EvilMonkey

I know the British navy is a small shadow of its former self, but within 48 hours of this happening, they should have made the Iranian Navy cease to exist.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 27, 2007 -> 08:04 AM) Briggs is now threatening to sit out the first ten games and play the last six which gives him a lot of leverage because then wed have to sign him to the more expensive tag, if they wanted to next year, and pay him for the last six games in which he more than likely wouldnt play anyway. OK, say he sits 10, then comes back. His odds in getting hurt those last 6 games, assuming the Bears just don't let him rot on the inactive list, are increased. 10 weeks with no practice, no hitting, etc, then to jump right into the game, bam! I can see a blown hammie in the second game played. Buh bye long term security! And if he comes back, plays, and doesn't play hard because he is afraid of an injury, what does that say about his character as a teammate? That being said, I would do the deal if if didn't involve swapping picks. PLus, it couldn't hurt to ask for something else too, say a 4th or 5th round thrown in as well. Worst he can do is say no. Lets see how bad he really wants Briggs.

I have tickets for 2, and usually get my uncle's season tickets 2 or 3 times each year. Add to that one or two walkups, I should get to about 6 or so, a 50% increase over last year.

And to think I watched an episode of Flip That House, where the house being flipped had foundation damage, needed almost all new windows, just about every interior wall had holes in the drywall, cabinets were missing doors and partially off the wall, had a rotting deck and a garage that needed to be torn down, that was purchased, PRE FLIP, for $345,000. Of course, the location was California. Pre-flip, it would have been a mansion in detroit!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/us/polit...xprod=permalink It's an article in the NY Times about the Goracle's visit to the Capitol. Note this one paragraph. Almost everywhere he goes these days, Mr. Gore is met with the fuss of a statesman. His hair is slicked back in a way that accentuates the new fullness of his face. At the hotel, Mr. Gore’s perma-smile folded his narrow eyes into slits as he milled his way into a ballroom. Afterward, he accepted his customary standing ovation, slipped out a back door and into the back of a Lincoln Town Car, looking almost presidential.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 25, 2007 -> 02:41 PM) I would not. I am very consistent with behavioral issues and never draw a distinction between parties. There is no way I would expect anyone to offer money in this case. I know I wouldn't. Then in your case, i stand corrected. You would, however, be in the very small minority. Not that that is a bad thing.

I thnk this is a good move, and a good sign that they didn't feel compelled to take Floyd just to save face.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 24, 2007 -> 03:07 PM) If this was a REP you would be tripping over yourself to defend the action. Perhaps call it compassionate conservatism or some nice catch phrase like that. And you, and every other liber in here, would be screaming "Where's that compassionate conservatism at?" should the R not give him help, and you know it. Obama couldn't even stand to talk to the guy on the phone, he rushed him off because he has no time. I agree with your assessment of the two groups of people getting aid. And come on, have you ever seen a problem yet that the Democrats HAVEN'T said could be fixed by spending more money? Grades are down! Oh, more money for teachers! Crime is up! OK, more money for cops. Polling numbers down! OH, more money for pork projects! (To be fair, that last one goes for both parties).

I'll second, or third, or whatever, on the crate thing. My wife and son volunteer at the Plainfield Humane Society (which is a no-kill place), and it was only a matter of time until they came home with a new pooch. It was only about a year old, but almost mirrored the actions of your dog. We did the carte thing, and it worked well. Only problem we had is that we had to get a crate for our older dog, too, as she got jealous that the newby had a place of her own and she didn't! It took about 2 weeks for her to get used to the crate, and then she was fine. We don't even use it much anymore, unless we know we are going to be gone for a bit.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 11:11 PM) Are you suggesting that the best way to help someone is to just give them money? I thought that was the liberal way of thinking? Oh wait, it's give them someone elses's money. Nevermind. Seriously, I am not suggesting that is the BEST way, but considering what an important role this guy payed in his life, and the prominent place in his book, you would think he would be a little more generous, if not with his money, then with his time. Especially considering the negative view he will get for shunning a friend in need. This is such an overwhelmng display of compassion he is displaying towards a great childhood friend. NOT!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 10:39 PM) You are stretching here. Stretching how? Obama certainly isn't stretching his compassion by helping his best bud out with some cash. He certainly can afford it. Or is it just a case of tough-love? If you are refering to the Walmart comparrison, ok, you got me there, it was just I saw a Walmart ad just as I read that, and with him havnig his staff point his bud the right way to the social services availabel, it just reminded me of the evil Walmart.

Seems Obama is just like Walmart, making sure that those in need know how to get access to the social services offered by the government. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117...g_20070330.html So bottom line is, Obama's 'big brother' , who was so important to him growing up, asked for some help, and he said no. And before you all try to say 'Well, X wouldn't have sent money either', that's not the point. Just pointing out that the Democrats compassion has a limit, and here you see it.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 23, 2007 -> 08:15 AM) Now I get it. I didn't understand your previous posts, saying things that made zero sense about some people not being impaired or not being "messed up" at .08 (B.S.), 2 beers in an hour doesn't effect your driving (also B.S), etc. But what I see here is that you are angry because some asshole cop gave you a hard time. That would piss me off too, but it has nothing to do with the DUI laws, which are far too lenient. And to answer your question... no, I have not had 2 drinks in an hour and driven anywhere before. If I drive anywhere and drink, I limit myself to A drink, or maybe 2 if I'm somewhere for a few hours. That's it. If you have any doubts about what .08 does to you, you should try to participate in one of those studies that the state police (and sometimes local agencies) put on where they serve you drinks, test you, and have you drive (on a course, or using a simulator). See how you react differently. It will be crystal clear. I know because I've seen it done. This isn't even in the vicinity of accurate. Of course there are a lot of bad cops out there. As I said in a thread the other day, Chicago has 13,000 sworn officers. If even 5% of them are assholes (which is probably low for the normal population), that's 650 assholes with guns and badges, and that's a little scary. You can point at the couple dickheads who pulled you over and hassled you, and you forget about the rest of them that are doing their jobs. Being a cop is a very exposed job, and when a cop screws up, lots of people hear about it. So a few bad apples make a whole department look like idiots. So unless you are talking about Franklin Park or some other little mob central city, to say there are more bad cops than good ones is ridiculous. I can tell you from experience its simply not true. But then, maybe my standards are different. For example, if I pulled over A-Dog at 2am, soaked in alcohol and glassy-eyed, you can bet I'd have given him some field tests. If he failed those though, breathylizer should be next. But if I didn't have the machine in the squad, I'd have to take him to the station anyway. So up until the point where the cop said "you must be cheating or something", got pissed and left him without a ride... it sounds to me like he didn't do anything wrong (unless he did indeed make up the traffic violation - that's a load of crap). You are right, while I was pissed at being stopped at all for something I didn't do, everything up to the 'you're cheating' part I had no problem with. Me smelling like booze, I understand the field tests. Then he just became a dick. And as I mentioned, I have 3 cop friends, so I know they are not all bad, and that the number is even pretty small. My whole point was to counter those who were clamoring for drastic measures right off the bat for everyone, when there are distinctions. The first timer who maybe did have 2 or 3 beers at the game shouldn't be thrown in the clink for 5 years (with the stipulation that there are always exceptions). I took one of those tests in college, I passed it with 2 beers. Officer was kinda mad at me for doing so. I didn't state that nobody was affected at .08, I said some. I also have major criticisms about MADD, but that could be a different post. And an FYI, the stop was in Dyer, IN.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 22, 2007 -> 09:16 PM) So the Breathalyzer test saved your ass. Isn't that why society has that law instead of just taking the officer's story? But he didn't HAVE to give it to me, and wasn't going to until I screamed for a lawyer and a supervisor. It was more like this asshole knew he was screwin with me, and was gonna get caught at it. The ticket and no ride thing was just a final 'screw you' from them to me.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 22, 2007 -> 07:00 PM) It comes down to objective rather than subjective evidence. A number on a Breathalyzers is easier to use in court than an officer's observations. Also you would have been pulled over for something, so perhaps the person wasn't as sober as they think. I have been pulled over simply because it is 2am and there are bars nearby. I have also been stopped at 'safety check' roadblocks, which are a crock. The 2am one was the worst. As part of my at-the0time job I restocked a bar. I was covered with booze from cleaning a large spill, and the ensuing stop was fun. SUPPOSEDLY, I rolled thru a stop sign. However, seeing cops there evry night, I know enought to make a complete stop, so the cop was lying right there. He then proceeded to give me all the usual roadside tests. Well, my eyes appeared 'glassy' to him, but that was from all the smoke in the bar. I smelled like booze, but I was wearing it, hadn't had a drop. Did the eye test, and according to him, I moved my head. Standing on one foot? Easy, if I wasn't stopped on a hill. So, he decides I am drunk and slaps the cuffs on me to go to the station, where I demand a breathalizer. It comes up zero. Cop gets mad, tests me again. Zero again. He really gets mad then, says somehow I am either cheating, or the machine is broke. Wants me to do it a third time, I say no, get me a supervisor or a lawyer, because i want to leave. I get crap about how he can still give me tickets for several different things, including dui, even though I blew a zero. Bottom line, after 4 hours, I get out with a ticket for failure to obey a traffic signal. And to top it off, the bastards wouldn't even drive me back to my car. So, should I get a huge fine because I can't stand on one foot and a cop lied about the other tests? I shudder to think what would have happened if I had ANY alcohol in me.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2007 -> 04:42 PM) I for one will say that I have never had a couple of drinks and then gotten behind the wheel of a car. And if you want to argue that a .08 BAC does not significantly impair most people, you are simply wrong. You are creating an argument where I didn't make one. i didn't say most people weren't impared at .08. I said you could be as impared, or more, from cold medicine, or paint fumes, or lack of sleep, and asked if you should have such draconian measures taken against you for those as well? 2 beers in a hour can put you up to that legal limit. I have a few friends that are cops, we have tested the roadside breathalizer, and it has said I was legally drunk after 2 beers in one hour. Thats bull. I can tell you that I am not drunk, nor impared, after 2 beers, even if i were to chug them. Sure, if you weighed 110lbs and hadn't eaten in 7 or 8 hours, you might react different. My point is that alot of people more impared at other times in their life than at .08, and it is those people that wil get screwed. Some people are really messed up at .08, some are not.

Can any of you hardasses say that you have never had one or two drinks at a Sox game or a bar, or a glass ot two of wine with a dinner, and then driven somewhere afterwards? Depending on the circumstances, such as food, your weight, time, etc, you could have been drunk. You could be more impared driving while tired than some people with .08. Should your license betaken away unless you had 8 hours of sleep? You could be more impared from cold medication. Wanna lose your license over a sniffle? I am all for locking up people who make you wonder how they made it INTO the car, much less driving the thing somewhere and killing people. But it is the average Joe who gets screwed by the constant lowering of the BAC levels, roadblocks, etc. There are planty of penalties now for people who do this. As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, it just appears that cops are not letting it slide anymore, so it is reported more often. Enforce what you have, quit letting repeat offenders get off, and the wolrd will survive.

10 of 10! Although I wasn't sure on the Russian Hannibal.

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Mar 22, 2007 -> 12:05 PM) Oh, but it must be said, one of the things that REALLY hurts the contestants who choose to do ROCK songs is that damn band. The tone on the guitar is TERRIBLE. Baldy would have sounded great on Tobacco Road had he done it with just the piano, as you heard with him and Noone. But then you move him into that band, and it goes to crap. NO GUTS ANYWHERE IN THAT STUPID HOUSE BAND. My wife and i had those same comments last year. I'm not sure who chooses the arrangements (i thought it was the band but I'm not sure) but on more than one occasion we thought the song sucked because of the band and arrangement. I remember one time last year when Simon called the band on it and said the singer was great but the arrangment was horrible. I think he's already done it at least once this year already.

If you enjoy the standard of living you have now and do not want it to go lower, American cannot be the only country to institute, and keep, the steep cuts that the Goracle and his minions follow. The economy will suffer, wages will suffer, productivity will suffer. If you think we lose jobs at a fast pace now to China and India, just wait, because they will do nothing in the way of changes because it would be 'bad for business'. In your rush to dekapitate Kap, you all seemed to miss that point in his posts. Yes, we can do things. but if we are the only one, we will lose in every area to the countries that do nothing. China builds coal plants like they are Starbucks. Its not 'They pollute, why can't we", its "if we stop and they don't, they win".

My father-in-law is a electrician and i know he's not getting alot of work through the union hall so he's been doing side jobs. of course...if you're in the south or SW burbs he could probably help...he doesn't go northside very often.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 01:09 PM) The NEA isn't the problem, and I fail to see how 2 mommies is the slightest bit relevant to the discussion. But I definitely agree that our schools in general are pretty poor at preparing kids for a positive future. Worse, there are plenty of good schools out there, but they are outweighed by the majority of schools that are not so good. Just a quick look around the Chicago area will show you a range of schools, from New Trier to De LaSalle and everything between. There is a huge range in the quality of schools. Mr. Genius hit my intentions on the head. The lower levels of learning here in the US tend to focus on too much crap instead of what they need to compete in the world. It's not the schools job to teach acceptance of homosexuality, or the joys of communism, other than in a historical context. Teach them to speak english, read a book, do math, work a computer, etc. And for those that are just not meant for college, shop class and the trades. And yes, that is a generalization, as I realize that there are some great schools, but they are outnumbered and outweighed by the bad ones.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 12:32 PM) the problem is that much of our work force is in no way ready to do high tech jobs. our education systems sucks at teaching the mathematical and engineering sciences. we have to bring in people from other countries to do a lot of high paying engineering and computer work. Correct, but the people who are unequipped to handle those jobs still feel as though they are entitled to the higher pay that goes with them. So, can we abolish the NEA and actually start teaching kids things that will let them compete in the world economy, or are we gona keep teaching them that everyone gets an award just for competing, that they are 'special' , and that it's just fine that Jimmy has 2 mommies?

I think i was more surprised to see someone like Helms taking the stuff. How far will The Hurricane fall????? Tune in next week!!!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 20, 2007 -> 09:36 AM) The tax thread has me thinking. Whether it be Hotels, Neighborhoods, Airline seats, etc. we all know it costs more to go First Class and we either pay the cost or accept the best we can or are willing to pay for. Can't afford to live in Lake Forest? Libertyville may be just the ticket. What do you do when a country has priced itself too high? It costs a lot to create and maintain a First Class country like the US. If the numbers in that thread are accurate, we accept that 40% of the population can not afford to pay income taxes. In a sense, they do not earn enough to cover their share of the cost. One alternative is to cut back and in a sense have a "coach class" country and allow the wealthiest to retain more of their hard earned income. This stops the poor from robbing the rich. Problem is, I don't think the rich would want to livbe in the country that the poorest could afford to build. (think Mexico) Is there a point when we have priced ourselves too high? This would be a great topic to sit around and talk with you about over a couple of beers, but I don't think typing words here could do it justice, at least for me. Back in the day when I first graduated college and was looking for gainfull employment, I was pissed that the best I was finding was about $19k per year, when autoworkers who can barely read were making $30+ an hour with benefits. (I know that is an unfair statement, but at the time, that is how I felt) This country became great because we had a huge middle class, which was possible when a large part of our economy was in manufacturing. Back to autoworkers, I know of Ford employees who have second homes, boats, new cars every few years and are retired. Not bad for someone with no degree. I just think that those days are over since our economy has shifted is base away from manufacturing. too much 'keeping up with the Jones'es' going on for people to feel secure with what they need, they have to have 'more' just to keep up. Man, this is just too big for my sleep-deprived brain today.