NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(caulfield12 @ Apr 24, 2007 -> 08:23 PM) Apparently Ross Gload was supposed to be our starting LF, even though he doesn't start for KC but platoons with Emil Brown. He went to KC as a backup 1B/DH, took a platoon spot in LF because of his play, and has played more than Brown (who had the starting job in hand before Gload arrived). He earned the job, and the KC manager had the sense to play the better player. I'm glad we have Sisco, but its a shame that we ended up with Pods starting in LF when there were multiple better options on the team.

I loves me some Ross Gload. Too bad he's not our left fielder. Let's hope that triple was the end of his revenge, though. For those watching on TV, does Vaz look as bad as he sounds?

QUOTE(BFirebird @ Apr 24, 2007 -> 07:58 PM) When did Ross learn to play RF? First week of the season he had a higlight reel throw-out at second base from LF. No joke. But really, Pods was a better option. /green

Per WSCR: 8:55pm start.

Holy crap, I just saw the lineup. Darin Erstad as a DH and leading off???? I mean come on. Is that a joke?

Any word on start time?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 24, 2007 -> 03:16 PM) I did one of those online questionnaires a little while back to see which candidate I coincide with the most and no surprise it's Kucinich. I am leaning Obama at this point though. Kucinich is just not electable. And although I don't align well with him politically, I've always said (he ran in 2004 too), he may be the most honest person out there running.

Its a legal cascade, that's how these things work. Like this.... 76 in a 70 gives him cause for a traffic stop for speeding. Evasive behavior or other activity by the driver prompts a request for a search. The request for said search could be worded in a manner such that the driver is unaware that he even has a choice, and gives the cop perimission. That permission allows the complete search. Or, alternately... The evasive behavior or such creates a scenario where a reasonable person (cop) thinks the person may be a threat, and that permits the "wingspan" rule into effect. Cop can search everything within that person's "reach" for weapons. Depending on where the compartment is, that may be part of the search. All that said, I tend to agree that cops should have better things to do than pulling people over for 76 ina 70. Unless there was really some other reason he suspected more, and the speeding was just his "in".

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 24, 2007 -> 11:02 AM) Hopefully this isn't like the "only" party threads, and we can cross comment... Anyways, does anyone else feel like this race so far is pretty much like watching ESPN? You can pretty much only hear about what the Yankees and Red Sox are doing, unless you watch really closely, then you might pick up something else. Its about Dem CANDIDATES, not just for Dems to discuss. Everyone is invited! Same with the other thread! Its just that the primaries make more sense to be party-specific, when discussing the candidates. QUOTE(Soxy @ Apr 24, 2007 -> 11:12 AM) I totally agree, and I am so over Clinton and Obama. Seriously, new choice please! QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Apr 24, 2007 -> 11:56 AM) I'm the only person in America that still longs for a President Feingold. . . Ew.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 24, 2007 -> 10:29 AM) I had a feeling the gap between Clinton and Obama would shrink. Still a ton of time left though. LOTS of time. I added some other numbers to the first post too, pertaining to early factors.

Since the Prez Candidate thread is getting quite large... This thread for DEM candidate talk. ... New poll of Dem candidates says Obama now tied with Clinton, both at 32%. Edwards at 17, Richardson at 3, others 1 or less. ETA: Inside the numbers... Obama has the highest core support, and has a large advantage among "unaffiliated" voters. So it seems Obama is in the strongest position as of today. Clinton's UNfavorable number is still a very high 49%. The following candidates have higher UNfavorable than favorable views in latest polling: Clinton, Biden, Dodd and Kucinich. Candidates with 70% or less total recognition (in other words, more room for getting known, and therefore a potentially higher ceiling if they can raise their profile) include Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd and Biden. My guy Richardson is the only candidate to NOT have higher UNfavorable than favorable AND have significant room for recognition.

Since the Prez Candidate thread is getting quite large... This thread for GOP candidate talk.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 23, 2007 -> 07:34 PM) Police were called to respond to 9-11 calls of crimes-in-progress or soon to be. They did not respond. People were raped and/ or brutalized, or even murdered. Courts ruled they had no responsibility to respond and were not liable for their actions or in-actions in the case. That's why I would like to defend my own home instead of relying on the police "to do their job." If they have a responsibility to protect the individual, why were they not responsible in these cases? There is an admitedly subtle, but still very important legal difference here that I must not be describing well. I'm obviously not going to get the point across. In any case, this whole argument that has been made here that a gun is somehow the best defense for your home is just unfounded in any sort of reality. Feel free to have one, I think you should have the right. But if you think its more reliable than all the other stuff discussed here, then you are deluding yourself. Its simple math... a few hundred times a year, someone fends off a burglar with a gun. Tens of thousands of times a year, burglaries are successful. Take than number and multiply it by another large number to reflect how many attempts are aborted due to some preventative measure. On the list of effective methods of protecting your home and its contents, guns are far below all those things.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 23, 2007 -> 06:21 PM) "A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security . . ." (See the Supreme Court decision DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT.) How does that not clearly state that the State has no duty to protect an individual against private violence? http://online.ceb.com/calcases/CA3/46CA3d6.htm Courts have ruled over and over that they don't have a duty to provide police protection services, and most of these cases stem from the police not responding properly to a 911 call. The courts have decided that the law does not say they have to give you private protection, even if you report a crime being committed or fear one soon will be (with good cause). Those situations, in which they are not required to protect, are why you need to be prepared to protect yourself. That statement is telling you that the state does not have an obligation to provide protective services, which is true. It is ALSO true that police departments do indeed have a duty to respond to, and to the extent possible, prevent crime. They have a duty as prescribed by whatever law created that police presense/department. The state, as in mainline state law, does not have a guarantee of protection. There is an important difference between these things. Yes, the police have a duty to protect. No, the state's law does not provide a guarantee of that protection. That is what that says, and it is one of the mainline facts of police work. It is the reason why police are expected (in a job role sense) to fulfill their duties, BUT, they are generally shielded from successful law suits (except in situations of negligence, gross misconduct or reckless abandonment) because the state does not guarantee anyone's safety. There are two different legal affirmations at work here - the state's obligations, and the services provided by local or state government.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 23, 2007 -> 05:09 PM) The policeman's job does not involve protecting the individual. You have to fend for yourself. It has many legal precedents indicating this. Look at the article I posted. A court ruled that the police's responsibility is to the community, not the individual. These sights have an obvious slant, but they're citing legal cases that you are free to look up. http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html http://www.mcrkba.org/w19.html Those sites aren't just slanted. Two of the three have obvious misspellings on the front page. They are twisting facts. And, again, it is NOT TRUE that the police's job does not involve protecting the individual. Take a look at the facts of those cases on those sites, where they can be found. Police do not have the responsiblity for continuing protection (like personal security), and they do not have civil liability for things they didn't fix. But that is NOT the same as saying they have no responsibility to protect citizens, which is simply an untrue statement.

As SS2K5 pointed out earlier... its amazing the extremities that this argument brings out. People on both sides of the issue manage to throw logic out the window to try to make their point.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 23, 2007 -> 11:17 AM) Crowbar > dead bolt Police and alarm systems take time to respond. Time you may not have. Besides, it has been tested in court and affirmed numerous times that the police force's duty is to protect the community, not the individuals. http://www.totse.com/en/law/justice_for_all/policeno.html Keep your gun locked up and next to your bed. You hear someone breaking in, quietly and quickly unlock the safe. Its not like the intruder is going to charge into the bedroom first. They're probably going to root around the living room and other areas for electronics and other valuables and avoid people. A lock isn't that complicated to open, its not like putting in nuclear launch codes. crowbar > deadbolt? A shotgun is the best home defense? Where are these lines of logic coming from? Think this through. Someone is considering violating your property or person in some way. They see the outside of a house/apartment. Do they see your shotgun? Or your crowbar? Of course not. They see windows and doors, alarm system signs, deadbolts, lighting exposure, vehicles present, lights on or off inside, indications of movement inside, etc. Those sorts of things are what prompts the guy to break in or not. Your shotgun or other weapon won't come into play 99.9999% of the time. So to say they are somehow a superior method of home defense defies logic. Again, I am 100% OK with people having guns. And yes, there are the rare circumstances where they could come in handy for home defense. But they are not even in the same league of effectiveness as preventative measures. ETA: Regarding the article you cited, even though the article is titled about a lack of responsbility, the facts don't state that at all. Its about negligence, that they were noted found to have. The police absolutely have a duty to protect citizens and their property, even though in some instances they may not have a civil liability for the results of what they were not able to do (or, in some cases, what they just plain screwed up).

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Apr 23, 2007 -> 12:42 PM) It is established fact that the police do not have responsibility to protect individual citizens or their property. I posted one case and have read dozens of others that reaffirm this. I call B.S. Of course they have responsibility to protect individual citizens, AND their property. Otherwise, why are there trespassing laws? Or burglary laws? And I know for damn well sure those laws are enforced to protect citizens, because I've done it. Now, there may be isolated cases where police took to long to respond, or didn't act in the way property owners wanted them to. But your statement that they don't have responsibility is false. If you have some sort of evidence regarding the law and the police's role that support your statement?

QUOTE(BearSox @ Apr 22, 2007 -> 09:56 PM) And there is no better home safety weapon other then the shotgun. I'm as big a defender of gun rights as anyone here, but, that statement is ridiculous. You think a shotgun is better than a dead bolt? Or an alarm system? Or calling the police? Or any number of other smart security measures? If you have kids around, you need to have your guns properly secured. And in that secured state, they aren't terribly useful for home defense. I think you should be free to have them, but the chances of you ever getting anything positive out of it are very, very slim. Just to keep things in perspective.

The offense has issues, Konerko being completely off his rhythm being problem numero uno at this time. Ozzie has botched the CF situation. And we have by far the worst leadoff hitter in baseball. Despite all of that, we're 9-8 after starting 0-2, we're in the thick of the race, and we just took 2 of 3 from Detroit on the road. In the grand scheme, things are pretty good.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Apr 22, 2007 -> 10:32 AM) Marc Maron made the first intelligent comment I've heard on this situation last week. He said that it's not censorship to get fired for a joke that goes too far and that you have the right to free speech, but you also have to face consequences for your actions. You can say whatever you want, but that doesn't mean you get to keep your job. I have the right to call the woman sitting next to me a derogatory term, for example, but it doesn't mean I have the right for her to be nice to me, or even to keep my job. In the context of that show, Imus made fun of people he shouldn't have been made fun of - not because of Al Sharpton or anyone else offended but because the joke wasn't funny, and it just came off mean. But what's worse was that his producer immediately followed and used the word "jigaboo" which in my opinion is way way way more offensive. Imus didn't dump that word, didn't even challenge the producer on its use. It's his show, his name and his reputation. And he didn't seem to mind people using his reputation to use obvious racial slurs on tv and radio. Let's be honest here, Imus got fired because he went over the line, and his employers - at least in this case - decided that they had some standards about what is and isn't acceptable. Whatever their motivation for it. Spot on. Everyone has the right to be a jerk. And every employer has the right to fire said jerk, for being a jerk.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Apr 21, 2007 -> 05:23 PM) Isn't he too old to be considered a top prospect? I'm not being snarky -- I love this guy, from what I've read -- but isn't he, like, twenty five? QUOTE(danman31 @ Apr 21, 2007 -> 05:29 PM) He turns 25 in August. Keep a couple things in mind, about him being 24. For one, catchers typically take longer to move up the chain than other players because there are simply more skills to pick up. Second, Lucy lost most of a year (2005) injured. Third, he spent the beginning of his college career backing up a big time college star ahead of him (Garko), so his development at the catcher position is a little behind the curve. I personally feel that, whether discussing Lucy or anyone else, the whole "he's more than 24 he is no longer a prospect" mentality his highly flawed. You have to look at the whole picture for a player. Is he 26 (for example) because he changed from shortstop to pitcher? Or was he injured? Or did he choose to graduate college first? Was he stuck behind some other really great players? If any of those apply, then his being 26 is sort of irrelevant, if he can perform. Now, if he's 26 because he's meandered through the minors with mediocre numbers for 6 years, then yeah, that says something negative. Or if he's 32 or a much older age like that, then you have a serious diminishing returns problem. But that's not the case all the time.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Apr 21, 2007 -> 09:50 AM) One thing I heard talked about would be reforming the 1968 guidelines that state that anyone who was involuntarily committed to a mental institution can't buy a gun. Tweaking it to say anyone who has been to one whether voluntary or not should not be able to get one. That's something I can support. I agree. Normally I'm not for new gun control laws (Most of them are worthless), but adding people who are confirmed to be mentally unstable to those unable to purchase fireams is a good, reasonable idea.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Apr 21, 2007 -> 04:06 PM) White Sox lockerroom after they win it all WINNAR ^^^^^^^^^^

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Apr 20, 2007 -> 10:36 AM) Iowa Cubs play in Des Moines? um... they did when I lived in Iowa. They played at Sec Taylor. Maybe that's changed, I don't know. EDIT: They play in "Principal Park" in downtown DSM.