NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 01:29 PM) That he's hitting .136 this month? Thank you. My point exactly. With a month of .136, the guy is still putting up numbers this year that are as good, of not better, than last. I'd like to see a lot of Pablo too, he's a great presence out there. Heck, maybe with some intense practice and teaching, he could even become a passable defender in the OF in a few years and become a starter somewhere. But for now, Pods is the leadoff guy, and replacing him because he is in a slump for a few weeks is absurd. Get back to me in August if he is still hitting .136 over those months.

Let's have some Pods perspective here. The idea with Pods is to get on base, and then either steal or threaten to steal, right? OBP this year: .343 OBP last year: .351 SB this year: 21/28 (75%) SB last year: 59/82 (72%) So... the guy has almost the say OBP, WHILE he is in a slump, as last year. And his SB's are at a higher success rate than last year. What exactly is the problem again?

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 01:11 PM) Wow, Vasquez has posted a .650 career OPS...that's better than Timo. Where did you get .650? Its .498, unless I wrote it down wrong.

I put these stats out here last fall prior to the WS, to see how Sox pitchers have fared in hitting. Here it is, for your interleague pleasure (AVG, OBP, OPS)... Buerhle: .095/.136/.231 [21 AB] Contreras: .000/.067/.067 [14 AB] Vazquez: .214/.244/.498 [426 AB] Garcia: .194/.194/.416 [36 AB] Garland: .167/.167/.398 [12 AB] Cotts: 1.000/1.000/3.000 [1 AB, it was a double] McCarthy: .000/.000/.000 [2 AB, both K's] Nelson: .000/.000/.000 [2 AB] Jenks, Riske, Thornton, Montero have never hit. 3 of our 5 SP's have higher averages (career) than Anderson does this year.

If anyone thinks that temporarily decapitating "Al Qaeda in Iraq" will stop the insurgency is in for an unpleasant surprise. As I said earlier, the hate is buried too deep in society in the Middle East. Someone will simply fill the vacuum. Now, I do applaud that we nailed that ****er Zarqawi, and we need to continue penetrating and breaking up those networks as best as we can. But we are years if not decades from having a peaceful, stable Iraq.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 01:32 AM) I dont think they are in the way at all. They are down there building barriers to entry and their thermal imaging equipment is an awesome surveillance tool. I think the military presence along the border is having a deterrent effect. Granted that it's impossible to tell for sure but it is the most reasonable explanation. While I agree with the Guard's presence there, and I hope they set up detection nets along the whole border... I highly doubt any sort of crossing numbers, especially this soon after the Guard's arrival. Heck, the US practically broadcast where the Guard would be (Arizona, specifically from Yuma to the Cabeza Prieta, and again around Nogales and Douglas), which would lead me to the conclusion that they are just crossing elsewhere (SE CA, SW NM).

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 16, 2006 -> 01:34 AM) I think if Iraq keeps turning up, we bring some troops home and economy stays strong you guys are going to have trouble "purging" anyone with an R beside their name come this fall. Iraq turning up? When has that happened? Just because Zarqawi is dead? Come on Nuke, you should know better than most that killing that guy will be a blip historically. The hatred is buried too deep. Iraq isn't turning anywhere - it's still the same runaway train. As for Jefferson - good. Good the the Dems. This dude can rot.

Something I will add to the discussion here, partially as a response to Balta's comment about shooting first. In this particular case, the police did in fact identify themselves, then entered and self-identified again during entry. So this isn't about barging in without identifying themselves - its about not having to knock... wait... then go in. Nuke and Johnson are right on this - it will save lives on both sides if the police are allowed to secure a premises to serve a warrant in the safest way possible (which in some cases is by surprise). And that doesn't include knocking. In case you were curious, last I knew, warrant service is the #2 killer of cops (behind traffic stops). Plus, as I pointed out, the warrant releases some protections of the fourth amendment in relation to the subject(s) of said warrant. That is the purpose of the warrant; due process was followed to obtain it, assuring it was a reasonable search. The police will still have to identify themselves - they now are simply allowed to do so during or just prior to entry.

When a warrant is issued, if it includes invasion of premises, then any entitlement to 4th amendment search rights the subject may have is released. That's the nature of a search warrant. Therefore, I agree with SCOTUS on this one.

What a complete waste of time and tax payer dollars. And what an embarrassment for those 66 Senators. The flag is fabric. Its a symbol. Its not the country. I cannot believe these idiots are taking time away from issues like... i don't know... crime, poverty, war, terror, disasters, the economy and pretty much anything the **** else. Amazing.

QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 11:14 AM) I need to become a cop. I'm amazed at what they can get away with. There was just a story here in Rockford about a cop doing about 80 MPH with no lights or sirens, hitting a car and killing the people inside and getting away with it because he was "responding to a call". You don't even know what happened with the beach thing you cited, other than it was an accident. And guess what? When people are killed by cars, if no traffic law was broken by the driver, they aren't charged. And that isn't cops - that is EVERYONE. What traffic laws were broken when these cops accidentally drove over a woman they obviously never saw? Since they were cleared to drive on the beach, none. I suppose its possible they were reckless - I didn't see the act. That would be the only circumstance for charges to be appropriate. As for your cop with no lights and sirens, that is a grey area. And in truth, I tend to side with civilians in those cases - running around at high speed with no equipment on should be an extreme rarity, yet I see it all the time. That's one area where some cops need some remedial training.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 01:50 PM) Really? Whom? If you say someone like Chris Botti, thats pretty cool Oh jeez, it was a long while ago. But some jazz folks I have played with that come to mind... Clark Terry Louie Bellson Maynard Fergueson Ryan Kisor Duffy Jackson Matt Harris Gary Novak The rhythm section of the Artie Shaw Orchestra same with Count Basie Band Others I have met or spoken with: Bob Mintzer Lester Bowie I also have a bunch of friends in the "industry" who still play, who you may know (but likely not). But I'd rather not name the friends here. I've also played with some known classical guys, like Dale Clevenger, Charlie Vernon, and a few others.

I've in fact played with a few (jazz and classical, that is). But they are names that are probably only famous to those who follow jazz or classical music.

I agree with all of these posts. Kudos to Mr. Bush, who had spent most of his term as the worst environmental president in my lifetime. This is a big move, and the right one. to you, W.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 10:39 AM) Just out of curiosity, isnt' there a specific time window when even civilian authorities can hold a prisoner for either questionning or as a material witness/suspect while an investigation is under way? These are not civilian authorities. So reference the UCMJ as cited by Badger. But in case you were curious... as far as I was taught and guided by the handbook, civilian authorities (aka the police) cannot hold anyone for "questioning or as a material witness" without their consent, unless there is an immediate threat to public safety. Now, you can serve warrants to material witnesses, but you can only jail them if they evade the order. Kind of like contempt of court, or obstruction. But barring that, as far as I know, the type of custody you are referring to (civilian, police custody against a person's express will) is only legal if a direct danger to someone's safety is involved.

QUOTE(pcullotta @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 09:04 AM) I know. I was saying to hit a Ranger after the first pegging and Before the warnings. I don't know if anyone was sure enough at that point that it was intentional. Vaz said he "knew", but I don't buy it. Many may have suspected it, but you couldn't know in that situation - AJ's first at bat, he hadn't done anything particular to the Rangers or to the idiot pitcher... not much apparent motive there.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 08:32 AM) It's so sad how DUI's mean absolutely nothing in sports now a days, for an actiont that kills so many people every year you'd figure clubs would actually take action against the asswipes who decide to get liquired up and drive their sports cares 100+ MPH around town but no they really don't give a s***. It's just such a sad state of affairs in pro sports these days. Couldn't agree more. I've seen too much damage from DUI's to have any tolerance for it. I think we need a national law on it, frankly, something like what Germany has (first offense is a long-term license suspension AND jail time, second offense is PERMANENT revocation of license a a LOT of jail time). As for Loaiza and baseball, I think he should be suspended with pay until the case is decided, and then the team has the option to not pay that time off if he is found guilty.

I'll throw mine in... --Javy should have hit someone, ideally either the first batter after the fact, or the DH or catcher. He failed - not Tracey. --Ozzie's decision to send an out-of-control rookie up later in the game to bean the guy was not a good one. And I do think at least one of Tracey's pitches was an attempt to hit the guy anyway. Better to have Javy do it - even with the suspension he might get. Long run of the season, that is emotionally what was needed. --Ozzie's tantrum at Tracey was an unwise attempt to fire up the team AND get on Tracey for not following orders. Both may be good things to want to do, but Ozzie didn't handle it well. --I think tonight's game could be very, very interesting. QUOTE(pcullotta @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 08:59 AM) Exactly. Even in today's game, they don't throw pitchers out until warnings have been issued (unless there is a brawl). If Javy would've just plunked someone after the first AJ pegging, warnings would have been issued and the game could've finished up without any of this bulls***. Both benches WERE warned after the 2nd hit of AJ. Javy would have been ejected. I still think that is OK, but just to clarify, that would have been the case.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 08:33 AM) If it were as simple as that I would be all for it. Trouble is that you'd be in the US and all these American Criminal Liberties Union lawyers would be scratching and clawing trying to get them in front of a civillian court. And I'd probably agree with them on that point - sort of. We've held these scumbags for way too long - we need to cut them loose or give them a trial at this point. Whether its a military tribunal or a civilian court is left to argument, I think, but I do want to see them get moved along in some fashion.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 08:23 AM) The last two paragraphs are where it gets good... Is my personal favorite line... Well now that is just a ridiculous line. Now I'm REALLY glad I stopped reading.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 07:53 AM) http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix/the_h...ad_pagesix_.htm June 14, 2006 -- PARIS Hilton is so upset that Lindsay Lohan has been seeing her ex, Greek playboy Stavros Niarchos, she screamed insults at Lohan at Butter on Monday night. Witnesses report Hilton went up to Lohan and shouted, "I can't believe you and Stavros! You are ridiculous!" After taking more insults and curses, Lohan said, "That's how you say hello? I don't need to respond to you." Lohan promptly left. A rep for Lohan said, "Correct. Paris tried to pick a fight with her and started screaming at her, but Lindsay took the high road." After Lohan left, Hilton did a striptease for N.Y. Knick David Lee, Eli Manning and a bunch of other N.Y. Giants. OK... Lindsay, you are a good looking chick (now that you cut the blow and started eating again) but get a better diet honey. You do not need to be munching on Paris Hilton's sloppy seconds. And Paris... Good grief.. can you possibly be any more nasty..?Ick. I tend to ignore stories about various celebrity brats, most of the time. I keep hoping that if people don't pay attention to them, they will just go away. So far, my campaign hasn't been working. Society continues its quest. And I still end up reading stuff like this once in a while (usually on here).

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 08:17 AM) Check out the link in post #2. I did - sort of. The tone of the article was snippy and annoying so I stopped reading. But from what I read, I got the impression it was more lambasting the idea of a 3rd party than the Republicans. Maybe I should have finished it.

QUOTE(minors @ Jun 15, 2006 -> 12:44 AM) A CHILD IS A CHILD there it doesnt matter to me how far along it is. So that is why I abstain. If the women is raped yes it is still murder and family same goes for a family member and anytime the mothers life in jeopardy then it isn't It becomes a life saving procedure. Now why are people like Cerbaho, Heads, Lowercase, Rex and the liberals against the Death Penalty that kills thugs but yet gleefully defend abortion or "right to choose"? A killers life is more worth saving that an innocent helpless baby? I can respect the view that life begins at conception. I don't really agree with it, but I can certainly see the logic. What I have never understood is the exception for rape. Rape is a terrible thing, but if you believe life begins at conception, then how can you justify mitigating the effect of a rape with the murder of an innocent? I'm sorry but there is absolutely no logic in that. If life begins at conception, then NO abortion should ever be legal.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jun 14, 2006 -> 09:41 PM) It's not a semantic difference at all. I think that judges and juries should take motivation into account when determining penalties for crime. But I don't think motivation should be in and of itself a crime. Hate crime legislation makes motivation a crime. And that is wrong. QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jun 14, 2006 -> 09:45 PM) In that case it is my understanding of the law that is faulty. I assumed elevating a criminal offense to the staus of hate a crime in effect triggered the consideration of stiffer penalties basd on motivation. You are both right. I agree 100% with Rex that hate crimes in and of themselves should not be crimes independently. Its a ridiculous charge, and a slippery slope indeed. Jim, a hate crime CAN be a factor of aggravation in an existing drime, OR it can be a seperate charge where such a law applies.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jun 14, 2006 -> 06:20 PM) Oh yes there is. Security from whiny leftist protestors and security from the soft ass U.S. criminal justice system. Put them in Tamms Supermax. Nothing soft ass about it.