 -> 09:56 AM) You need to go here: https://www.donotcall.gov/ It's more fun getting them to hang up on me. My favorite ender is "I don't have a credit card, I'm only 12" But I may do that soon.

I love telesales companies. I just got the call for a free satellite TV system, EVERYTHING included. Press 1 "Hello Satellite promotions, thank you for your interest in satellite TV" "Thank you, the message said EVERYTHING was included?!" "Yes it is, we include EVERYTHING you need . . . it includes blah blah blah" "Wow! What TV does it come with?" "Excuse me?" "What TV does it come with? I assume I would need a TV and I do not have one?" "You would have to buy a TV" "But you said EVERYTHING was included to begin enjoying satellite TV programming, how would I enjoy it without a TV?"

Then in a few years perhaps Phil Jackson will get tired of the LA lifestyle and want to move to Chicago. Tex Winter still alive? Welcome back your dreams were your ticket out, Welcome back . . . Meh, I'm underwhelmed.