EvilMonkey

If dealing with Ellen as host means more shots of Portia De Rossi in the crowd all dolled up then i can live with it. Portia (even if i'm not her type)

What? No mention of the fact that the Democrats have issued a vieled threat against ABC's broadcast liscense if they didn't change it? http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/se...-threatens.html And before you get started, yes, Republicans were outraged against CBS for unfair portrayals in “The Reagans” and lobbied to get it quashed. Still, they didn’t use the threat of government sanction against a broadcaster exercising its 1st Amendment rights. If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it. They can organize protests and boycotts, letter-writing campaigns and so on. What they cannot do is to threaten a broadcast license for political differences, regardless of the situation. It violates the spirit of free speech and makes the Democrats look like Big Brother.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 7, 2006 -> 05:25 PM) Evil, once again, I agree with everything you wrote, but, I then think about the moral implications. Are we then telling people not to reproduce? Don't you think that is hardwired into our being, as a survival tool? Tex, I think you and I are on the same page. I belive that the people themselves should have enough brains to say 'hey, maybe now isn't the best time to be makin babies.' Should we tell them, "no, you can't have kids!"? Here is where the personal responsibility comes in. Can't feed yourself? Don't have a kid just yet. Want to still have sex? Great, do something so you don't make a baby while doing so. Back in my young, evil days, I partook many times in the pleasure of the flesh, and to my knoledge, have no unclaimed youngins running around. It can be done. As for reproduction being hardwired into us, I think you may have a point there. I knew of some women when I was in college who were just waiting to find a husband and have kids, but most of the guys I knew had no desire whatsoever for offspring at that point in time. I am sure the desire to actualyl reproduce varies from person to person, and probably with age as well.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 7, 2006 -> 02:01 PM) Let me give you a family of four scenario EM. One that I saw personally. I have a friend of mine who has two kids - both autistic, one severely the other mildly. She gave birth to them while serving in the military with her husband - also in the military. When they were discharged, they didn't make enough money in the military to stay in Colorado near where they were stationed so they moved back to Michigan to be closer to family so that childcare would become affordable. Despite being trained as an engine mechanic, the only job he could find was stocking shelves at a grocery store for 6 dollars an hour. With her years as an Administrative Assistant in the military, she got a job at the radio station I worked at as an Administrative Assistant. She was making about 9 dollars an hour. That's prevailing wage in that area at the time. She went two years without a raise, despite being one of the most important employees in the sales department. He was laid off when the supermarket cut back its workforce. The resulting problems from the lack of money eventually ended their marriage. So now its just a family of three, living off 9 dollars an hour. She was able to get some limited state assistance, but when youre making 18 grand a year, which is about where 9 dollars puts you, the state assistance you can get is limited. It took her months of searching before she was able to find another AA job that paid her better and gave her the kind of hours she needed so that she could look after her kids the way she needed to as a responsible parent. Not everyone who works on the low rungs of the wage ladder planned to be or stay there, they just get there and find it difficult to get off that rung. Not everyone who has a family of four was making minimum wage (or in this case slightly more) when they had their kids, and unfortunately not everyone who gets pregnant plans on getting pregnant. Sometimes, despite precautionary measures, pregnancy happens. Now we can't ban sex, its one of the few affordable forms of entertainment low wage workers have. And more seriously, you just can't. So unless you think minimum wage earners should be forced into giving up their baby either through abortion or adoption unless they find a better paying job during their pregnancy - we still have to take their needs into account. We belong to a society that believes in protecting all its members and letting them and their children have an equal opportunity to a life that meets basic needs. Our current minimum wage laws don't provide for that at the moment in most places in the US. Yes, it is a sad story, and one that happens in this world of ours. Rex, would you buy a $35,000 car if you couldn't afford the $500 month payments? Would you take out a lease on a 3000 square foot apartment if you only made $10 per hour? I never mentioned banning sex. Make sure you reread that, because it isn't in there anywhere. I said that maybe people who can barely keep their own heads above water ought to think twice before adding to their financial responsibilities and adding a child. Sex is free, kids cost a fortune! And if they are low wage earners, who pays for them? Not the parents. Yes, there are exceptions to that, such as you mentioned above. if you are working minimum wage, and living in poor conditions, bringing a child into this world is just wrong. You have, as a parent, a moral and ethical obligation to provide for that child as best you can, and if you can't even provide for yourself, well then you have lost before you have even started. How about a little personal responsibility here?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 7, 2006 -> 01:50 PM) Evil, I agree with you. But don't we sound like the Chinese and their population control laws? The issue I see is whatare our career ladders now? It seems like we are exporting better paying jobs (the middle class) and creating service level jobs. Manufacturing was the path for H.S. grads to build a better life, but that has been eroding. What industry should a H.S. graduate go into? Not everyone will survive college. Are there no career paths that lead to a middle class existance without a college degree? Tex, I am not saying or implying that we should have population controls, but a little self control wouldn't hurt. Condoms cost alot less than kids. if you can't eat, don't have kids. I realize some people are simply not smart enough to advance very high in the work force. How about not burdening society with a bunch of kids then? My wife and I held off on kids for a few years until we thought we were better able to afford them and raise them. Yes, a luxury that not all can do, I understand. But if we were dirt poor and living in a tiny apartment, I would be thinking twice about bringing another mounth to feed into the world.

This may sound cold and heartless, but if you have a family of 4, and can only work minimum wage or less jobs because of your skill set, you had no business starting a family to begin with. Why are you bringing new mouth(s) to feed into the world when you can barely feed yourself? That said, I generally don't mind a small increase in the minimum wage level, but you can't increase it so that it suddenly becomes a 'living wage'. Those jobs weren't meant to provide support for a family of 4, most (of the legal ones) are entry level jobs, where you are supposed to advance up and out of that pay structure. No one issue is solitary anymore, so solutions are not as straight-forward either.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 6, 2006 -> 01:42 PM) It's going to be a pain in the backside for people living on the border, especially those working in Mexico. Imagine if everyone travelling on 94 into Wisconsin had to stop and show a passport. http://themonitor.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Te...p;Section=Local Well, those with Wisconsin plates (actually any plates) have to stop and pay a toll to get in,and those with non-Wisconsin plates have to pay a ticket once they cross the border from the over zealous state police.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 6, 2006 -> 01:48 PM) I understand how to read an income statement, thank you. Maybe I am not explaining this very well, let me try again. What they list as "assets" are their endowment. You do not spend an endowment, you invest it, and what you make off of that is what is spent. Usually an endowment is invested fairly conservatively, so as to not deteriorate the bottom line. Just by eyeballing the figures, 5% of $10 billion is $500 million, which looks to me to be right in line with what you should expect to be making off of interest based investments such as bills, bonds, or notes right now. Those numbers are actually rock solid that they are NOT in fact making a profit. Well then, by your logic, they would have to spend exactally what they earned in income to the penny, or risk a profit, or dipping into the assets. I doubt that they spend to the penny what they earn, and at least with the Ford Foundation, they can't touch the base, so if even one dollar is left over, it shows a profit. I am also going to stop arguing this with you, as it is pointless, and has drifted far from the minimum wage issue this started out to be. Maybe next time the United Way chairman rtakes trips to Europe with young women on charity money, or the some other foundation chair buys himself a $250,000 desk, we can start this part up again.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 6, 2006 -> 01:46 PM) Are you saying it doesn't take balls to go against the US position? I would think it would take a greater level of testosterone to not stand side by side with the only remaining superpower. It seems more to me that we labeled France as weak and wrong when they remained nuetral, now that more and more countries are taking that position, we are becoming more and more the outsider. I am saying it takes balls to stand up to the Muslims in Europe, which most of the governments over there just don't seem to want to do. Europe has been thumbing its nose at us for a while. C'mon, Tex, anti-US in the 'in' thing in Europe (and elsewhere), it has been for a while now.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 6, 2006 -> 01:16 PM) France isn't even mentioned, the thread title is misleading . . . Now that you know it's Britian, Germany, and Spain, does that change your opinion? Yes, I agree that it seems my title is a bit misleading. My intent was to bring up when France denied flyovers to show that they (flyovers and layovers) are being denied again, but this time by Europe in general. The article doesn't say that France ISN'T doing it, it just points out that some of them doing it are more traditional allies" including Britain, Germany and Italy." No, I am still pissed that Europe is doing this because they are afraid of pissing off Muslims. That is all it really is. Do nothing to appear to help and maybe they will leave us alone. LIke I said, they need to grow some balls. Or go to the docs on Nip/Tuck and have some nuticles put in for them.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 6, 2006 -> 12:37 PM) Are you familiar with the term "endowment"? Because by siting assets, that is probably all you have said. Unless you have something that also shows how much they have given away, and spent on other expenses, you haven't shown a single penny of profits in your post. ss2k, how do you not see that in the Ford Foundation case, that they made a profit? If they didn't make money, they would be broke, since they don't take in outside contributions. The interest earned on their endowment is income. They make money, and spend less than they make, which is why the foundation's assets keep growing. Again, Seems like from that sentance, they spend $500 million per year, and have assets over $10 billion. I am sure the stock value when Ford started the Foundation was no where near that level, so it has surely grown over the years. Yes, it started with an 'endowment', but it makes money by the interest INCOME from that endowment.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 5, 2006 -> 08:51 PM) And by profit, for this purpose, it means money that does NOT go to the target audience or plowback into expansion or infrastructure. Why not? If they MADE the money that they then spend on expansion, etc, it was PROFIT. Just because they take the profit and use it to further their cause does not mnake it any less of a profit. Big religion is a not-for-profit 'corporation', and I do believe that they make a profit. Otherwise, how could to afford to pay off all priest-abused kids? They take in more than they spend (usually), and some have investments, property holding and other things to help fund their activities. At the end of the day, if they have more than they spent, they made a profit. Yes, there are MANY that do not make profits, nor do they seek to do so such as the Red Cross and Better Business Bureau, but there are alot that do make money. Most 'foundations' were started with a grant or a trust set up to provide continual funding for the organization. The Ford Foundation was set up with Ford Co. stock and is partially funded by the profits from the stock and other investments the foundation makes. http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/funderPr....asp?fndid=5176 Looks like some damn nice profits to me.

only this time it is alot more of Europe, and the denial is of IDF planes that are carrying munitions. I guess they are afraid of offending the Muslims in their country, or of appearing to be taking sides. Europe need to grow some balls. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/758607.html

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 4, 2006 -> 09:29 PM) If you don't do anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about. That family clearly did something wrong. They paid down their credit card debt, thus hurting the profit margins of the large credit card companies. This is a greivous crime. I know that the first part of your reply shoulda been green, or whatever color dripping sarcasm should be. Knowing that, how do you feel about road side 'safety checks'? I have twice in the last year paid off a huge chunck on my credit cards. They are personal cards that I charge business stuff to from time to time. Usually it is only a few hundred, but I have twice had to put several thousand at a time on there, and then paid it off the next month or two. No holds on mine. And I don't do that regularly, but maybe once a year, this year twice so far. Maybe its because they are in the liberal east coast?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 2, 2006 -> 03:12 PM) One job I had in high school was "x-dating" for an insurance agent. I took a phone directory and he paid me .10 for every person I spoke with who would confirm their info and when their car insurance expired. I am certain some hours I was psid less than minimum, especially when friends would stop by. I was alone in the office in the evening. I could see a similar wage scale here, and I believe it is what the US Census uses, $X per house. Work faster, earn more. I am not necessarily defending that company, just offering some possible explainations. Most businesses fo not have the time or the interest to thouroughly check their suppliers labor practices, but you would think a political party would. Imagine if some company came in off the street and asked you for your employee records and other information like that before offering to place work with you. Most businesses would not hand that over. You should see some of the crap they want to know when I try to get government contracts! Man, suprised they don't want to know sperm count! On a serious note, I can see the Dem party reasonably asking and seeking info on whether or not the people that they will be hiring to canvas about minimum wage are at least making that.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Sep 2, 2006 -> 05:28 AM) lol she is hot but you guys act like she is america's next top model or something like that. There are tons of girls who are as hot as her. Of course most of you wouldnt have a shot with them either Tape a few hundreds to your wang and you never know.......

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 2, 2006 -> 12:23 PM) Evil, you own a business, how many times have *you* paid *yourself* less than minimum wage? I recall with my businesses, every once in a while I didn't even draw a check. I think about that when minimum wage comes up. There are a lot of small business owners out there working 100 hours a week for less than the min. I did some of this type of work a jillion years ago. I was paid per "contact" and for some hours may have made less than the minimum, but some hours over the minimum. IIRC, I was not considered an employee, but an independent contractor. So judding, while not "tips", think more commission. And anytime there is commission/tips/piece work/pay for performance there is potential for abuse. Once again proving that rich business owners will exploit workers for their own gain. Wouldn't it be fun to know the politics of the person who sets the pay scale and not the politics of their customers? Many, many days the first few years did I go without pay. Drove Mrs. EvilMonkey crazy! But that is as the owner. I have never hired anyone for less than minimum wage. My press operator is one of the higher paid guys in mt area, because he is good. Even Juddling makes more than minimum from me (although not much more!). The company tried to use loopholes to pay its workforce less than the minimum wage. They are not selling anything, how do they get commission? And even if that is legal, that sure doesn't seem like a great way to treat the workers. You bring up a good point, that we don't know the politics of the company they hired. However, you know as well as me, that the party organizations tend to hire their own, usually someone with a party connection. Nepotism knows no party line. And for a party as deeply concerned about the lower & middle class, the poor working stiffs that make this country great, shouldn't they have taken a few extra moment's to make sure they weren't hiring slave labor? Walmart employees made more than these people.

http://www.thedailypage.com/features/docfe...hp?intdocid=187 The opening line says it all Isn't this the same party that had staffers slash tires of Republican campaign vans on election eve? Those wacky cheeseheads!

QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Aug 29, 2006 -> 05:06 PM) Clothes for uniforms serve one purpose only: school clothes. Regular clothes serve multiple purposes. School clothes, play clothes, going out to eat clothes, going to the store clothes, lounging around on the weekend clothes... And they both last longer.

Up until i moved last year, my boys had to wear 'uniforms' at the grade schools. Black or dark blue pants/shorts for boys, along with light blue polos, dress shirts or plain t-shirts. Pretty cheap to buy, even if they are wearing them 'only' 6 or 7 hours a day. You buy 5 or 6 polos for about $15 each, a few pairs of the pants, and actually do a load of laundry during the week, you are set for about $100. if you took your kid out shopping for the school clothes they wanted to wear, you would be lucky if the price tag was still 3 figures.

http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/20...?p1=MEWell_Pos1 Top Ten Excuses Offered By Dog For Crashing Car 10. "I could swear that oncoming sedan looked like a large, metallic squirrel." 9. "I thought vehicles had the power of dematerialization, like in those fascinating Chuck Wagon commercials." 8. "Everything was going fine until I realized it had been three minutes since I licked my balls." 7. "It wasn't my fault. The other driver was Chinese. 'Nuff said." 6. "You know that whole 'faking the throw' thing? Yeah, yeah. That's funny. Really funny. Oh, my ribs are aching. You know what else is funny? Head-on collisions, b****." 5. "Two words: Cell phone. My best friend was just telling me about this ratty old gym sneaker she was gnawing on that just sounded so to die for and I guess I just got caught up in the moment." 4. "I was having a stressful day at the office, putting the finishing touches on a proposed merger between my snout and the mailman's genitals." 3. "Honestly, my Blood-Snausage-Ratio was no higher than .08." 2. "Gotta admit... I looked pretty damn cool for about three-quarters of a second there." ...and the number one excuse offered by the dog for crashing the car... 1. "I'm very sad about all of this, but can I say one thing in my defense? I'm a f***ing dog, moron." (I stole the list. Sorry, not that creative!)

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 28, 2006 -> 03:09 AM) The story does implicate White House officials who did confirm the identity of Valerie Plame. And whether or not an actual leak came out of the mouth of Karl Rove, it was partially his political machinations that allowed the White House to try to use the identity of an undercover CIA agent in an attempt to discredit a critic of the administration. Legal or not, that's unacceptable - period. Legal or not, its at the very least deserving of a thorough investigation - one which a partisan Congress chose not to seriously exercise. If it is legal, why investigate it? Seriously? A reporter might want to investigate it, but a special prosecutor? Even at MEdia Matters, they list his mandate as" As Media Matters for America noted, Fitzgerald was assigned with a broad mandate to investigate the alleged leak of Plame's identity as a CIA operative." Not whether or not Rove played dirty politics by using it to his side's advantage. In the end it was just a gossipy b!tch in Armitage who spilled the beans because he didn't like BushCo and wanted to seem important, and probably didn't realize the extent of what he had done. He then compounded it by keeping silent as another guy took the heat for HIS crime.

I was afraid alot of my wife's songs would show up, but I only got one in the first 10. Cheap Trick - Ain't That a Shame Avenged Sevenfold - Bat Country Dada - Poster Grand Funk Railroad - Some Kind of Wonderful James brown - Living in America Keane - Is It Any Wonder Mark Broussard - Home Alan O'Day - Undercover Angel (wife's song) Chiliwack - My Girl (Gone, Gone, Gone) Off Broadway - Stay in Time But my next 3 in a row were all Huey Lewis and the News!

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 28, 2006 -> 12:52 AM) The "liberal" media ran with it because Rove is a bigger, easier target than Armitage (who probably some 5% of the country has even heard of). I despise Karl Rove, but the thing is, he's really, really good at what he does. And its difficult to see anything illegal in his actions. if Armitage did the leaking... then yeah, Armitage deserves the beating. Well, you are right, all the media ran with it to an extent because yes, it is news when the President's advisor is under investigation. But as usual, some more than others.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 28, 2006 -> 12:43 AM) Rove doesn't belong in jail if he wasn't the one who did the leaking and he never lied to the grand jury. But it is darn interesting that as soon as someone else did the leaking, his first response was to go around spreading the information in an effort to do the smearing. Stay on topic. Rove didn't leak it, Armitage did. State knew about it and kept silent. Fitzgerald either knew about it and did nothing, or is a crappy special investigator and couldn't figure it out when 3 people or more from State knew about it. The liberal media ran with this like rabid dogs for months while Fitzgerald kept 'investigating' someone who dodn't do the 'crime'. Whether they acted on any information that became public or not is not relevant. They didn't make it public, which is what the whole big deal was about in the first place.