NorthSideSox72

Well, what that trade would mean of course is prioritize 2007 at the cost of 2008 (for the reasons DBAH0 stated). I'd feel a little better about it if we had a plethora of young starters in the minors with major league potential... but from what I understand, we do not. Here is my answer... if you can get Crawford for BMac and an offensive prospect, AND trade Pods and/or other offensive prospects (Fields maybe) for a couple young prospect pitchers who project well as major leaguers in a year or two... then I'm in.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 07:00 PM) Here's one for you Reaganite lovers... Personally, I think HE was the one who started the notion of terrorism against the United States, because one of the earliest "cut and run" deals was the Betruit bombings. Now sure, he blew Libya back to the stone ages because of PanAm 103, but Beruit was DEFINITELY a mistake. He should have bombed the s*** out of who did it right there and then, and that would have set the stage for these jackass Islamists today to not mess with us. But alas... MMQB. Have you read See No Evil by Robert Baer? I'd recommend you do, if you have not. There is a lot of complexity there, in Beirut and around that incident. But ultimately, I agree with you, and in fact said something similar in an earlier thread - this terror thing is not new, nor did it start under Clinton, either Bush, or even Reagan. But it swelled to something worse on all their watches.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 04:59 PM) We all make choices. And some people make stupid ones. Given that warning labels have been required on cigarettes since the 1960s, anyone that speaks English in this country in the last 30 years and doesn't know that any cigarette is bad for you doesn't deserve a dime. I agree.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 04:42 PM) A plan like this penalizes people who cannot afford new cars, and rewards those who can. What's next, we sue car manfacturers for making cars that meet our emissions standards? That would be the day! As time goes on and more low-emission vehicles are available, that is less of a truth. Heck, even now, you can buy all sorts of used cars that are LEV's. But temporarily, yes, it would help new car buyers more often than used. Gotta start somewhere.

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 04:38 PM) while we're at it, what's wrong with co-existing with communism? Reagan spent like a drunken sailor for no good reason and f***ed our economy for years afterward. Communism had nothing to do with it. If the USSR were just a communist state who left its neighbors alone, all would have been fine.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 03:39 PM) So, for those of us with the Ozzie plan, we were offered one ALDS game or two ALCS games. I chose the latter. Do I get my money refunded, or do I not get it back period, or does that money go to games for next year? My understanding for all season-plan purchasers of post-season tickets... its now a deposit towards a 2007 plan. If you don't want a 2007 plan, they send you a refund (and you lose your "place" in the order of things for season tickets). If you want one, its your first payment.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 03:28 PM) Link Intro: A judge in America has given the go ahead to a class-action lawsuit accusing the tobacco industry of misleading smokers into buying light cigarettes as a less harmful alternative to regular ones. Judge Jack Weinstein of US District Court in Brooklyn, New York, said that there was enough evidence for the plaintiffs to push their case as a class-action, potentially enabling tens of millions of smokers to join the lawsuit, which it is estimated could cost tobacco firms between $100 billion and $200 billion in damages. What do you all think about this? I think its amazing that cigarettes are legal and marijuana isn't. And I think cigarettes are a much, much greater danger to the public than alcohol.

QUOTE(cgaudin @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 03:10 PM) Because the Sox have NO bullpen, smart guy. Thome will be the ball 'n chain of this baseball team if he remains here. Get rid of him, now. We need to design our baseball team to compete against Minnesota, Cleveland, and Detroit. Thome is an automatic out batting against lefties. Where do you people keep getting the idea that the 2nd best hitter on the team is the problem?! Ball and chain? Automatic out?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 03:18 PM) Actually, the Berlin wall fell because of bananas. This schnitzel... is bananas.... B... A-N-A-N-A-S!!

Speaking of warrantless wiretapping, it looks like Congress won't be giving Bush the armament he wants in order to beat the courts... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060926/ap_on_...ss_surveillance

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 02:56 PM) You can legally hold someone for 48 hours without charging someone. And FISA warrants can be petitioned for and granted concurrently with execution, if time is of the essence, I believe.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 02:47 PM) First of all, there are ways one could overcome the failure-to-pay rates. Tickets for people not having them, is one option...having it be a standard part of the tax paid when purchasing a car would be another one. Yes, it would result in significant price increases for vehicle ownership...but the key is, it would result in much more significant price increases for heavily polluting or gas-guzzling cars. And thus, it would be a very very heavy disincentive towards purchasing or using said vehicles. I'm not sure of a good way to make it a perfect system...but when compared with highly regressive gas taxes that only do a small amount to discourage consumption, I think that a system that taxes based on the EPA ratings or on the MPG of a car would be a significant improvement. Well, dynamic registration rates are already used in Colorado - but there it is based on a percentage of value of the car. So at least is progressive. Problem is, if you drop gas prices, people will drive they cars they already have a lot more. And how often people drive is at least as important as what they drive, if not more so. You would be effectively discouraging the use of mass transit. That isn't what you or I would want, I think. Here is what I'd suggest. Keep gas taxes as they are. At the state level, determine the approximate total cost of health care and other efforts that have to occur as a result of vehicular pollution (of course this will have to be an approximation, but a general target is fine). Take that state-covered cost, and charge it to vehicle owners, dynamic based on emission levels (higher emissions, higher registration rates). Reduce income taxes by the same gross amount. Voila - you have rebalanced the tax burden to penalize those contributing to the problem, and rewarding smart consumption.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 02:09 PM) I would be in favor of eliminating all taxes on gasoline and making up the entire revenue through exactly that system. That would result in some ENORMOUS prices at the municipal level for vehicle ownership. I assume you mean something non-local? Also, when you convert revenue from something instantaneously charged (sales tax) to something collected (permits), you lose a percentage of that revenue due to much higher failure to pay rates. What exactly did you have in mind?

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 01:32 PM) But they wouldn't have to justify it unless there was some right to privacy preventing them from doing that right? That's why I brought it up. The warrant is just an exception the Supreme Court has placed on that 'right' and to me if they can make that exception that can make other exceptions. The warrant is an exception? They only have to justify it if there is a right to privacy issue? I think you misunderstand some of the basics of this. A warrant is necessary for ANY search of a citizen or their home/property unless certain very high legal hurdles are cleared (someone in a house screaming "NO! DON'T KILL ME!" for example). It is a basic requirement. Probable cause is used in fringe areas - vehicles for example. And safety issues come into play in law enforcement encounters, such as the wingspan rule. Law enforcement only gets legally "free" access to information that any other citizen could obtain. That's the legal parallel that is key here. Anything else requires some sort of hurdle to be jumped. QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 01:37 PM) How so? They'd still have to go through the judicial process. Huh? You just finished saying you were OK with the warrantless taps, and that you didn't have anything to hide, so you don't care. If that is the standard, then no judicial process would take place. They could just search your, your home or your information whenever they'd like.

So, the Village of Wilmette's city council appears to be on the verge of doing something unique. They will be increasing the price of village stickers by $25 (raised to $75), but if your vehicle meets certain EPA criteria for low emissions, you get the old price of $50. Further, if you meet the HIGHEST criteria for low pollution, you pay LESS than the year before - $25. This marks a first for municipalities in getting into the pollution issue... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...ll=chi-news-hed What does everyone think? I think I like it. You can still own and operate any vehicle you'd like... but if your vehicle causes more damage to the environment (and thusly, the health and wellness of residents), you have to pay a little extra for that priviledge. Its like pollution credits that businesses work with, which I like too.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 01:23 PM) I guess this just goes back to the 'if you're innocent you have nothing to worry about' argument. Fortunately, our country uses the "innocent until proven guilty standard", instead of yours. Otherwise, they could pretty much do what they wanted, couldn't they?

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 11:21 AM) As was pointed out it's difficult to tell if it has worked. However there was the 'threat' on New York financial institutions a year ago that they say was uncovered by listening to phone conversations. Also, I believe the plot to blow up planes using hair gel/liquids in the UK was uncovered by using warrantless taps. As to your second point, there is no such thing as a privacy right expressly written into the Constitution. It was deduced from a 'penumbra' of rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (uncovered over time through constitutional history). I am of the mind that if you can create rights in the Constitution than you can also take them away or at least alter them slightly. How is wiring tapping with a warrant any different? You're still infringing on a persons privacy rights, but they Court has simply made an exception. Why can't they create another exception when dealing with terrorists/terrorist activities? Further, there have been times in history when the rights guaranteed by the Constitution have been abridged for reasons of safety and security. Ask Mr. Lincoln about his policies leading up to and during the Civil War dealing with habeas corpus. Not once did my post refer to a right to privacy. What I was referring to was the burden on government to justify intrusion into out lives, via a warrant. And as Balta noted, any connection between warrantless searches or wiretapping and any material case is non-existent, in anything I have read. Feel free to provide evidence otherwise. QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 12:09 PM) So has Bush... Elaborate, please. I have seen no such thing.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 10:30 AM) Riddle me this NSS. How can you demonstrably show the effectiveness of a classified program? You cant. You have to trust the government that they are using it properly. Are there going to be abuses? Of course, but I believe that they have been and will be so few and far between, in spite of all the "sky is falling" leftists rantings, that it simply does not warrant taking this tool out of the governments tool box. Well, there is definitely some truth to that - its hard to know if it worked or did not work. But there are certain things which I am just not willing to trust the government with. Wiretaps with no warrants, even after the fact, are just not OK with me. Neither are gun registries. In both cases, those tools would help law enforcement. Also in both cases, abuses would probably be rare. But both those things, to me, stand in direct violation of what their particular Constitutional protections are meant to provide. And I therefore am not comfortable with them.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 09:49 AM) And the problem with this is......? I'm all for protecting liberties and freedoms, but much like the wire-tapping issue, if you have no link to them you have no worries. The purpose of both is to detain those that aid terrorism, not those that steal cable or smoke some pot at home. If it makes the country safer (which the wire-tapping has already done) then i'm all for it. Yes I know Ben Franklin has a wonderful qoute about not sacrificing liberty for security (as have many prominent American icons), but he probably never envisioned suicide bombers or plane hijackers that target civilians and not militias/armies. Show me an instance where the wiretapping (not any wiretapping, but the kind argued on this board as being questionable) did anything to make this country safer. And it never ceases to amaze me how many people are so spoiled by their freedoms living in the U.S. that they use the "I have nothing to hide" argument when this administration chips slowly away at the Constitution. Ironically, it is often these same people who yell and scream that we must vigorously defend our freedoms at any cost... when they want to go to war with a country that represents zero danger to us. I guess freedom is in the eye of the beholder.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 09:21 AM) The Washington Post Hm. So the key change is lowering the hurdle of declaration from "engaged in hostilities against the United States" to "unlawful combatant". For US citizens within the U.S., I'd suspect that change is immaterial. For those outside the country, that subtlety may have an effect in fringe cases. Either way, I don't see where this is going to be very problematic. Since it doesn't speak of citizens or not, I am fairly sure that any U.S. court would find against the government if it detained a U.S. citizen outside the judicial or military legal process that had not shown clear hostile intent towards U.S. interests. Therefore, to me, its only problematic in that its symbolic of the continued desire of this administration and its Congressional brethren to erode freedom whenever possible (all the while parading the term "freedom" as a clever marketing mask). I suspect your main fear here is if federal officials ever used that clause to detain a citizen for actions that were only incidentally hostile to the U.S. (i.e. some kid in a foreign country protesting near a U.S. embassy or something). Standing law and precedent have been set pretty clearly on cases similar to that I am sure, so I don't think that would stand a challenge. So I'm not too concerned. Unless you have some other fear or concern that I am not seeing. Do you?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 26, 2006 -> 08:06 AM) This little hype job is lovingly covering up the fact that the compromise that the Republicans against torture agreed to with the President allows US Citizens to have rights of habeas corpus suspended at his will. Excuse me?! Could you elaborate on that? And I really don't see how that would stand up to Constitutional muster in any case.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 06:01 PM) Boring line-up. Oh come on now. These lineups include a guy with a hyphenated first name, a guy who can't spell Johnny, a guy who never goes by his actual name (initials only), a guy referred to once as "three gorilla strong", and players from at least 6 different countries (including 2 different Asian nations). I think that's pretty interesting. QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 06:05 PM) Your math is incorrect Crap. You're right. They need to sweep and have MIN lose 3 of 4, don't they?

So, if my math is right, if we win 2 of 3 in CLE, then MIN needs to lose 3 of 4 to KC for us to be alive going into MIN. Alternately, if we sweep CLE, and MIN goes 2 of 4 or worse, then we go to MIN mathematically in it. I know, its basically over. But that won't stop me from rooting for my team. Let's sweep 'em!!! GO YOU WHITE SOX!!!

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 05:19 PM) I dont see how building an olympic stadium to be stripped down after the olympics will bring tourist money after. I'd rather see Chicago spend the money on updating its transportation system and making the lives of people who actually live there better first. The stadium means little for later tourist dollars. What I was referring to was the draw to Chicago as a city after it held the Olympics.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 04:32 PM) So...can someone explain to me how spending all the money on security improvements, new stadia, police overtime, and so forth is worth the extra billions it would cost beyond simply spending the money to improve the transit system? Because if we get the Olympics, there would be federal funding (and state) made available to the area well above and beyond current levels. Also, private industry's contributions may go towards transit, and not just stadia and such. Plus, just revamping parts of the transit system won't help us get more tourist money, before, during and after the Olympics.