NorthSideSox72

And? So what if he was, so what if he wasn't. If he was and we figured it out... great! That's called gamesmanship. In fairness, Leyland even said that. Total non-issue.

I got some sort of error. But in any case, I have the same question as Reddy - how is ripping a religion of 1 billion people "courageous"? I'm not seeing it.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 03:30 AM) Which, basically, is one arguement for the legaization of pot. If you eliminate the need to go to dealer to get pot, then user acceptance of illegal activity is no longer part of the equation. great point.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:42 PM) So after being searched at the office building, the retail store, the stadium, the train, plane, and taxi, does it really matter if the government isn't allowed to search you? That's the point I am making. We are on a path were all freedoms will be meaningless. If it is unsafe to travel via a plane next to someone, why allow anyone to walk in a crowd on Michigan Avenue without being searched? Think about this for a minute. You get on a plane with dozens on up to a couple hundred people. Count how many people will be at a busy street corner in Chicago tomorrow at lunch time. Why should we be more concerned about being in a plane or on a bus than walking? When searches becomes routine we then give up that right and allow the police to have you empty your pockets and open your purse when they ask. Is that better or worse for society? It is easy to give a "if you have nothing to hide" or "if it saves one life" argument. And perhaps those are valid positions. I am NOT in the "I have nothing to hide so search me" crowd. Others in here I am sure are aware of my stance on the FISA B.S. and other encroachments on real, protected rights and freedoms. That is why I made the post earlier saying that I am 100% OK with the new travel stuff, but hope we are dumb enough as a nation to start bargaining away or Constitutionally protected freedoms in exchange for a false sense of security.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 03:28 PM) I'm guessing he shares a first name with a off color comedian with the last name of Rock. Nope. His first name is Joe.

Our ticket rep is alright. Nothing wrong. But nothing great, either - never heard from the guy, except the blanket emails about game time changes. And he doesn't return out emails, more often than not. Actually, he's not very good. Is it cool to name names in this thread? Not sure if that is a good idea.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 02:08 PM) I'm still on the Fields in LF bandwagon next year. He's got the athleticism. He's probably a better baserunner than Pods too, although my grandmother is at this point. The only thing that concerns me about Josh is (besides the K's) his exorbitant BABIP. I believe it's still over .400, even if a lot of that is just becuase he hits the ball damn hard. BABIP 418 Home BABIP .471 That is an UNREAL home average. If the guy is terrible defensively at 3B, what makes you think he'd be good as an outfielder? Has he played out there at all?

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 01:22 PM) Texsox, I think I understand where some of the confusion is coming from here. 1) You have a right to interstate travel, but this does not mean that you have the right to travel however you want. The majority of the time this type of conflict occurs when a state passes a law, that would prohibit people from traveling through it, (ie snow tires). 2) The commerce clause, which prevents the states from putting restrictions on interstate travel. What this means is that it is entirely within the federal govt's power to regulate air travel. Because air travel is not a fundemental right, all laws in regards to air travel are "rational basis" standard, meaning that unless a person can show there is no rational basis for the law, the law is constitutional. It is clear there is a govt interest in the safety of people flying in airplanes, therefore they can make flying on an airplane contingent on being searched. Private airlines could not evade this law, as they would have no legal argument why it was unconstitutional. If you do not want to be searched, you dont have to take airplanes, trains, or other forms of public transportation. You can walk, ride your bike, or take your own car. I'm pretty proud of myself. I pretty much said the exact things the lawyer said.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) How about to attend a sporting event? Stadiums, owned by private interests or government entities, always have the right to conduct security, charge for entrance and admit/reject anyone. So yeah. QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) Shop in a mall? Private property - their call. But probably won't happen, for financial reasons. QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) Ride a bus Grey area, given its public transit. QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) or taxi? Up to the cab company, which again, is private. QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) Walk down Michigan Avenue? Public street, so no, no searches. QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) Enter an office building? Private property, so if they choose, yes. QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:55 PM) My point again, is what difference will our rights make if we voluntarily give them away at every turn? Of these, only walking down Michigan Avenue could really be construed as a right.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:46 PM) You could even make a great arguement that is isn't any business of the government to decide what happens on planes and by the airlines. It shouldn't even be a necesity for airlines to provide ANY security at all. It is a choice they make based on their business decesions, which should leave them open for anyone who has a loss because of their bad practices to be able to seek retribution through the court system. And then the next step would be that any regulation of flight travel by the US government could be construed as interfering with interstate commerce. But that is a horse of a different color. I think maybe you are misconstruing the Constitutional allowances for interstate commerce. The clause dealing with interstate commerce specifically states that it falls under the purview of the federal government - it does NOT state any sort of right to conduct such (though it may be implied). The federal government, in administration, cannot violate its own right to enforce. So I don't think there is a valid legal argument there. I do agree though, that one could make an argument that the government COULD, if it chose, bow out of the whole thing. But, similar to if the government bowed out of driving and licensure, I don't think anyone would want that to occur.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:29 PM) Balta, I'm not sure that I entirely agree with you. One of the things that the US has as an implied right or privilege is the ability to travel freely. The US currently prohibits travel to only North Korea, Iran and Cuba. If suddenly international travel for Americans by the American government was severely curtailed... I wonder if you'd feel the same way. I kind of believe that the ability to move freely is a right for law abiding citizens. Neither driving, nor flying (whether as pilot or passenger) has ever been legally recognized as any sort of right. They are priviledges. You have the RIGHT to move about by whatever methods you have access to. Walking, biking, riding public transit, etc. are free access. You have a right to choose to travel, but if you choose flying or driving, you can only do so under certain restrictions.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:40 AM) Any good photo editor at a newspaper should know what they are looking at. It's all about the "worst news possible" sells. That's the agenda. That hits it on the head.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:39 AM) We're so freakin' spoiled, it's unreal. WAKE UP, people. It's these freedoms that people take advantage of. Which is exactly why we should be defending them, not restricting them. I am referring here to governmental efforts to restrict freedom in other areas, NOT airline security. Flying on a plane is not a right. Therefore, they can and should restrict it as necessary. What I am saying is, even if terror reign huge in this country at some point, we are that much more obligated to protect every Constitutional freedom we have. Not the opposite, which is the disturbing trend coming from the far right.

Uribe's WS stands dive Fisk's 2-fer Aaron Rowand's first inning against NYY last year, in NY. Don't remember the date. At least, those are the three best of the ones I've seen.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 08:39 AM) No newspapers or magazines either, and one book. That's weird. Why no papers or mags, but a book is OK?

I'll be gracing the park as well. A win here, and I'd call the series a success. Keep up the new found stuff, Vaz!!!

Wow. That's huge. Big cheers for the London/UK authorities for foiling it. HUGE cheers. I'll probably regret going there, but here it is. We need a new course on how we are handling terror and the Middle East - and quick. This piss off the whole world, attack a sidebar country and then not even get serious about finishing our wars thing is not working at all.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Aug 9, 2006 -> 02:48 PM) or maybe he just wasn't trying to kill the kid. First, there is no such thing as non-deadly force with a gun. Period. Legally, that is just the reality. You shoot someone, regardless of aim or intent, you are using deadly force. Second, contrary to pupular belief, cops are NOT taught to "shoot him in the leg" or any other Hollywood nonsense. As Tex said, you aim for center mass. The only exceptions I have ever heard of are the very, very high end snipers (who still usually go center mass anyway), or if you are using your gun in close quarters (like, you are wrestling with someone, and you stick the gun at a certain part). Other than those rare instances, you go center mass.

Here is one guideline that I think we can all agree on... You can post something negative, and you can post something about another poster. Just don't post something negative about another poster.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 9, 2006 -> 12:35 PM) Since it is illegal for the kid to have a bb gun, it is reasonable to assume that the cops will treat all guns as potentially deadly. Sorry kid, don't be playing with guns. And as far as the witness who claimed the kid was trying to put it down, they have no way to know intent. I have to say this about the cop: 4 shots from 10 feet away and only hit 3 for 4 and the kid is still alive? From 10 feet?? wtf? Learn to shoot. Tex- Let me tell you this, from some experience. 3 of 4 from inside 10 feet is actually well above the average. FBI stat from a while back: inside 10 feet, with pistols, typically 4 of the first 5 shots MISS their target. That includes cops (though cops' percentage is usually a little higher than the other guys'). There are many reasons for this. One, all the training in the world doesn't get rid of the sheer panic of that situation. It REDUCES it, but to variable extent. Also, it is not in the nature of most human beings to want to kill someone else. Therefore, psychologically, there is a strong motivation (unconscious) to miss. The fact that this was a kid may have only amplified that. One other thing. Bullets are funny animals. 2 gunshots hitting within an inch of each other can make the difference between a minor wound and death.

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Aug 9, 2006 -> 12:24 PM) It makes me sick they are "protesting" over this kid while an innocent little girl was shot to death by a drive by while she was playing video games in her basement. Why no protesting there for an innocent little girl?! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 9, 2006 -> 09:09 AM) Are the Saudi's going to take up their cause? I doubt it. And again, I doubt the US would start bombing Iran alone. If the situation became that serious the UN, as weak they are, would be leading the effort, even if it does involve our own technology/resources. Are OPEC nations going to refuse oil to all modernized nations? Highly unlikely. Not everything is so simple. Iran doesn't have to shut down its oil supply, neither does Saudi. They can just gradually decrease it, price goes up, they still get the cash. Don't like that? How about they destroy OTHER countries' supplies? They can do that to. Plus they have a lot more money and resources generally than other nations in the region, that can be used to fund all sorts of guerilla and terrorist activites against the US, if it chooses. Again, Iran is not Libya. An air assault will, unequivocally, lead to a broader war on multiple fronts. The war may be economic, and/or guerilla, and/or unconventional... but a war it will be, none the less.

Let me just point this out. The PD's along the Urban Corridor, where most of Colorado's population live, don't even bother enforcing possession of marijuana. Not worth the hassle. Only time people get cited is if they have LARGE quantities (like a brick or more), or if they were otherwise acting like a jackass and the cops felt like throwing the book at them. So for all intents and purposes, if you are just a consumer of cannabis, you aren't really in much danger of being caught anyway.

Tragedy all around. For the kid, the family, and the cop who will need therapy. But as far as I can tell, the cop did zero wrong. And one might ask the families who are complaining... why is it your 14-year old kid out on the street pointing a gun at cops anyway? Where did he learn that was OK?

*puts on Mod hat* You two (Hangar and JimH) need to stop. Now. Let the thread continue on its own, not as a forum for your tiff. Take it to PM or email or the bike racks.