NorthSideSox72

Just got last-minute tix - I'm goin' to the game!!!

This is an odd-numbered movie (#11), so, it will suck.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Apr 21, 2006 -> 12:19 PM) Isn't Cinci chili a marriage between Texas/Southwest Chili (no beans) and Boston/Northeast Chili (beans, no tomato) What the heck is Cinci chili? Like Cincinnati? Are they known for chili or something?

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Apr 21, 2006 -> 11:38 AM) .699 in March of 1999 at the Chesterton Amoco. Today, 2.759 is a steal. Compare the Prius and the Scion XB. The Prius gets roughly 45 mpg driving, the XB 30. At 2.75 a gallon, the price differential (approximately 5,000) becomes equal at 163,934 miles into the car's life. At 4.00 a gallon, the price differential becomes equal at 112,612 into the car's life. According to GM, a full hybrid upgrade tends to run about 3k to 4k in differential cost. And that number will continually go down as time goes on. I also saw that GM is putting out a "light" hybrid in the Saturn VUE later this year, which supposedly will give a 20% increase in average mileage (not sure how they make that "average" measurement) for only about a $600 increase in cost to build.

Wearing a North Face jacket and cute little Merrell clogs does not make you "outdoorsy". It just amplifies your yuppieness.

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 21, 2006 -> 09:04 AM) But some have been nasty. A few of his points are dead on. There are always a few losers. No question about it. And I certainly see no reason for people here to respond as nastily to the Cub fan as they have, flinging insults. But before his post, the great majority of posts were not offensive or cheering the injury.

QUOTE(Iwritecode @ Apr 21, 2006 -> 09:24 AM) I paid $6,000 for my current vehicle. I'd have to pay $20,000+ for a hybrid. Somehow I don't think I'd be saving much money... I meant the differential cost difference between two similar new cars, one with a hybrid drive system, the other a conventional motor-only.

QUOTE(DannyCooksey @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 09:12 PM) Cub Fan Here Just wanted to throw my two cents in here. I am not saying it's everyone on this board, but for those that have made their snide comments and laughed at a man's misfortune. How sick are you people??? I have read this board occasionally and while I realize you guys are still 40/60 Cub-Haters and therefore not actual White Sox fans (the 40, not the 60 for clarification) how can you laugh and mock celebrate a man's injury and a team's atrocious misfortune??? Are you people that demented and sick in the head that you would do that??? You guys had your magical year and you earned your World Series title. I give the Sox all the credit in the world for that. That said, is it still necessary to find humor and laughter in another team's and/or player's continual misfortune??? Haven't you excercised the demons of continually feeling inferior and neglected in the City??? If not, then I truly feel sorry for you people (the ones that are enjoying and laughing at Lee and the Cubs--not EVERYONE on here is doing that). I realize this is a Sox board and all that, but my goodness. Don't you guys have something better to focus on??? Are the rumors true, that Sox fans are really Green Bay Fudge Packer fans in disguise??? Sure are acting like it. In conclusion, after reading several threads about how much the Cubs suck and this and that etc etc. Now with the celebratory attitude of some of you in light of this bad injury, I can only come to a possible 3 conclusions: 1. You guys are absolutely disgusting human beings and I hope you know how to read the instructions on a condom. Lord knows this world doesn't need offspring from the likes of you people. 2. You have never sniffed a competitive playing field of any kind. Anyone who has ever had the guts to play a sport in a competitive environment knows not to poke fun at injuries and laugh at them. Not matter what your allegiances are. You just don't do that garbage. 3. You have insecurities that run so deep and are so well hidden to your buddies, that you are prob the type of losers who beat your wives and girlfriends, can't hold jobs, are constantly drunk, and are constantly angry at the world because you are a closet homosexual with a di** so small that you get more pi$$ on your ball$ than actually reaches the toilet water. The only question is..........which one of the three are you??? Again, this was only directed at those laughing and celebrating Lee's and the Cubs misfortune. Have a great day! :finger DC Dude. Most people on this board have said specifically they feel badly about DLee, and anything negative they said (most people) is that its good we don't have to face him, which is a complement. If you want to see some serious anti-Cub sentiments, go over to WSI.

Two thoughts... 1. DLee seems a good bloke, so I do feel badly about his injury. I see no reason to celebrate it. We would have beaten the Cubs soundly in the crosstown series anyway. 2. The more I think about it, the more it might make sense for the Cubs to trade for Ross Gload. Good lefty bat 1B (obviously nothing like Lee good, but he can hit .300), used to play for the Cubs anyway, solid defender at that position, could be had immediately and for relatively cheap. For the Sox, not a huge loss - he hardly plays anyway, and I think his hitting talent is wasted behind PK and Thome. Maybe they could get a pitching prospect out of it.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 21, 2006 -> 06:35 AM) Just wait. By July you'll be happy to pay $2.75 a gallon. One interesting side effect of that: at $4 a gallon, the cost savings for hybid vehicles, especially for high mileage drivers, suddenly becomes significant (where as at $2.50, the savings may never happen at all (if based purely on the gas math).

QUOTE(White Sox Fan For Life @ Apr 21, 2006 -> 07:44 AM) That made no sense to this thread. GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!! :banghead

QUOTE(T R U @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 04:20 PM) And yeah, noodles... not like spaghetti noodles but im talkin bout like maccaroni noodles.. its awesome And its not chili. Its homemade spaghetti-ohs.

This thread makes me cringe with every post. And yet, I can't stay away...

QUOTE(White Sox Fan For Life @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 01:09 PM) No offense I am just very aggravated because I have a paper to write about on how to put a silencer on a gun for my policing class too. Policing class?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 02:01 PM) Agreed. When I was travelling weekly for work, it became "this is Wednesday and I'm hot, it must be Phoenix" who could tell by the Friday's next to the Applebees next to the Starbuck next to the Denny's all next to the LaQuinta. Some cities have retained character better than others. Phoenix, aside from the adobe house look, looks just like a suburb of LA, so I don't think it has done much that way. This is one of the reasons I am so proud to be a Chicagoan - the city still has a great local flavor, literally and figuratively.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 01:55 PM) And with the conservative media he's god-like, omniscient, with the ability to see WMD where there are none, and Clinton was a walking hard-on who didn't predict the future and stop Bin Laden. Of course, according to that Fox poll, less than 70% of GOP'ers support Bush now. Not very good for your core party. Laughably, Fox News attributed that to Republicans worrying about the November midterms. While that may be true for some, I think its more a simple matter that many Republicans no longer like what they see from Bush. I said this before the Nov elections in 2004 - Bush talks like a conservative, but doesn't end up pushing that agenda very hard in reality. He and Rove got the GOP conservative base machine behind him in two elections, and has done very little of what they wanted from him.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 12:31 PM) People from invading our country? Wouldn't it be better to come up with a policy that matches the employer with the worker who is invading? You act like we have armies at our border. We have poor huddled masses looking for jobs and across the river are employers willing to hire them. To keep that from happening, we need to spend billions on dollars. Gotta watch out for the next Pancho Villa, man.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 12:12 PM) Agree but that needs to be beefed up anyway. Emplacing a physical border would allow border enforcement personnel to redeploy to right on the border from the more inland locations that some of them now patrol. I think that's a little extreme of an assessment, especially considering that most of the border region is a desert wasteland. As with the 1st point. Emplacing a physical border allows you to re-deploy people down to the line as opposed to inland areas. That combined with some more funding for re-enforcements and that solves that issue. You can also leave open area's like mountainous regions. If a bunch of illegals make it over a mountain then you can have a chopper snag em up on the far side and reward them for their efforts with a trip to the pokey and a one way ride back. On the wall and technology bit, I disagree. The wall slot restricts your teams to the border itself. You will need inland teams in any case, because some will make it through. Better to set the teams here and there on the US side, ready to roll as soon as the control center dispatches them. As for the "desert wasteland", you are misinformed. I've been on the border in NM and AZ, and yeah, some of it is desert. Very little is wasteland. All kinds of endangered species straddle the border, plant and animal. And some of the mountainous areas are downright plush. As for leaving mountains open, that won't be good. As it is, rangers in what is left of the Coronado NF, that hits the border near the AZ/NM line catch mule trains crossing there all the time with drug shipments, and those park rangers are not well trained for drug interdiction. They need better detection gear, and better trained reinforcements. Since those are pricey, you employ them as strike teams with the tech gear I mentioned earlier.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 12:02 PM) I've posted on this topic many times in here, and I'll reiterate my points on why a serious wall/fence like that is a huge mistake... 1) Technology is always cheaper than brick and mortar. Example: traffic congestion. Over and over again, its found to be better to use traffic control systems (includes cameras, controllable lanes, etc.) to reduce congestion than adding more lanes, and for cheaper. In this case, the technology would include cameras, motion sensors, small well-equiped teams with the best military vision equipment, helicopters and planes with FLIR, etc. Those are being used only VERY sparsely right now. Those will be more effective and cheaper than a wall. 2) A wall or fence like that is an environmental disaster. For one thing, every species of animal that exists across that boundary bigger than an ant will effectively be split into two distinct populations. And any species that have been pushed across one way or the other and are trying to recover their range will be thwarted. Stilted ecosystems won't be able to recover, plant species will be effected, and suddenly you have major flooding and dust storm problems in the southwest (more so than now). 3) The fence is still going to be penetrated if you don't have personnel in place for detection and interception, and people are expensive. That is why the use of technology, which can be used to TARGET the areas for response and use fewer personnel, is the better solution. There are other reasons, but those are the big ones for now. Just thought of two more reasons, smaller ones admitedly... 4) The motion sensors and cameras could have multiple uses - including studying wildlife and weather. Those studies could use that same data you gathered to some degree, without having to generate it on their own. 5) The cultural factor. How do you think people here would take that, who are recent immigrants from ANY country? Looks pretty bad to them. The technological approach doesn't have the same negative picture, but is just as effective (or more so). Why agitate people further if it isnt necessary to do so?

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 11:52 AM) What's the opposition to a fence?? I know this addresses only part 1 of the problem. I just want to hear the negatives to it. I've posted on this topic many times in here, and I'll reiterate my points on why a serious wall/fence like that is a huge mistake... 1) Technology is always cheaper than brick and mortar. Example: traffic congestion. Over and over again, its found to be better to use traffic control systems (includes cameras, controllable lanes, etc.) to reduce congestion than adding more lanes, and for cheaper. In this case, the technology would include cameras, motion sensors, small well-equiped teams with the best military vision equipment, helicopters and planes with FLIR, etc. Those are being used only VERY sparsely right now. Those will be more effective and cheaper than a wall. 2) A wall or fence like that is an environmental disaster. For one thing, every species of animal that exists across that boundary bigger than an ant will effectively be split into two distinct populations. And any species that have been pushed across one way or the other and are trying to recover their range will be thwarted. Stilted ecosystems won't be able to recover, plant species will be effected, and suddenly you have major flooding and dust storm problems in the southwest (more so than now). 3) The fence is still going to be penetrated if you don't have personnel in place for detection and interception, and people are expensive. That is why the use of technology, which can be used to TARGET the areas for response and use fewer personnel, is the better solution. There are other reasons, but those are the big ones for now.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 11:43 AM) It's not about whether or not they can screw up. I'll admit right here that they can. I'm talking about the cartoon portrayal of Bush as a dunce. With the liberal media, he's either a dunce or he's so diabolical as to be Hitleresque. The media exagerrate everything - liberal or otherwise. Especially nowadays, its all about sound bites and the spectacular. Make it as edgey as possible. Its only "liberal" bias in this case because the Prez is anything but. And besides, we are talking about Rolling Stone here (they did the cover), who I agree will be even more liberal than the MSM.

The impact on the water would not be the biggest concern here for a rescuer. The temperature of that water, this time of year, is probably no better than 40 or 50 degrees (likely closer to 40). That would be the killer. You can only survive in that for so long. I suppose if you were able to get to the person, drag them out, and get out within a couple minutes, you might not succumb to hypothermia. but if it takes more time than that, you start to be in trouble.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 10:48 AM) So, I'm guessing I can't get a good vegetarian chilli in Texas? Sure you can. Its called Tomato Soup.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 20, 2006 -> 10:54 AM) Of course you are correct, it makes you a criminal. But we have always used judgement in how we enforce the laws. Governors and Presidents have broad powers to offer clemency or pardons. Many have said that rounding them up and deporting them isn't an option, As a society, we are agreeing to leave these "criminals" walking around. I see a difference between employing "criminals" who we have decided can be walking around free and employing "criminals" that we feel should be locked up. Am I missing something? I'd like to point out that when I suggested we don't enforce Pub Intox laws in bars, you used the exact opposite of this argument - that we cannot pick and choose the laws we enforce.

Like I said in the other BA thread, I see a hitch in his hitting approach. He strides, plants the front foot, then hesitates there for just a fraction of a second. Then, he starts moving again into his swing. This puts him behind the pitches, and diminishes his power. Anyone else noticed that hesitation? Its like he is trying to get a better read on the pitch or something.