NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 08:22 AM) No one is making that argument, so its a strawman. BTW, you, me, and most people on Soxtalk are already members of the militia. This code was revised in the 50's, so it isn't just an 18th century hold-over. It also clearly states that the militia is NOT the same as the National Guard. Thank you. I was just typing that, though you did one better by finding the codification.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 08:19 AM) The National Guard is not a standing national army. That is what the militia's of Madison and Jefferson evolved into, to the degree that the National Defense Act specifically refers to the constitutionally derived authority of the federal government to call the Guard to national service in time of crisis. Do you think that today's "militias" – extremists armed paramilitary groups driven an anti-government conspiracy-oriented ideologies were the types of people Jefferson thought the nation would be able to call upon to repel an invading force? Key phrase bolded. Evolved into. The militias then were in the classic sense - citizen military, not national and not standing. Callable, if you will. What the National Guard is now has evolved pretty far away from that, I'd suggest. And of course no, those militia whackos out there now are not what they had in mind either, exactly. Its actually something between the two, plus some police work thrown in too. But the key thing here is, the militia then WAS the people. It is therefore quite clear to me that the right to bear arms was intended for the people, not for a National Guard.

Quick update, Fields is fine. No injury of significance from the HBP yesterday. They didn't even bother with X-Rays. He's listed as day-to-day.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 08:42 PM) Don't think I saw this posted anywhere. If someone else did...je suis desole. In the Tomo Ohka thread.

QUOTE(knightni @ Mar 20, 2008 -> 01:43 AM) Seems to me it can also be interpreted as in order to have the right to keep and bear arms that you be a member of a militia. But again, as the quote that Strange posted earlier states... what difference does that make? The militia was a citizens' army, not a national one. They are one in the same for this purpose. A militia is not a standing national army.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 05:07 PM) With the way Ozzie manages, it doesn't seem like we've needed a long man too much. Carrasco has gone 3 innings so far today. I think they might be trying to stretch him out a bit. Wass went 1.2 yesterday. I don't know Carrasco well, but I don't think Wass is a good long man.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 03:26 PM) BREAKING: Hillary's Schedule proves she Worked On NAFTA!!! Well, in fairness it doesnt say she was there promoting it, but the fact that she was there is not good. That's nothing. Of course she was in on some discussions, she has said as much. QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 03:37 PM) New York Times - No Evidence in HRC Paper's to back her experience claims That, on the other hand, could be a bit damaging. If these allegations of her stretching her experience start to get some legs...

QUOTE(scenario @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 03:45 PM) Really? Is he hurt? Or on his way out of town? Well, looks like he got HBP actually - so probably just got a little bruised up.

QUOTE(scenario @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 03:45 PM) Really? Is he hurt? Or on his way out of town? Yeah no kidding - that's interesting.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 03:18 PM) Masset on the mound, already given up 1 run in the first, somehow relating to a walk and a passed ball by Hall. Ramirez, CF OC, SS Thome, DH Konerko, 1B Swisher, LF Fields, 3b Anderson, RF Ozuna, 2b Hall, C. Can read a lot of interesting stuff into that lineup if you want. And there is a thread too! Looks like maybe Taveras reached on a PB/K.

Well, that was unexpected. I agree with those that are hinting this might be part of some other move(s).

QUOTE(flavum @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 12:25 PM) Pitchers(14): Buehrle, Carrasco, Contreras, Danks, Dotel, Floyd, Jenks, Linebrink, Logan, MacDougal, Masset, Thornton, Vazquez, Wassermann Catchers(3): Hall, Phillips, Pierzynski Infielders(8): Cabrera, Crede, Fields, Konerko, Ozuna, Ramirez, Richar, Uribe Outfielders(6): Anderson, Bourgeois, Dye, Owens, Quentin, Swisher DH(1): Thome In my opinion, Carrasco, Bourgeois, and Phillips are still around as an emergency situation. Masset will make the team as the long man, with Wassermann falling just short. A lot of the other moves are contingent on possible trades. Crede and Uribe are still trade possibilities. Anderson is a maybe. Quentin and Richar's health. A lot up in the air in the 8 days left in Arizona. Yeah, I forgot about Phillips. I'm assuming he'll be the backup in Charlotte behind Lucy. But you're right, there is still a lot in the air.

I've heard a lot of criticisms of Jerry Owens, but this is the first time I've heard anyone say he has an issue with having a cocky attitude. Are you confusing Owens and Anderson maybe? I know they look a lot a like.

QUOTE(flavum @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 12:08 PM) Ohka got cut today. Reassigned to minor league camp. Carrasco outlasted him. Also...Sisco, Lucy, and Eldred were cut. 32 left in camp. So that last bullpen slot really is between Masset and Wassermann (even though they aren't the same type) - which means Masset. And with Lucy and Armstrong gone, that pretty much guarantees we have Toby Hall as the backup C, I think. EDIT: Better question... what slots are left undecided, and what players are vying for them? Looks like 2 of the 4 bench slots remain open (Hall and Ozuna are in), 1 or maybe 2 bullpen slots (Masset, Carrasco, Wassermann and maybe MacDougal competing), CF (Anderson, Owens), and 2B (Uribe and Ramirez). Plus there is the 3B issue (Crede and Fields). For the 2 remaining bench spots and the starting CF job, I guess the list includes: --Whomever of Uribe or Ramirez doesn't start at 2B --Quentin --Anderson --Owens --Bourgeois --Richar Am I missing anyone?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 11:37 AM) Somewhere between first and fifth. And until I see how the players they have, many of whom are young, do in their tests this year, I'm not willing to be any more specific than that. This team could win anywhere between 70 and 100 games. And frankly, a lot of the difference will fall on the coaching staff in how they use players and how well they teach them. Yeah, that's kind of what I mentioned in starting the thread. This could significantly different, if we do this poll on March 31st or so - after any final trades, roster moves, lineup decisions, etc. become finalized. But I was curious about where we are currently. We could look at this and a later poll as a sort of before and after.

OK, we'll probably need another one of these after some moves are made near the end of ST, but in the meantime... Assuming the team is pretty much as-is, with no major trades... where do you think the Sox will finish in 2008? How many wins, and in what place? And will the make the playoffs?

Well this thread is just ugly as hell.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 10:33 AM) I think this comment, from the SCOTUS blog I posted, nails the point home: That's a really great quote. That puts it quite nicely.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 10:14 AM) I'd also like to say that I think the Swisher deal was idiotic considering we traded our 3 best prospects for a left fielder when we had traded our best hitting prospect for Quentin, who basically is now blocked from starting. My belief is KW thought Swisher would be able to play CF, but we quickly realized he's a disaster out there. I haven't seen Swisher play much out there, but he didn't look like a disaster. I still think both moves were excellent. I also think that Williams is more patient than people give him credit for (and people here seem to be). Quentin will be a difference maker, probably - this year or next. Which way it goes depends on a lot of things. What is wrong with that? And I don't think they've counted Swisher out of CF yet anyway. We still have half of ST left.

QUOTE(lostfan @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 10:09 AM) I don't think I understand what this means. The 10th Amendment: This is, in my opinion, the 2nd most important amendment in the Bill of Rights (after the 1st Amendment). What it does is establish affirmative control. It says that the Constitution is NOT a document that is "including but not limited to" - it is very specifically limited to giving the federal government control over ONLY the powers enumerated therein. Everything else should fall to lower level government, or to individuals. It is the key to understanding federalism. As such, in a federal system, there are semi-autonomous government entities (groups, if you will) that have some authority. Those groups - state and local government - are granted rights by the 10th amendment. Its is therefore a group, or collective, right.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 10:04 AM) I don't know where the link is, but a scout said last week that Crede's lost a step on defense, and would only rate as average now defensively. Now that I think is nonsense. I've watched the games. Early on, he was quite tenative - as one would expect for what is basically a rehab assignment. But the last couple games I saw him in, he's getting back to old Joe. I think that "lost step" was a temporary artifact. Lots of good reasons to trade Joe and get Fields in there. Joe losing a step on D isn't one of them.

These economists seem to think that gas prices, nationally, will spike to around $3.50 to $3.75 per gallon by May, with some areas paying over $4. But, they say it will likely settle back to $3.25-ish, due to the decreased demand that goes with those price levels. I hate to even go here, being not an expert but... I think I see a problem in that assumption. People's demand for gas is only variable on elective use - vacations and road trips, basically. They will still go to work, still go to the store, etc. So the variable part is only a very small fraction of the demand. The rest is almost static*. * = the caveat here is that as prices go really high, people will start to do things like buy more hybrids and electric cars, get jobs closer to home, etc. But those sorts of things don't happen over a period of weeks. They take years to change enough for major effect to be felt.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 09:48 AM) I'm going to be rather disappointing if Owens is our starting CF, Uribe is our starting 2b and Crede is our starting 3b. That would be the final straw for me in terms of whether or not KW should remain our GM. Crede is still likely to be traded in ST. If he isn't, which I think only will happen if there are no reasonable offers, then what other choice is there? With Richar being injured and behind, Uribe and Ramirez become the only viable options at 2B. Maybe the best case scenario is Uribe starts, with Ramirez as a utility guy, getting used to MLB pitching. If Uribe scuffles, Ramirez can take the starting role. That's really not a bad deal. The OF is a bit messy, no doubt. But there is a boatload of talent - Swisher, Dye, Quentin, Owens, Anderson, maybe Ramirez... its just a matter of who is best for Opening Day. If Quentin isn't healthy/ready yet, then you pretty much have to put Swisher in LF and either Owens or Anderson in CF - or maybe a platoon of the two. If they platoon, whomever looks good against MLB pitching in the early season can take over starting. Then, you've got a solid starting OF, with a decent bench behind it. The only issue that leaves is Quentin - who I assume will take over RF when Dye moves to 1B or DH eventually. Things are really not that bleak, especially for the offense. If you really want to worry about something, I'd focus on the 3-4-5 in the rotation. That's my biggest concern.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 09:24 AM) I really lose all respect for the dopes that backed the war and then just feel we should up and leave. We made our bed now we need to lie in it. I love the hindsite being 20/20 of these morons. If you leave Iraq in shambles, it becomes hot bed for terrorism as there is no governemnt in place. That is the intent of the attcks now. You can not just up and leave and let the place fester. Fools. So you mean Clinton, then? Since this is the Dem candidate thread, and she is the one who backed the war? Where does the plural "fools" come from?

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Mar 19, 2008 -> 08:15 AM) This organization is a f***ing joke. They have no idea what they are doing. You can't in all good faith send Josh Fields down to AAA after the season he had last year. Not only that, but though both have struggled he's far out-performed Joe Crede in Spring Training. This is, without a doubt, the dumbest move this franchise has ever made. They are hampering their up-and-coming star so they can audition a guy in his walk year coming off back surgery to try to squeak a prospect out of San Francisco. Not only does Crede not give us the best chance to win, but playing him severely hampers our only valuable prospect. Absolutely ridiculous. The fact that the Sox have not yet traded Joe Crede - and still may - is the dumbest move the franchise has ever made? Can we have some perspective here?