Texsox

QUOTE (RME JICO @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 10:30 AM) This is odd. I didn't know you can get thrown out of a game and suspended for the same thing. Double jeopardy. Ozzie was giving him a day off anyway. Hopefully the day off motivates him to get on track. Double jeopardy would be being tried for the same act twice, being punished twice has always been around. Actually, the opposite would be more rare. Getting suspended without getting thrown out of a game.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 09:22 AM) I agree. The closer we get to "popular vote" representation is good to me. As you can see in my sig, I am in favor of national popular vote. I dont think it works well in primaries because of the difference it time between the elections. Having "delegates" is a good way to judge the primaries. But if they could figure out an easy way to do it, popular vote would be preferable. While there is a lot of surface merit to that position, abandoning over 200 years of being individual states united together, makes me pause.

Today is only the deadline if you owe a balance. Procrastinate all you like if you are getting a refund.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 08:28 AM) 4. I will not post statements for the purpose of angering others 5. I will not prod posters repeatedly on a subject or chase them across topics to make a point 6. I will try to make posts that actually add to the discussion at hand I guess these don't apply to certain posters...or maybe since we're not in the buster...anything goes. Thank you for expressing you point of view, I deleted my comment.

Remember that lead the Sox had a couple years ago, and almost got reeled in by the Indians? The Tigers are not that far out, but with 4 teams to hop, it sucks to be them.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 07:58 AM) Because I know more that 99% of people know about tax policy and micro/macroeconomics?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 08:05 AM) I always ask this question when this topic comes up, and usually no one answers it directly... Would you understand your family/friends/children dying in a case where the US has a suspect who later turned out to have had information on a pending attack (and the US government believed they did before the attack), whom they didn't torture at all because they followed the Geneva conventions to the letter of the law? Understand? Yes Like it? Not in a million years. What I could not understand is the hatred in that terrorist's heart that motivates them to do what they do. I would loath and probably hate that terrorist. I would also probably find it impossible to forgive that person. It would be doubly sad to me if I thought my country, in response, adopted hatred, and those same terrorist values. Once we join the ranks of terrorists, the original terrorists have won. And we really do not want to go down Hypothetical Lane. We are all intelligent enough here to create scenarios that prove a point.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 15, 2008 -> 08:15 AM) IE, the general public isn't smart enough to get it right, so we do it for them... For the party that has complained the loudest about the electoral college, they need to clean up their own house first. Actually, and please correct me if I am wrong, but the original system was party delegates picking the candidate, then they opened it up to the voting public. First with the so called "registered" then in "open" primaries. So we seem to be on the path that you, and I, would prefer. But we are not there yet. And I think I know why. Because at this point anyone, including the other party, can vote in the other primary, shouldn't the party have some safety in place? The super delegates, from what I see looking over the South Texas list, are rank and file, dyed in the wool, loyal party members. With the GOP race for all practical purposes over by Texas, many Reps crossed over and presumably voted for the weaker candidate. Should a party member be bound by the votes of what could be the other party wishes? In a close race, they might be the ones tipping the scales. Perhaps, the GOP candidate would even signal who they should vote for with a press release announcing who he would prefer to run against?

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 05:48 PM) I'll personally disagree with you Jas, but I know what your saying. But from what I've read, and seen from Josh and from what I've said in the past.. he'll have a few all-star apperances before it's all said and done. Just too much athletic, raw talent, still learning the game also. Fields has the "potential" to be better. We keep getting these debates started when one person talks about today (Jas) while the other talks about the future. (SoxAce) Unless there was something else in Jas post that you disagreed with. Today, the Sox have an excellent guy playing 3b every day and the heir apparent who is on the cusp of what should be a great career.

Another quick thought, I would not have a problem if a candidate managed to pull out a win with the help of the super delegates. It is possible within the rules. Since it is allowed, I respect a candidate who uses every advantage.

I was talking yesterday with someone who is a super delegate, and in his mind, the "mission" is to get a Democrat elected President. They should, after analyzing and careful thought, vote for that candidate. They have a separate, independent, vote, and that is how they should vote, with their conscious as a guide. If they are suppose to just vote for whom another group voted for, they could drop the entire super delegate concept and just use the primaries. He would not mention who he is voting for, but my guess would be Hillary. Here's a question, for those that think they are duty bound to go with the person who received the most primary votes, would that be in your state, county, or district? If you are an elected official for a county and Candidate 1 won your county, but lost your state, who would you vote for?

Happy Tax Day! Remember, there are many, cheaper countries to live in.

Why are we waiting? Baines' number was retired while he was still an active player. Then unretired when he came back. I know it is cheesy, but I'd like to see Frank sign a one day contract, a la Emmitt Smith and retire as a Sox.

QUOTE (SnB @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 07:21 PM) false, you will ALWAYS wake up to a burnt roof of your mouth the voice of experience. You will also find the petrified remains of a few in strange places over the next week. Or, better still, when preheating the oven a couple days later, you will discover you put them in the oven. forgot to turn the oven on, tried eating a couple, and fell asleep.

"definitely a hero in Sox nation"

It is easy to say that we should do anything if it saves one American life, but it is never that easy. For example, it is widely believed and accepted, that you never negotiate with terrorists. Yet, that may save one life, but cost many times that many down the road. If I saw some evidence that torture is an effective tool, I'd reconsider. But in dealing with terrorists and criminals, I believe taking the moral high ground is better. Sinking to the level of a terrorist, it not what this country is about. Sucks we have to play by rules that our enemies are not, but if we play by their rules, we lost any moral argument and are no better then them. And while I understand and see some humor in the above post, it is actually a great point. Our opinions and shaded by TV and movie plots where a suspect is pushed or tortured and gives up that vital piece of information and lives are saved. TV is not reality, the truth is far murkier than that.

Thank you Balta, I'm using Powerpoint 2007, but I think it is close enough. I was missing the change URL.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 08:43 AM) SS is correct I believe in what Buffet has planned for wehn he croaks. However he is one of the more vocal critics of us not being taxed enough. Yet he spends a small fortune on accountants to get every tax break he can, just like the rest of us. If he feels so undertaxed, he can certainly afford to pay more to ease his conscience. He has spoken out about tax policies, not about the ethics of aggressively following those policies. He is only one taxpayer, certainly you can see the reasoning why he should speak out about policy?

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 08:51 AM) As if they are not applying those techniques on our soldiers as it is already... oh wait they just behead them...that makes the difference eh? So would rather we sit them down with tea and donuts maybe and ask them nicely for the info? I am sure that would gain us all the info we need. Hussein was murdering people by the thousands...but the true reason we went after him was not for that reason. GWB wanted to get him because his daddy missed his chance to get him. We cannot simultaneously try to stop torture, using it for reasons for invading a country, and embrace it's use. As noted above, people will say ANYTHING to stop the torture, including making up lies. Based on your post, it seems you believe the only two choices are torture or tea and donuts. So we have exhausted the topic. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Apr 13, 2008 -> 11:06 PM) I refuse to believe that any of the 3 remaining candidates, Hillary included, put themselves through so much grief simply to serve their own aims and ambitions. QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 05:55 AM) That's pretty naive, IMO. Why else are these people doing what they're doing? For the good of "America"? Bulls***. They want their own 'aims and ambitions' met. Somewhere in between the two, is the most accurate, and each candidate is probably at a slightly different spot. I think there motivation is not much different than anyone else running for office, they want things done "their way" which they believe is right. Certainly the power, recognition, or other internal reinforcements come with it. But I think we could start at the local level, and using a real example, SS's run for the school board. I am certain that this came out of seeing problems, knowing what the correct solution is, and wanting to be in position to enact that plan. Would their have been some personal satisfaction mixed in? I would hope so. ratchet it up a notch, and pick Mayor, Congressman, Governor, or President. The only thing that changes are the problems and the authority to make changes, the money to get there, the people who are interested and willing to help with their time, treasure, and talents. But at the root, I think you have to have a motivation to serve. Looking at most of our leader's backgrounds they are involved from an early age and stay involved even after retirement. Whether it is Bush and Clinton raising money or Carter building homes for the homeless and monitoring elections.

QUOTE (joeynach @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 01:00 AM) I understand that compression is something that happens by default, my gripe is more with comcast's public claims. Of course they have no problem tauting their increasing offerings of HD channels, as to compete with the dish, but would never make an acknowledgment for at what cost. The article makes its very clear that 2 HD Channels per QAM created the acceptable true HD images, and the new 3 Channels per QAM thus reduces selected HD channel quality. I can very easily notice the difference of watching HD on say un extra compressed ESPN-HD than watching the extra compressed AE-HD. The bitrates of the stations show the reduction from the normal 19Mbps per channel. Anything below that is a reduction is quality. The point is every channel could get 19Mbps with the 2:1 ratio comcast was using prior to this year, but the new 3:1 ratio has probably started a never ending cascade of bitrate reduction. If its 3:1 now what is it a few years, 4:1, 5:1, where does it end. Where does comcast stop cramming more reduced quality content onto coxial and build a new fiber network, or adopt streaming technology? So far all these seems to be about is the fact that comcast can market "more HD programming" than anyone else, but knowingly leave out the notion that their "programming" is not going to be the pure crisp true HD images they had previously been exposed to. In that sense it sounds seedy, like a used car salesman. That is why we have competition and try, whenever possible, to avoid monopolies in the country. The market decides. And is the VCR war was any indication, quality will lose.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Apr 14, 2008 -> 03:21 AM) Has anyone else aside from myself never sneezed more than one time in a row? It's always one and done with me. This is something I first noticed a long time ago, but it wasn't until today that I was reminded. Nope

The whole lefty lefty thing is over rated in my book. These guys are professionals and can adapt quickly.

Before I hack this all up, what is the most elegant method for adding youtube videos to a powerpoint presentation? And while it took me 30 years, I will realize a dream, I will be using George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words in the classroom, and this time, I will not be asked to leave.

QUOTE (EvilJester99 @ Apr 13, 2008 -> 09:45 PM) I agree with this 100%...if getting info from some terrorist that saves the lives of some of our soldiers then I am all for whatever means you may need to obtain that info. Wasn't the use of torture one of the reasons we had to stop Hussein? It's easy to make that statement, but it then places us squarely with the rogue nations. I think I would rather be among the ethical nations that do not use torture. Does that also mean you would not complain when those same techniques were used on American soldiers? Since it would mean the US is rejecting the Geneva Conventions, changing US Laws, and most International Laws. And if it meant US forces were forced to shift through hundreds or thousands of false leads, that wouldn't be an issue?