YASNY

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 12:48 PM) If it was just maryjane he was selling, again community service and probation (jail cells are at too much of a premium to waste on some dude selling weed). The handgun...not 100% sure on what I think. It seems if it is being attained illegally, he isn't likely getting it just for target practice. Just for that reason, I would say a little jail time (30-90 days maybe), some probation and community service. Did I pass? I agree. The illegal handgun is a bit more serious as you have to assume, like you said, that it isn't just for target practice.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 12:44 PM) Yeah, I know. But I was just pushing back against WCSox s***tty wingnut shot. Looking at things from your perspective, I can understand that. I withdraw my objection.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 12:41 PM) I agree, of course there is a difference between Hitler and GWB. And that is that Hitler was actually elected. :rolly Now you see? Here I was actually agreeing with you on a point and then you go and take a s***ty liberal shot like that.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 12:35 PM) It always comes back to torture with you guys doesn't it? LMAO

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 12:32 PM) I think that if you can verify the kid was only dealing the ID's to kids who wanted to get into bars...this case does suggest leniency as presented. Anything beyond what is presented here...like additional people involved in getting supplies or stealing ID formats, or a wider sales market, and you have to consider something larger in terms of charges. But I think community service and probation here is probably the right maneuver. A long term of it, but I just don't think jail time fits. Agreed. The kid deserves more than a slap on the wrist. Maybe a slap upside the head would be more appropriate, if you catch my drift.

QUOTE(Balance @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 12:29 PM) Zach- The 2-year-old is alive. It doesn't matter why she's there. This is a thought experiment. If you don't want to participate, then don't.

Whoa. Good question. I'd have to look at things from the point of view of what was the purpose of this fake ID business and the damage that could have been done to society in general by the nature of the 'business'. Was this kid selling fake ID's to 19 year olds that wanted to get into a bar or was he selling to terrorists that need the ID's to operate within this country. Of course, there a lot of 'what ifs' that can thrown around here. You have to have faith in the powers that be to get an accurate read on the circumstances and that they would act accordingly.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 12:13 PM) Oh absolutley. I agree with you 100%. Back when I was that age, I think we would have use gum or dirt or something of that matter. I believe parents these days want their kids to be extra safe, but do not take the time to actually raise their kids and make sure the kids can be safe themselves. Coming from a psych backround, I believe alot of the problems in kids today is due to nurturing and parenting. IMO You know, there is one thing about having kids that is overlooked when comments like yours are made. I want to interject that I'm not trying to be confrontational here, just want to make a point. Most people who have kids are young and still have a lot of learning to do when it comes to setting priorities and realizing what is important and what isn't. Life and experience teaches these things to those that are smart enough to learn from them. Kids do not come with instruction manuals. It takes time to learn how to become a good parent. Some never do learn, or learn much too late.

QUOTE(zach61 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 12:07 PM) So then the mother would have saved the 2 yr old. I don't know of any mother that leaves their 2 yr old alone in a room and then runs out of a building, even if it's on fire, and leaves their baby. I really need to know why that 2 yr old was left alone in order to make a decision on which to save? I can only assume the 2 yr old is dead already if it's left alone in an empty clinic. You are not allowing for the 'spirit' of the question. We can argue about the various scenarios and sets of circumstances, but when it comes down to it you are in a hall and know there is a 2 year old kid in one room and a petri dish in the other, which would you save? It's not that difficult.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:57 AM) Thats because you arent a kid. Think of the dumbass s*** you did as a kid without knowing the outcome or without thinking at all. Kids will be kids afterall. That is exactly what I meant when I said you don't put prescription drugs in the hands of kids for the purpose of 'harmlees pranks'. Thanks for reinforcing my point.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:56 AM) I read that, but I dont even think Owens projects to be a CF'er or nearly as good in CF as Anderson defensively. I see Owens in LF, Anderson in CF and Sweeney in RF, am i wrong? Regarding Anderson vs Owens in CF, you are not wrong. But, I was responding to the post as it was written.

QUOTE(zach61 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 12:01 PM) But it doesn't say to save the life of the 2 yr old, just the 2 yr old. And again, why is the 2 yr old in there alone? I need more info to answer the question and I need to know whether or not the 2 yr old is alive and I'm actually saving the life or if it's dead and I'm just saving the body. I don't just hang around empty fertility clinics, so there is not enough info about the situation. I think it would be safe to say that the intent of the question would be the assumption that the 2 year old would be alive ... and it's mother had to go to the bathroom or something.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:54 AM) I'm sure you are. Pre Kristallnacht, the citizenry of Germany and Austria didn't realize what they had on their hands either. I'm glad she gave that speech. I am somewhat concerned that Bush and Co. are trying to circumvent the constitution, or at least lay the ground work for the eventual circumventing of the constitution. It's possible.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:53 AM) I dont know if I do. Owens is a butcher in the field from what I have seen. There is no reason to believe he will ever be as good defensively as Brian Anderson. He qualified his statement with this....

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:46 AM) Thats assuming Anderson plays well. If Anderson struggles I think you will see the Sox give Owens substantial playing time in CF (in Charlotte). If Anderson plays well and shows improvement throughout the year than I think the Sox would consider Owens replacing Pods. However if Pods has a good year, Owens kicks butt and makes a lot of progress in CF (defensively) and Anderson struggles to find his way, than I think Owens replaces Anderons and works with Pods for a year or so. Who knows where Anderson goes if this happens. Thats about as long as I could see Pods around. I can see the logic here. Good post.

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:37 AM) It's the New & Improved SLM/Filibuster boards! --Can you feel the love? It's oozing out all over the place!

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:39 AM) That's why I didn't say that he would be gone, only that it's more likely that he'll be playing somewhere else in '07 than Dye. I think the Sox would definately entertain the idea of moving him if he had a great year in '06 and Owens has another great year in the minors. There's a lot of teams out there looking for a leadoff man and Pods has gained some popularity around the league after last year. I'm sure if we have any needs going into the '07 season Pods could be a guy who could help fill them through a trade. I agree with you. If the Sox feel Owens can fill Pods shoes and Pods has a decent to good season, I think Pods is gone. It all comes back to that old line by Branch Rickey. It's better to trade a guy a year too soon than a year too late.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:38 AM) I'm totally with you Yas. It makes no sense to me why Gload would be a front-runner. Gload can play multiple positions, but he's primarily a 1st baseman. This team has two first baseman (although I realize if one got hurt mid game, we wouldn't be able to switch Thome over unless we wanted the pitcher to hit). However, in a pinch Ozuna/Mack/Dye and others could play for a game. Than if the injury was serious we could promote Rogowski as the backup. However, Borchard can play all 3 outfield positions and he is good defensively (with a strong arm). Offensively Gload is the better hitter (average wise), but Borchard is a switch hitter who can provide some power from each side of the plate (he also had more big hits last season than Gload; in a very limited time to boot). If it were me in charge, the decision would be pretty easy...Borch would be breaking camp with the club. And this is coming from someone whose always supported Gload. Exactly, Jason. I've always been supportive of Gload. He's a solid hitter and very good with the glove around firstbase. However, he doesn't fit the needs of this team as currently constructed.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:32 AM) I think they may have been slanted at one time. Now I just think they're opportunist and lazy. Now with that, you may have a damn good point.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:28 AM) So am I, but if we can all come to the agreement that the difference between Gload and Borchard for the 25th guy slot is going to be so small it's doubtful picking the wrong one will even cost us as many games as Timo did last year...then I'm willing to take other stuff into account. I can't go there. Sorry. I believe Borchard fits the needs of this team so much more than Gload. There is even and outside shot that it finally clicks with Joe, and if BA falters, JB can step in. Gload cannot do that because he can't play CF. I know I'm reaching, but I'm trying to consider various scenarios that can occur over the course of a season.

Keep the politics out of it and play ball. The signs should be removed.

QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:12 AM) Well, OK, I wouldn't expect you to find the humor in it, but I'm guessing others may have gotten a chuckle or 2 out of it. Fair enough. I'm not trying to start anything. Just wanted to express my opinion. Carry on.

QUOTE(Felix @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:10 AM) He's mocking how people are doing this with Ryan Sweeney I believe hey. It was a long night at work and I'm tired. Gimme a break, okay?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:05 AM) Only problem I see is...the person who has to teach him to stop doing that is Greg Walker...and I lost a ton of confidence in his ability to teach that last year, when we saw batter after batter after batter have exactly that same problem on the big league squad. I don't blame that on Walker. I blame on the fact we basically had a RH line-up and the pitchers could get into a zone when they weren't being presented with righties and lefties throughout the line up. You take a good RH pitcher and he'd face Pods, Everett and AJ from the left side. Pods was not a power threat and walking him was very risky, so you go after him. You'd have to be somewhat more careful to Everett, who was weker from the left side by the way, and AJ who had a career low BA wise. The threats were all from the right side. A good righty could work that outside corner to our righties, and then bust a slider off the corner for and out pitch. And do so time after time because he was able to establish a rythem. Even with Frank, Maggs and Lee the Sox had this problem against good righties. The addition of Thome, Mackowiak and Citron (sp?) totally changes that aspect.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 10, 2006 -> 11:04 AM) Which is exactly the point I made earlier. It business. If one network ends up going at a story at too steep an angle, the other networks will take the more direct line up the middle and beat them to the punch. In other words, if a network starts veering off to one side or the other of the aisle, and misses stories because of it, they will pay for it in ratings. Its not liberal media bias - its dirty laundry, and the same thing will happen to whomever goes into Congress in 2006 and the Presidency in 2008, regardless of party. Ok, you've scored a point here. I still fervently believe the MSM is liberally slanted.