Texsox

QUOTE (Kid Gleason @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 10:02 AM) Give me your password. I've seen numerous Sandler films, and somehow I keep seeing more of them. I actually saw that Chuck And Larry crap last summer. It was part of a double bill at the drive-in, and I do like Kevin James, so I was hoping he would help counter-balance the Sandler factor. It helped, but the movie still sucked. I haven't seen Anger Management, but I have to admit to not being a fan of Jack. I should also say that Jim Caray has also made my list, but that may be as much burn out as the characters he seems to play. It just isn't my style of comedy anymore. Anger Management is worth a rental.

QUOTE (Kid Gleason @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 10:37 AM) LOL! But there are only a couple on there I haven't seen. Which ones of the "haven't seen" do you recommend? My problem with South Park is that the TV show bugs me, so I sure won't see the movie. But the others I just might give into. Sandler flicks, well, I can't change that. If you're a Sandler fan, that's cool. I'm obviously in the minority when it comes to that guy. You can manage my netflix queue anytime. Anger Management was about the only film I could tolerate Sandler in. He is one of the few actors that I just will not watch anything he is in.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 07:57 AM) Did you just quote a women's christian group? And their sweet 1999 study which has no references. And some how say that there are marijuana overdoses? Maybe by sliding in that its "related" gave them some flexibility to write absolute lies. All I got from that study is that I shouldnt let a pregnant woman smoke, and let infants smoke pot. Ok, pregnant diet, no sushi, no dairy, no coffee, no pot, gotcha. Maybe that craptacular information works on younger kids, but its not gonna fly with me. Heres a website to counter your sisters of the christian cloth who hate weed source, and mine cites sources. http://www.drugtext.org/sub/marmyt1.html If marijuana was made legal, do you think it should carry warnings about operating equipment, driving, etc? Are you contending that no one has ever been in a fatal accident driving high? If you really believe that being high has never caused someone to have a fatal accident, that's wonderful. Keep posting, I crack up every time you start this rant.

Wow, The Hawks are all the way into the 1980s

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 07:41 AM) I seem to remember the Dems wanting to not count a huge amount of military absentee ballots a few years back for some reason. There were problems with those ballots under the law. If the Dems now introduced a bill to make it more difficult for servicemen and women to vote, the situation would be the same. I think we all agree that current laws should be followed, whatever they may be.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 07:18 AM) The same people that are screaming about this scream about the electoral college as well but then see the "superdelegates" in the Dem primary as ok - that's where I see some hypocrisy. I think you hit the nail on the head, but didn't finish. Do you see a hypocsisy in all the other parties not even holding primaries? There will probably be six to ten other parties on the ballot as well, they will hold some form of convention and select someone for the ballot. I guess it's the same kind of hypocrisy in losing the popular vote, then producing maps with pretty colors, and calling it a landslide. The "we think every vote should matter and be equal, except when our candidate finishes with less."

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 30, 2008 -> 06:50 AM) So how many people who are "disenfranchised" would have taken the time to give a s*** to vote anyway? This whole argument reeks of hypocrisy - but then again, if it "disenfranchises" Democrats it's wrong and if it "disenfranchises" Republicans it's ok. (loosely held). I do not see the hypocrisy unless you know of some laws that the Dems backed to make voting more difficult or where the GOP made voting easier for traditional GOP voters. The hypocrisy would cut both ways, the GOP would not be introducing this bill if they thought it would take away their voters.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 10:31 PM) I once heard of a guy who had to go to the hospital as a result of smoking marijuana. Turns out the dude ate an entire pound of cheese and it was hemorrhaging his stomach.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 10:17 AM) magic. What does the former Laker point guard have to do with it?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 05:40 PM) Do you have statistics on that? I'd like to know how many people did that. Outliers and extreme circumstances do not make an argument. I'm not going to debate you on this, we've done this before. You are correct that you will OD on water before you will on marijuana. But that is a misleading statement. People do stupid, and fatal things while high. To ignore those deaths is silly. Driving high and various other marijuana influences lapses in judgement do cause deaths. As do many other things. You make it seem as if nothing will ever happen to you if you are high. from http://wctu.org/marijuana_update.html how many from Tylenol?

yage, the ultimate spiritual high.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 03:09 PM) Stupid how? Like how more people die from tylenol each year than marijuana? Which is the only purpose of Tylenol Are you including people who are, for example, high and fall off a balcony during Spring break?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 02:23 PM) I'd say that voter apathy, or apathy generally, is an American problem - not a liberal or conservative problem. But the solutions offered by both sides is very different. Liberals try to remove all the barriers and make it as simple and easy as possible. Conservatives say f*** 'em if they don't want to vote, stay home. Both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. Somewhere there is a balance that works.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 01:10 PM) f*** 'em. Nice speech. You managed to very well sum up brain dead conservatives attitudes towards voters.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 01:54 PM) what the f***'s a newspaper?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 11:19 AM) If it so bothers people that the drinking age is 21, then why don't you make use of a real, actual RIGHT - and get involved in the political process to elect officials who agree with you? They need a picture ID

I made pretty patterns with my answers. On-line surveys are so accurate. You may wish to discount the Hispanic Native American with the $100,000 income.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 12:19 PM) You assume that everyone currently without an ID will suddenly be unable to get one. If they are UNWILLING to get one, then they are disenfranchising themselves. As for the number that will really be UNABLE to get one, I think that will be a very small number indeed. There are groups, charities, and more partisan groups that are more than willing to help people register to vote, I am sure there will be efforts made to help those truely in need of an ID get one. I would wager that a vast majority of those who need an ID, and really want to vote, would get one. There seems to be this concept that spending an hour or two of your life once every 6+ years to get an ID is somehow an excessive burden to many (poor and minorities hit hardest!). That's bull. And quit lumping absentee balloting with THIS issue. Different problems. You are assuming the only people not voting because of this will be those without picture ID. I worry more that some voters with a photo ID will not tolerate the longer lines and possible denial if their picture doesn't match. How much time off do you allow your employees to go vote? And doesn't it seem a little silly to put a bandaid on a minor cut while the person is having a heart attack? This is all about access to the ballot, and absentee ballots and in person should be treated the same, both votes will count the same.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 12:25 PM) Then by your logic you should be campaigning to ban all polling places and making it absolutely easy as possible to vote (I imagine the government contacting every single person in the country to ask their vote would be the easist thing?) , and getting rid of all forms of security, because they all disenfranchise people. I think the trend has been towards making the process simpler, which I agree with. Polling places near people's homes, early voting options, machines that are less confusing and faster. So if we could make it as easy as answering the phone or logging into a site, I can't see where that would be a bad thing. As far as security, it becomes where we draw the line. Currently they match signatures and check off when you vote. That seems to have worked for a long time. Certainly fingerprints and DNA testing would be far more secure, but I would think that no one would take that seriously. I see long lines, and voters being denied because they do not look like their old picture. The longer lines can be countered by more machines. and who doesn't like a bigger government program :-)

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 10:45 AM) The issue is that there's simply not enough oil coming out of the ground to keep up with the growing demand. And no urgency to refine even faster. For all practical purposes, there is a finite amount of oil. What is the incentive to pump faster for less?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 08:28 AM) That's the fun part... Everyone seems to want more refining capacity, but no one wants it built next to them. The NIMBY factor is huge here. Not to mention with all of the emphasis towards getting off of oil, why would any company look at putting up billions of dollars into technology that everyone is talking about phasing out? You've been to Houston. NIMBY Great thought on capacity and investment.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 09:23 AM) ...until Microsoft decides to stop supporting them and force you to upgrade to Hanging Balls v2.0 Then Mac comes out with HB3 which are so mesmerizing the drivers are hypnotized into thinking their truck is now perfect, runs forever without any maintenance, has the best features, and only cool people can drive it.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 09:49 AM) Provisional ballots. That only get counted if it "matters". Works for me as long as it is *your* ballot that doesn't matter And how will they check absentee ballots? Why should there be less stringent requirements for those? Almost all of the fraud allegations here concern absentee ballots, not in person. And having photo ID will not stop the "paid to vote" fraud.

QUOTE (knightni @ Apr 29, 2008 -> 09:47 AM) In Computer Prgramming class, would they make you recite the Pledge in binary? 10010001001100010011... There are 10 kinds of people in this world Those that got that joke and those that didn't

Interesting that the GOP folks here want *more* government intervention in our lives. They want every US voter to head to a government agency to be photographed. Everyone pull out their photo ID and see how close they resemble the picture. Now imagine that election judge denying you the opportunity to vote because you gained/lost weight, grew/shaved a beard, changed hair styles, went bald, had a weave etc. You walk in with the birth certificate, utility bills, signatures match exactly, but the election judge decides that picture doesn't match you. And it is really going to be fun when one precinct has the majority of problems. If that area is predominately one party, I can already hear the cries of bias. Now imagine longer lines to vote while people fumble for their IDs, clerks stare intently at the pictures to see if they match. But perhaps Indiana does have corruption on such a widespread basis they need this. I wonder how many elections have been decided by fraud in Indiana.