Texsox

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Jun 1, 2008 -> 05:54 PM) But yeah, every time I watch that movie it makes me want to go workout or do some sort of physical activity. I know what you mean, I usually want to get up during the movie and do finger pushups on my remote.

This was a no win for the man. Seemed most people wanted him to leave the Church, and when he does, he's called a hypocrite. Some people believe if you even listen to something, you must believe it. Guilt by association. I read every one of Kap's and SS's posts, doesn't mean I agree with them, it just means I respect their generally well stated and thought out opinions. And when they are totally wacked, I laugh. During the course of a week, I bet I hear their short sermons more than if they were Preachers on Sunday. I know I spend more than an hour a week here. Regardless, I am confident that if elected President, he will not be able to destroy "whitey" any more than Jackson destroyed the "n*****s". Anyone who listen to Johnson's tapes will remember he used the "n" word regularly. As with most of the items like this, if you already were not going to vote for him, its yet another reason. If you were, it's no big deal. If you are on the fence, weigh it against everything else. But if you think a white guy of McCain's era doesn't have some of the same, albeit reversed, attitudes about race, I think you are fooling yourself. Everyone here would have to make some changes in their lives to run for President.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jun 1, 2008 -> 03:57 PM) I'm sure he knew long ago that Reverend Wright had some whack job opinions. That's where I am not certain. Has he held those for twenty years, or is it something new? People do change.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 1, 2008 -> 02:24 PM) I think that "church" is a fabric of life, meaning, if you choose to associate yourself with it for TWENTY YEARS, you're agreeing with most of what goes on there. Disagreements happen, but the atmosphere as described by MANY (and no, not just the asshole Hannitys and Limbaughs or worse of the world, from some articles I've read of people who attend there in the newspaper a couple of times) says that Obama holds certain aspects of this place true. I agree, most of what goes on there. And we know about the recent history, is it hypocritical if there was 15 years of somewhat benign sermons and then Pastor becomes more radical and then you leave a couple years later? Which is kind of my point. Some will make a huge deal about this, others will defend it. I'm kind of in the middle. At my old Church, Fr. Jerry is Pro Union, I am not a fan. Yet, I enjoyed 90% of his sermons and the various committees and events I helped with. Which is something else that isn't really talked about much. For many, Church life is more than Sunday for an hour. I played in our basketball league, helped with our Scout Troop, Chaired the Build for our Youth Gold Outing, my son taught Sunday School, as family we helped with the Thanksgiving Luncheon. Balance that with a 10 minute sermon on Sundays and I could see sticking around even if I disagreed with the Pastor on a few things. At one point 90% of our friends were members of that Church.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 1, 2008 -> 12:41 PM) Do you understand why I say what I did? He's heard "questionable" things at his church. Ok, but now that those "questionable things" have been aired out, suddenly, he's uncomfortable associating with them after 20 years? It's a double standard and hypocritical. To be fair, he's darned if he does and darned if he doesn't. But, I'm pretty sure that "white people" aren't exactly welcomed with open arms at UTC. It's a shame that this is so much of an issue, but at the same time, I think the character of Obama comes in to play with all of this - it's the people he associates most with, whether you like it or not. You are "friends" with people you think alike with - not all encompassing, but mostly. You identify with people at a church, most of the time. It's a reference point, but not an end all, be all. And that reference point is important. I hear your point, but at what point does it become a double standard and hypocritical? After one time? Ten Times? When your views change? When the other person crosses some line? Once you run for office and get elected you are now locked in on all your associates? And how much do you have to overlap to be friends? I have friends who I differ almost 100% politically, but we enjoy surfing and camping together. If one of them ran for office and I did not support them, would I be a hypocrite? Would they be hypocritical if I used our friendship to discuss my views on immigration and then they disowned me? After all we are friends now.

QUOTE (FGarcia34 @ Dec 6, 2007 -> 01:08 PM) Would it be possible to change my name to TheKillerB's (my initials are BB). Somehow I'm not feeling the Freddy Garcia love anymore. The Killer Bee's are also a professional Hockey team playing in the CHL http://www.killerbeehockey.com/

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?