EvilMonkey

Congrats!

Haven't the Angels screwed with the Sox sever times lately? Didn't they try and sign away Konerko, and make JD a last second offer higher than what he agreed to with us? I may have the teams mixed up, but I thought both times it was the Angels. Did Kenny mess around with Reagins' wife or something?

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 25, 2007 -> 07:26 PM) Australia's going to se targets, and do I expect us to reach them? Probably not I'd say. If they aren't going to reach them, what is the point of setting them? Too 'feel good' about themselves because they care? QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 25, 2007 -> 07:26 PM) I'd like to get the thoughts on what you think America should be doing about this? Should they be setting the example (as the supposed world leader) and reducing emissions, or should they wait for all nations across the world to do so? The big problem there is that if the government came out with standards that the businesses had to meet, and those standards burdened an economy that is already under huge competition from China, India and others (who seem to care even less than people think American's do!), it would ruin what some call an already fragile economy. Besides, Greenland used to be green before anyway.

Some drops came down and hit as rain, some were snowflakes, some were like sleet. Not fun on the roads today!

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 25, 2007 -> 04:26 PM) On the 2nd point I think at least now with Australia willing to jump on board, it's going to put a bit more pressure on those nations such as India and China to follow suit. And that's one of the main reasons why Rudd won, climate change. By willing to sign the Kyoto Protocol unlike Howard, it was looked as if he was doing at least "something" about it, unlike Howard who didn't even really want to see targets for the future unless other nations such as above did. But there's no doubt something needs to be done ASAP about this issue. And when they miss the targets, like: Spain http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp...;story_id=31536 Canada http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/10...-pollution.html JAPAN! http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2196566/...ost-japan-solar The whole damn EU http://www.terradaily.com/reports/EU_Way_O...st_Figures.html Will he be facing a recall? or spend huge amounts of money on fines, and purchasing 'carbon offsets'?

My wife took our boys to see her father in Branson, Mo last week. He is very sick, so this may be a last time for them to see him. Her and her brother are going to stay another week, so I drove to St. Louis this AM to meet her half way and bring the boys the rest of the way home. Left the house at 6:30 AM, and saw zero cops the whole way down. After we had lunch and loaded up to head home, saw 28! They sure didn't have to worry about too much speeding with all that freezing rain crap coming down!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 25, 2007 -> 02:10 PM) That is a great point, with a population of three million, even a 100 million dollar naming deal would be less than $35 per person. Hardly much of a tax savings. Probably half those 3 million don't pay taxes, or almost nothing, so you can double your savings to almost $70!

I wonder why the write chose to say it was a "humiliating exit from public life". Politicians lose all the time. It is not like he lost 80% to 20% or something. The voters there were worried about the interest rates and stuff. Just wait until he signs the Kyoto crap and all sorts of things go sky high. You get what you vote for, or don't vote for.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Nov 24, 2007 -> 02:11 PM) I'd say selling false hope is much worse than selling tapes of girls who signed waivers to lift their shirts. I don't care what Joe did, but if his allegations are true, nobody should be defending these pigs. Corrupt cops and guards are criminals too. Just remember, everybody in jail says they are innocent. (make that in green, or a half green if there is one!)

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 24, 2007 -> 10:26 AM) I hope that was in green It would have been had this POS computer at home let me do that. It doesn't like Soxtalk for some reason. In fact, half the time I hit 'reply', it quit explorer all together. When it doesn't shut down, it doesn't give me all the option like text color. So yeah, consider it green.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 24, 2007 -> 08:38 AM) If you don't see a difference between Tony Robbins and this ass clown, which one would you rather see your mom appear with? Let's make a pile of people's whose lives were ruined by each person and see which pile is bigger. Let's see whose lives were made better, and see whose pile is bigger. Tex, there are probably alot of teenage boys whose lives were made better (at least for a short while) by the GGW videos. Might be a close race! And then you have the marketing people who benefitted from selling the videos, the stations that aired the commercials, and his drug dealer.

This could be a start. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/23/world/mi...;pagewanted=all

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 24, 2007 -> 01:00 AM) I haven't seen anything suggesting that unintended pregnancies are important for population growth. As for why the poor often have more children -- In dramatically poorer countries, you have to deal with a couple facts. One, many people are living on near-subsistence levels of income. Two, LOTS of kids die. From an economic perspective, yes, an additional kid provides another mouth to feed for a while. On the other hand, a kid doesn't consume as much as an adult, and he eventually starts contributing to the family through work. And when you get too old to work, you want to have at least one kid who: survives, becomes relatively prosperous, remains in contact with you, and wants to support you. That's a lot of ifs. (And of course there's no Social Security...it's paradise for Republicans...) And in many places, it usually means it's gotta be a boy, one more if. Add it all up, and it may well make a lot of sense to have a huge family. From an evolutionary perspective (if religious fanatics like all you Republicans believe in that sort of thing), it obviously makes sense to have a large family when any given kid has only a so-so chance of surviving to adulthood. In the mid-1800s our birthrate was comparable to that of many African countries today. It doesn't imply endless poverty. Muslims can be part of the "native population", too. So if I read you right, you think that poor people have more kids so that in 16 years or so they can start working and contributibng to the family and then not be quite as poor. Might work, if you can survive the first 16 years or so. Very long term thinking. I am well aware of the thinking in some part of the world regarding kids, such as you need boys to help you work the farm, or have to have 20 kids so that maybe 3 or 4 survive. But wouldn't it be easier to feed 3 kids as opposed to 10? (And how do they have the energy to keep f***ing when they can barely eat? ) Then your chances of keepng them alive have increased. And sure there are places where the kids are needed to provide for the families and work on the farms, but what about in cities? What's the rational behind a poor single mom having 6 kids? And for all this grand plan about having kids to take care of them when they get old, what is the average lifespan in some of these areas? In Etheopia it is less than 50. In Congo it is a little less than that, and that is one of the more urbanized African countries with over 80% of the population living in cities. Not alot of need for farm hands there. Zambia is under 40 years life expectancy. Maybe that is why they average over 5 kids per family. Afganistan averages about 44 years and over 6 kids per family. Must be a whole lotta farming going on there. And a thriving retirement community as well. And now I am going to consider it personal with the "(if religious fanatics like all you Republicans believe in that sort of thing), ". I am far from a religious fanatic, as are many republicans. If you want to continue to believe that all Republican think in lockstep, go ahead. I personally get pissed when I hear the creationism talk as it make them seem crazy to just about everyone else in the country, and we all know how in politics it is guilty by association. So next time those crazy Democratic protestors in Olympia pour cement over train tracks to block a port from getting supplies to our troops, I will just think of how you hate our troops as well. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...trators14m.html Yeah, all them Democrats really hate our troops.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 23, 2007 -> 08:04 PM) Btw, as far as I know, Muslims are allowed to be British. Yes, they are. And with the huge immigration flow they have there, if the native population stops having kids, they will soon be outnumbered by Muslims, who are NOT going to stop having kids.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 23, 2007 -> 08:04 PM) It hardly seems morally right to demand that they stay poor. So the better solution seems to be making the ultimate end (our standard of life) more sustainable. Btw, as far as I know, Muslims are allowed to be British. Jackie, it is a viscious circle, to a point. The poor stay poor in part because of their extra mouths to feed, bodies to put clothes on, etc. But why is it poor people have more kids? Is the only entertainment they can afford to f*** like rabbits? Condoms, or the pill, are cheaper than kid(s).

I could do that for half that contract value. On a different note, does having your product name placed on the side of a sports center or a fountain really get you any more business? Has anyone here changed their cell plans to US Cellular just because of the stadium?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 23, 2007 -> 06:57 PM) As far as I know, none of those things has been part of the official policy of any Democratic president. It was meant as a tongue-in-cheek shot at the current admin. I took your post as more or less a joke, and as a rule I sort of expect that those willing to make light fun of the 'other side' are not quite so touchy about their own. Guess not. Go ahead and make fun of abstinance only programs. I have no problem with the idea, other than they don't really work too well. I also don't like schools handing out birth control to 12 year olds. I thought you were taking a potshot at me. Sorry for the tone of my rebuttal. But I was not entirely tounge-in-cheek with the posting. We always hear that the planet has too many people anyway, now you have a study that shows that it would be a good thing to have smaller families. Will the UN and Greenies champion this cause worldwide, or give exemptions to China, Mexico, the Middle East and the entire African continent? On a different note, the story, being from Britian, shows that the British have a slightly higher birthrate than the rest of the EU, and the author suggests that the Brits should stop procreating so much. That would be the death of England as we know it, since they are being overrun with Muslims, who you know would not stop reproducing, and soon would be in a majority. So just like all the CO2 emmitions, we need to find a way for the 'developing nations' to stop their polluting of the planet as well, instead of just blaming all the so-called 'rich' nations.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 23, 2007 -> 04:22 PM) Wouldn't you prefer sponsoring some of that abstinence-only education that works so well here? And why would I do that? Just because I tend to be on the conservative side of things doesn't mean I fall lockstep into every ideal that appears on that side. Do you think Bush = Hitler, 9-11 was an inside job and only white people can be racist? Those ideals cerainly appear in some people on the more left side of things.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21684...5009760,00.html So a box of condoms to Ethiopia should mean I can drive my SUV for a decade! Woo hoo!

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Nov 23, 2007 -> 03:25 PM) Nope, no Zune. She didn't get to the store Zune enough. Don't quit your day job. (I would make that green but for some reason my POS here at home won't let me!)

long term on closers is very risky, and with his arbitration still out there, you don't need to. Sure, a 60 save season might up what we pay for a year, but you are also protected from his arm falling off.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Nov 23, 2007 -> 11:12 AM) I'm not sure. My wife went out this morning for it all and is on her way back now. One of the main things we were after was the $80 Zune at Toys R Us. It's the 30GB one. That's a heck of a price for one of those things. I think she's pretty loaded down now though. My wife is trying to get one of those for our oldest son as well. No idea if she made it or not, and i am worried for the credit cards as she is still not home!

A great read. Thanks for the info.

The only job I had where I dealt with someone outside the US I was dealign with a French company. All the sales people I spoke with, and the contracts person and the 2 engineers that we spoke with to make sure the product met the specs we needed spoke English.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 20, 2007 -> 10:33 PM) Maybe it's just because I read on his website the same platitudes I see on any Joe Conservative positions. He's willing to leave certain things to state's rights, unless he doesn't. He did vote for DOMA for example. And he wants to pressure for the end of Sanctuary Cities. Although a lot of you here might applaud that, that's not a states rights issue by any means. States rights doesn't mean the states get free reign to do whatever the hell they want. protection of this country and border enforcement are responsibilities of the federal government, and sancuary cities subvert that process. I do not see how that takes away from his general states rights positions. If that's the worst you got, give it up.