Texsox

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?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 11, 2008 -> 07:55 AM) Our low temp last night was above 70. Damn Yankees way up north sure have it bad. I've already lived through a couple 100 degree days and a couple sun burns. I just picked up a couple sailboats for my program. Really sweet. Trying to fit a couple work days on the water into my schedule.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Apr 12, 2008 -> 10:33 PM) you know what, if there is proof that a certain person knows something, and the info he (or she) knows is vital to national security and in the fight against terrorism, I have no problem with whatever means of torture they inflict on the terrorist scum. What is really cool is if enough people tell the government *YOU* are a terrorist, that is enough *proof* nowadays. So we send you down to Gitmo, or contract to a third country, what will you tell them? Will you hang around for days explaing you know nothing and it is a mistake, and expect them to stop, or will you make something up to get them to stop? After all you are terrorist scum and we can inflict any kind of torture on you if it helps our war on terrorists.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Apr 13, 2008 -> 08:29 PM) And I agree as well. That's why 95% of the ass-monkeys that call themselves conservatives can kiss my ass. That's why 95% of the ass-monkeys that call themselves politicians can kiss my ass. Same with the Dems, want a new program? Then tell the public how we're going to pay for it, and let's track it. But don't give me this crap of cutting taxes while increasing debt. I expect to be living long enough to have to pay this back. Give me checks from the surplus, don't borrow to give me money.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 13, 2008 -> 02:49 PM) Alpha, we have common ground here after all. I'd have liked to hear something like, we're going to have to invade Iraq. He has WMD and he's terrible to his people. We want to be safe, and we will win this war. Now there will be a cost. abour $600 per person, so we're going to skip those tax cuts to pay for it. Hell, depending on how things go, we may have to raise taxes to pay for this war.

QUOTE (daa84 @ Apr 13, 2008 -> 09:07 PM) the pizzazz will take prolly 12-15 min for a normal pizza, maybe 20 for a thick one like a digornio...it heats up faster than an oven so i think overall the time is less... oh and there is no better way to reheat delivery or restaurant pizza than on a pizzaz Reheat?? What is this reheat? *If* I ever leave a slice behind, it is later consumed cold

QUOTE (daa84 @ Apr 13, 2008 -> 05:03 PM) honestly...not really, its just so much more convient to use than an oven because it gets hot right away and you can see when things are done...like i said before though, i used to put things like sandwiches on it to melt cheese and toast hte bread, something i would have never done in an oven, but clearly could do in an oven...its just nice on the pizzazz cuz its so convenient its also bigger than a toaster oven too Is it any slower? I usually dislike unitaskers in the kithcen, but with my son coming back from college and on his own for most of the summer while I'm at the island, I may pick one up.

QUOTE (greasywheels121 @ Apr 13, 2008 -> 10:13 AM) *BUMP* My computer's not long before it will be ready to kick the bucket. I recently got an external HD for backing up some essentials. I've stored all my entire documents folder of pictures, music, etc. Is there anything else that would be wise for me to be storing on here? If you can just mirror your entire drive, why not do it?