legacyofCangelosi

I cant believe this is in the news. Well egyptian guys, now you know the FBI is on your tail, so hide.

Valid points. However, my problem is an indictment is seen by public opinion in much the same way as a guilty verdict. Furthermore, it wont be good for Texas, IMO if delay does win and then gets convicted Thanks for the insightful stupidity. Because of how the public sees and understands indictments republicans should be able to pick and choose candidates as they want on a whim, despite what law and court dictates and that is a reflection on democrats? Forget the fact the voters of the district over look the indictments they wanted the guy and he left them in the dust. You sir is the type of person who has bears as friends. Its funny when an uneducated simpleton like you tries to sound intelligent. Its also obvious you're new to this board, based on ur perception of me. As F_M said, if DeLay were to come back and run, then there is no problem with it. However, this bs politicking that goes on in this country is outrageous and stupid. If you read what I wrote without your anti-republican bias you'd notice three things: 1. My statement was to open grounds for intelligent discussion, so far f-M has been the only one to return that volley 2. Not to criticize the dems, but to make a statement concerning the rights of voters 3. To attempt to open a discussion on the power of courts, which no one has bitten on yet So anyway come back when you actually know anything about politics other than what you watch on john stewart And b/c of how the public views indictments, it should be open to debate whether any party can replace a candidate after the primary and if such candidate can be considered to be 'disqualified' Oh and just b/c the court said it doesnt count as disqualification doesnt mean the debate is over. If that were the case we'd still be following the ruling in Dred Scott and it would have never been challenged.

Valid points. However, my problem is an indictment is seen by public opinion in much the same way as a guilty verdict. Furthermore, it wont be good for Texas, IMO if delay does win and then gets convicted

Stop sipping Tommy Hutton's Kool-Aid. Like any business it is their responsability to give customers a reason to come out to the ballpark. It is not for them to say winning alone should do that. We had John Henry tell fans Dolphins Stadium served up a horrible baseball experience. Loria and Samson have told us that if we give them hundreds of millions of dollars we can have a baseball experience like other cities. So even they say its not only about winning. So obviously the experience inside the ballpark is less than acceptable even though the product on the field is competitive. We can go through the Marlins timeline. Different owners, different promises, different payroll corrections, and different threats to contract or move the team. Last I saw, attendance was growing year after year until Loria decided to tear apart the team. It does not matter how good or bad the team is, it matters that fans were turned off by what the owner of this business did. Tommy Hutton is not obligated to eat at the Jupiter Ale House and no one talks down to him on a daily basis if their customer traffic is slowing down. I love Hutton but he really needs to calm down and stick to the game. It is not for him to tell anyone how to spend their hard-earned money. In South Florida where FU money flows freely and major events sell as well as anywhere else in the country....when you cannot draw a crowd maybe its time for the business owner to accept fault and admit the complete product they are providing is not what the consumer wants. Good baseball should be enough to get the real baseball fan to the ballpark. Unfortunately, there aren't enough of those in South Florida evidently. All things considered with the ballpark, the casual fan isn't too enticed to go. The casual fan is what fills stadiums. 13,000 ppl in the park if all 10,000 die hard marlins fans go every night, thats still horrible attendance. I've been to shea several times and more than half the people around you dont know jack about baseball, its an even greater # at yankee stadium. Hialeah isnt that far depending what part of borward u live in

Because Houston is a veteran/proven (2nd half) team led by Roger Clemens and Roy Oswalt It could be said that a team that has won 2 World Championships in 10 years, and the last National League team to win a championship, is newsworthy as well. Houston didnt even show up for the World Series in 2005 and Roger Clemens has retired about as many times as Michael Jordan. :whistle Yup its because ESPN chooses what they think the public wants to see. If the marlins were on everyday about how these young guys have outperformed, theyd be media darlings, and everyone in the naiton would be rooting for them. Instead the media continues to pound out how horrible we are and how we cant get fans to the park

That's an ignorant statement. Of course they are going to notice. It's big news. Would you prefer they led off Baseball Tonight and Sportscenter every night w/ a sub .500 team that doesn't have a realistic shot of making the playoffs? Bet that would go over well with the country. a lot of people don't understand this. Then why do they always talk about Houston or even philly at times???

I believe england also doesnt have an income tax :blink: I wish. Base rate income tax is 23%, plus 11% for 'National Insurance' = 34% Anything you earn over ~$50k is taxed at 40%+11% = 51% OK my mistake. I thought they had a fed sales tax system over there. You live in England?

The dems using legal loopholes to win a seat cheaply. Good work. Since when are republicans innocent? Hmmm. let me reread my post to where i said republicans were innocent. Both sides do it. And to talk objectively, i want to hear some of you guys saying how this type of thing takes away the voter's rights to choose the candidate they want, instead they are essentially being appointed someone by the supreme court Absolutely wrong. Delay won the primary and for that reason he was the candidate selected by the Republican voters to run. So first off, this isnt about voter's rights being taken away by anyone except the state Republican party. Second, it was Delay and the Texas Republicans who tried to pull a fast one by using a loophole. Delay decided he didn't want to run after he won the primary. So then he should have either withdrawn or stayed on the ballot as the rules mandate. But instead he tried to use another method of removal that wasnt meant for his type of case(ie the definition of a lopphole). The long time Texas resident fled to Virginia and tried to claim he wasnt eligible to run. Id say thats the Republicans using the loophole. Third, as far as the democrats and their diabolic strategy, a conservative federal appeals court ruled that the state officials had acted unconstitutionally by adding the additional residency requirement. Also, even if not unconstitutional, the issue of eligibility in this case was one interpreted by the same conservative federal appeals court as leaving Delay as still a possible resident of Texas. Yep, the dems knew that the conservative court would undemocratically appoint the candidate that the voters selected. Sorry, but youre wrong. i'm not disputing the legality of the democrats moves. The end result is that the dem candidate is going to win uncontested. And thats wrong, it isnt illegal but its wrong. So the democrats are suing in order to be able to win unconested. Thats def the dems using the loophole. Its a stupid law, and the represntation of those people in Texas is going to be seriously hindered by this ruling. Furthermore, it makes no difference if the court is conservative, i dont understand what difference that makes in my point. Again 1 candidtae running, the only real loser here is the people of Texas. 100% correct. Who cares in this situation if it is illegal for republicans to run another candidate, they have broken so many laws why not let them break another?! Leave it to the democrats to try and morally corrupt this nation and trying to surpress the vote. And not only should the republicans get to run a new candidate in DeLay's old district, DeLay should be appointed Grand Chancellor of whatever district he decides to seek refuge in. Because we all know he didn't willingly resign or pull out of the election, IT WAS THE COMMUNIST LOVING, DEATH LOVING, ZIONISTS THAT MADE HIM DO IT. Thanks for the insightful stupidity. Apparently while you were out watching john stewart you completely disregarded the importance of getting an education. Leaving your biases aside for a second, lets try to think objectively. F_M I direct this question at you since we're the only ones having intelligent debate so far. You have no objections to allowing a candidate to take a seat uncontested for whatever reason? B/c I have a problem wiht it, regardless what party it is. Not only this, but DeLay's indictment should count as grounds to allow them to pick another candidate. Would you be opposed to DeLay himself running? What if even with the indictment he still wins this seat? You dont have a problem with someone under these types of proceedings being in the Congress

The dems using legal loopholes to win a seat cheaply. Good work. Since when are republicans innocent? Hmmm. let me reread my post to where i said republicans were innocent. Both sides do it. And to talk objectively, i want to hear some of you guys saying how this type of thing takes away the voter's rights to choose the candidate they want, instead they are essentially being appointed someone by the supreme court Absolutely wrong. Delay won the primary and for that reason he was the candidate selected by the Republican voters to run. So first off, this isnt about voter's rights being taken away by anyone except the state Republican party. Second, it was Delay and the Texas Republicans who tried to pull a fast one by using a loophole. Delay decided he didn't want to run after he won the primary. So then he should have either withdrawn or stayed on the ballot as the rules mandate. But instead he tried to use another method of removal that wasnt meant for his type of case(ie the definition of a lopphole). The long time Texas resident fled to Virginia and tried to claim he wasnt eligible to run. Id say thats the Republicans using the loophole. Third, as far as the democrats and their diabolic strategy, a conservative federal appeals court ruled that the state officials had acted unconstitutionally by adding the additional residency requirement. Also, even if not unconstitutional, the issue of eligibility in this case was one interpreted by the same conservative federal appeals court as leaving Delay as still a possible resident of Texas. Yep, the dems knew that the conservative court would undemocratically appoint the candidate that the voters selected. Sorry, but youre wrong. i'm not disputing the legality of the democrats moves. The end result is that the dem candidate is going to win uncontested. And thats wrong, it isnt illegal but its wrong. So the democrats are suing in order to be able to win unconested. Thats def the dems using the loophole. Its a stupid law, and the represntation of those people in Texas is going to be seriously hindered by this ruling. Furthermore, it makes no difference if the court is conservative, i dont understand what difference that makes in my point. Again 1 candidtae running, the only real loser here is the people of Texas.

The dems using legal loopholes to win a seat cheaply. Good work. Since when are republicans innocent? Hmmm. let me reread my post to where i said republicans were innocent. Both sides do it. And to talk objectively, i want to hear some of you guys saying how this type of thing takes away the voter's rights to choose the candidate they want, instead they are essentially being appointed someone by the supreme court

The dems using legal loopholes to win a seat cheaply. Good work.

it must suck to live out of this country. gas is $4+ in canada, and I heard it was over $6 in france Yea but you cant really compare outside markets like that b/c they have different systems. In England for example the taxes on gasoline are higher than here, and I believe england also doesnt have an income tax

Romney is probably going to have more backing then Guliani will from the GOP. Romney supports a same-sex marriage ban, pro death penalty, pro-life (sans rape and incest, etc), and vetoed stem cell research. I know he also supported raising the salary of teachers. I don't know his stance on guns but he is right with me on all the big issues and his drunk driving crackdown bill really makes me happy as for personal reasons that's a big issue for myself as is the raising of the teachers salary. He seems to be a great candidate who if he gets the ball rolling and the backing of the party is going to have a great chance of winning it. wow talk about a person essentially 100 % off for me. The only thing I agree with is pro life...though abortion is legal in this nation so it is what it is, as long as its legal its legal. Passion was just stating why he personally likes romney. I'm a guiliani fan myself.

Even General Abuzaid admits that things are getting worse in Iraq. Who else would know but the ground commander? The other millions of people that are in Iraq currently? No way to spin it, theres no definite that its getting worse. No definite that its getting better. Hell, no way of telling who considers what to be better or worse and so forth

We have a double standard when it comes to our military. On the one hand, we want to bring to justice any people who attack our soldiers in a situation like Iraq. On the other hand, we refuse to let our soldiers stand trial for war crimes in the World Court. Doesn't make much sense to me. Unfortunately, as Iraq gets worse, I start to think that we could have Vietnam-like slaughters of innocent civilians who soldiers might think are working with insurgents/terrorists. You never know. The battlefield is a tough environment. Iraq gettign worse as a definite :lol . For al you know this is an isolated incident. furthermore, the double standard is in the fact that since the late 60s, the general public has been quick to jump on soldiers misdoings and completely ignoring what the other side is doing to us.

This bill is LONG overdue. Congress has given itself pay raises every year for the past 10 years. In that same time period, the minimum wage has stayed at $5.15, even though cost of living has gone up something like 40% since 1996. I would hate to have to be someone working full time on that wage of $5.15, or the new figure either. Minimum wage is much higher than $5.15 now. Nope. Federal minimum wage is at 5.15 right now. The new one is 7.25. Floridas state minimum is 6.50. And I'd hate to be the owner of a small business that has to pay the people who mop the floor 12 dollars an hour.

guys i know that some of you might not like him but i think u gotta give him a chance. he has excellent stuff and i think that when he comes back he should start. all of his pitches have probably the best movement on the staff. six man rotation when mitre gets back? I dont know if he should start necessarily, but i do think he can help this team. A 6 man rotation isnt a bad idea either to give the young arms more time to recuperate after starts 6 man rotation...Thats crazY! Why not a 7 or an 8 man rotation...Jeez! ?????? The 6 man rotation idea has been thrown around quite a bit by analysts and sports writers, it isnt that outrageous of an idea Didn't we do that last year? Hey what about some clubs shoot for a 4 men rotation, does it sound like a good idea for clubs to do in the final month before the playoff when they are borderline on making it? I dont understand youre question and ur logic behind it. My response was to eddie who made the 6 man seem like an outrageous idea. I'm not syaing its a good idea at all, but it is very real and viable.

Id consider the title of this thread to be very deceptive. They arent blocking minimum wage increases and you know that. They are fighting the estate tax. Youre passing along the Republican distortion of an issue. How is it a fair compromise when the overall benefits dont come close to matching the costs. The poor who need the minimum wage increase end up paying for the estate tax and then some? The lost revenue from the estate tax comes right out of the social programs that the poor rely on and in many instances would pretty much offset any min wage increase for some of them and cost more for others who dont. The whole trickle down argument doesnt fly either. And if it was a fair compromise, all those business groups wouldnt be sh*tting their pants with glee over it. They gave away their poker hand bigtime. And you gotta love the congress that still pushes tax cuts in war time. So lets list the priorities again: Stop the fags Stop the five random wackos who burn flags. More tax cuts for the wealthy. Anything missing? The best part of the article comes from the business lobbyist who says Republicans have to show that they care about the poorest Americans. Made me laugh out loud. That's a pretty interesting piece of legislation. It actually seems to be something that democracy was intended to do from the getgo. I like it in general. They're whining about rich people getting a tax break, but the extra money could just as easily be put into the economy which would in turn lead to more jobs. I am not a huge fan of the federal minimum wage increase, but it's more or less cosmetic because it seems to me that most states have legislation in regards to their own minimum wage which is higher. Florida's is actually lower, but for the most part youre right. I find it interesting that these unions rather risk losing the minimum wage increase which is supposed to be what they fight for (workers rights) so that they can get rid of an estate tax cut, which is actually not related to labor laws. Looks like some of these unions leftist ideals are more important than their mission statements. And by the way of course the republicans are doing this as a political move, but who cares, the end result is a great compromise You accuse the labor unions of giving up their ideals? You must have missed the ten business groups the article talked about that also abandoned their ideals for a rich person tax cut. Nice objectivity there. It's skewed logic to think tha anything that people will earn because of the minimum wage increase will be offset completely by the fact that the estate tax funds wont be going to social programs. The truth is most people who will benefit from the wage increase are most liley not getting money from entitlement programs right now anyway. Not only that but I dont like the minimum wage increase, its going to cause greater amount sof unemployment and cripple small businesses. But its absurd that the unions are trying to attackthis based on the poor correlaiton you mentioned b/w the estate tax cut and the nebulous 'poor' and 'working class' Most working class people arent on welfare. You can make the argument that it will affect perhaps some healthcare benefits but thats also weak, b/c our govt spends more than it has anyway, so its not like any programs will be cut as a result of the estate tax cut alone. At some point they will have to reap what they sow when it comes to the defecit. And you know it isnt going to come from military spending nor is it coming from a tax increase, at least not the next 2 years. So the spend more than they have is not really a viable defense. Not all social programs are welfare and you named one big example but underemphasised it-medicaid. That program already has fiscal issues surrounding it. The min wage increase only affects a small group of workers-less than 3% according to the article. But cuts to medicaid would affect many more poor Americans who don't get health insurance from their companies and poor mothers who work but need the coverage for their kids and themselves. Medicaid, which does affect those who would get a wage increase, is only one example but there are others out there and it isnt just the welfare crack whore that conservatives like to paint up that would get hurt by fiscal cuts. The problem is what the article neglects to mention is that if u increase minimum wage you increase everyones wages. Furthermore, i understand medicaid is a state program not federal, am I correct? It's combined. All 50 states have elected to be part of the program which requires them to cover certain people and income levels with feds providing funds too. States are actually in fiscal crunches and are being asked to take on more of the load I believe. The way cuts are usually made to the programs are by reducing the required criteria in terms of both income and category qualification. Some categories of individuals states have to cover and cover to the extent of federal income floors but they can expand on if they choose. Other categories of individuals are options for the state with federal govt offering to match if states elect to cover them. The feds can cut back on the categories of individuals and the max income you can earn to qualify for the assistance. So the people who would get screwed over by cuts to the program are people who work but dont get health insurance from their employers-and the mass majority of times, these arent the min wage workers. Thats why the unions are opposing the estate tax because more of their workers are likely to lose benefits like this and are the workers who gain from the wage hike. And even those who gain from the wage hike are likely to lose. Health insurance is just one category too. Also, how does an increase in the min wage result in everyone's wages increasing? Why would a firm that pays its workers $8 an hour start paying them more if they dont have to? Every organization that has any minimum wage workers will have to increase everyone else's salaries. Although the connection for increasing everyone's salaries is not that out of left field either. You pay a skilled worke rin your business 9 an hour, another business with minimum wage workers pays unskilled laborers minimum and tenured unskilled 8. The tenured unskilled go up to 9 in a similar organization, so the skilled making 9 should also be receiving an increase in order for this organization to be able to keep those types of employees, without having them leave for more pay elsewhere. Regardless, there is sitll a weak connection between the estate tax cut and how much it will affect any govt programs at all. Especially with health care

I know it might be a contradiction in terms but is there an intelligent Mets messageboard? Amazinz.com is the only thing close to one. Theres some good mets blogs out there. Forgot the URLs tho, my buddy thats a mets fan always goes on them

guys i know that some of you might not like him but i think u gotta give him a chance. he has excellent stuff and i think that when he comes back he should start. all of his pitches have probably the best movement on the staff. six man rotation when mitre gets back? I dont know if he should start necessarily, but i do think he can help this team. A 6 man rotation isnt a bad idea either to give the young arms more time to recuperate after starts 6 man rotation...Thats crazY! Why not a 7 or an 8 man rotation...Jeez! ?????? The 6 man rotation idea has been thrown around quite a bit by analysts and sports writers, it isnt that outrageous of an idea

Id consider the title of this thread to be very deceptive. They arent blocking minimum wage increases and you know that. They are fighting the estate tax. Youre passing along the Republican distortion of an issue. How is it a fair compromise when the overall benefits dont come close to matching the costs. The poor who need the minimum wage increase end up paying for the estate tax and then some? The lost revenue from the estate tax comes right out of the social programs that the poor rely on and in many instances would pretty much offset any min wage increase for some of them and cost more for others who dont. The whole trickle down argument doesnt fly either. And if it was a fair compromise, all those business groups wouldnt be sh*tting their pants with glee over it. They gave away their poker hand bigtime. And you gotta love the congress that still pushes tax cuts in war time. So lets list the priorities again: Stop the fags Stop the five random wackos who burn flags. More tax cuts for the wealthy. Anything missing? The best part of the article comes from the business lobbyist who says Republicans have to show that they care about the poorest Americans. Made me laugh out loud. That's a pretty interesting piece of legislation. It actually seems to be something that democracy was intended to do from the getgo. I like it in general. They're whining about rich people getting a tax break, but the extra money could just as easily be put into the economy which would in turn lead to more jobs. I am not a huge fan of the federal minimum wage increase, but it's more or less cosmetic because it seems to me that most states have legislation in regards to their own minimum wage which is higher. Florida's is actually lower, but for the most part youre right. I find it interesting that these unions rather risk losing the minimum wage increase which is supposed to be what they fight for (workers rights) so that they can get rid of an estate tax cut, which is actually not related to labor laws. Looks like some of these unions leftist ideals are more important than their mission statements. And by the way of course the republicans are doing this as a political move, but who cares, the end result is a great compromise You accuse the labor unions of giving up their ideals? You must have missed the ten business groups the article talked about that also abandoned their ideals for a rich person tax cut. Nice objectivity there. It's skewed logic to think tha anything that people will earn because of the minimum wage increase will be offset completely by the fact that the estate tax funds wont be going to social programs. The truth is most people who will benefit from the wage increase are most liley not getting money from entitlement programs right now anyway. Not only that but I dont like the minimum wage increase, its going to cause greater amount sof unemployment and cripple small businesses. But its absurd that the unions are trying to attackthis based on the poor correlaiton you mentioned b/w the estate tax cut and the nebulous 'poor' and 'working class' Most working class people arent on welfare. You can make the argument that it will affect perhaps some healthcare benefits but thats also weak, b/c our govt spends more than it has anyway, so its not like any programs will be cut as a result of the estate tax cut alone. At some point they will have to reap what they sow when it comes to the defecit. And you know it isnt going to come from military spending nor is it coming from a tax increase, at least not the next 2 years. So the spend more than they have is not really a viable defense. Not all social programs are welfare and you named one big example but underemphasised it-medicaid. That program already has fiscal issues surrounding it. The min wage increase only affects a small group of workers-less than 3% according to the article. But cuts to medicaid would affect many more poor Americans who don't get health insurance from their companies and poor mothers who work but need the coverage for their kids and themselves. Medicaid, which does affect those who would get a wage increase, is only one example but there are others out there and it isnt just the welfare crack whore that conservatives like to paint up that would get hurt by fiscal cuts. The problem is what the article neglects to mention is that if u increase minimum wage you increase everyones wages. Furthermore, i understand medicaid is a state program not federal, am I correct?

my car's thermometer right now is at 117

Id consider the title of this thread to be very deceptive. They arent blocking minimum wage increases and you know that. They are fighting the estate tax. Youre passing along the Republican distortion of an issue. How is it a fair compromise when the overall benefits dont come close to matching the costs. The poor who need the minimum wage increase end up paying for the estate tax and then some? The lost revenue from the estate tax comes right out of the social programs that the poor rely on and in many instances would pretty much offset any min wage increase for some of them and cost more for others who dont. The whole trickle down argument doesnt fly either. And if it was a fair compromise, all those business groups wouldnt be sh*tting their pants with glee over it. They gave away their poker hand bigtime. And you gotta love the congress that still pushes tax cuts in war time. So lets list the priorities again: Stop the fags Stop the five random wackos who burn flags. More tax cuts for the wealthy. Anything missing? The best part of the article comes from the business lobbyist who says Republicans have to show that they care about the poorest Americans. Made me laugh out loud. That's a pretty interesting piece of legislation. It actually seems to be something that democracy was intended to do from the getgo. I like it in general. They're whining about rich people getting a tax break, but the extra money could just as easily be put into the economy which would in turn lead to more jobs. I am not a huge fan of the federal minimum wage increase, but it's more or less cosmetic because it seems to me that most states have legislation in regards to their own minimum wage which is higher. Florida's is actually lower, but for the most part youre right. I find it interesting that these unions rather risk losing the minimum wage increase which is supposed to be what they fight for (workers rights) so that they can get rid of an estate tax cut, which is actually not related to labor laws. Looks like some of these unions leftist ideals are more important than their mission statements. And by the way of course the republicans are doing this as a political move, but who cares, the end result is a great compromise You accuse the labor unions of giving up their ideals? You must have missed the ten business groups the article talked about that also abandoned their ideals for a rich person tax cut. Nice objectivity there. It's skewed logic to think tha anything that people will earn because of the minimum wage increase will be offset completely by the fact that the estate tax funds wont be going to social programs. The truth is most people who will benefit from the wage increase are most liley not getting money from entitlement programs right now anyway. Not only that but I dont like the minimum wage increase, its going to cause greater amount sof unemployment and cripple small businesses. But its absurd that the unions are trying to attackthis based on the poor correlaiton you mentioned b/w the estate tax cut and the nebulous 'poor' and 'working class' Most working class people arent on welfare. You can make the argument that it will affect perhaps some healthcare benefits but thats also weak, b/c our govt spends more than it has anyway, so its not like any programs will be cut as a result of the estate tax cut alone.

Florida's is actually lower, No it is not. Florida's minimum wage is the same as the federal mandate. Previously, the state had a minimum wage level higher than the federal level at the time and it is officially still on the books. Nope. Florida is 6.50, federal before this change is 5.15

Olivo has a hard time catching everyone. He really is kind of awful behind the plate. That said, I doubt anything changes. yeah, and as we all know, you are an extremely objective poster when it comes to olivo. he's done a fine job behind the dish. Hes improving in terms of blocking the ball. Not only that but how can you say he calls bad games when our pitchers are performing very well. Its very hard to gauge how a catcher calls games behind the plate, but I dont blame him for d trains bad outings. Olivo not only is a pretty decent hitter, hes good enoguh behidn the plate.