NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 11:33 AM) I'm going with Olmedo, Gimenez, Axelrod, Stults, Septimo, and Jones as the last 6 to get cut. Opening Day lineup: De Aza, Morel, Rios, Konerko, Dunn, Ramirez, Pierzynski, Viciedo, Beckham Bench: Lillibridge, Fukudome, Escobar, Flowers Rotation: Danks, Peavy, Floyd, Sale, Humber Bullpen: Stewart, Santiago, Bruney, Ohman, Crain, Thornton, Reed (closer) Reed hasn't looked all that great so far in camp, so I am not sure they give him the closing job... yet.

So, just the bullpen is in question now, right? Which seems to be Axelrod vs Stewart, though Stults and Jones are still hanging around.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:30 AM) I get you, i just want stewart starting at AAA rather than in the big league bullpen, and I think the latter might well happen if he has 2 more good outings. You and I seem opposed on this one. I think Stewart has reliever written all over him, whereas Axelrod looks like a potential major league starter to me.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:58 AM) I think what's happening here is Milkman and I are the only two defending Zimmerman's right to be innocent here... It just seems, on the surface, that most of you not only want to exonerate this kid, but you really hope that Zimmerman ends up being guilty. I don't know who is innocent or guilty, I just want the truth to come out, regardless of who it ends up being. Just seems tainted to me...seems like you all really really want it to be Zimmerman at fault. QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:47 AM) I think we all had a guy in our neighborhood like this growing up, and most people resent him, rather than respect and appreciate him. Even the police laugh at him, because he wants to be them. Again, to Y2H and Milk, even if it is not illegal to carry weapons and follow suspicious people around, would you admit that doing so exponentially increases the odds of something ugly happening? And even if that doesn't mean Zimmerman should be charged or convicted of anything, can you at least understand why many of us would resent his actions in this whole situation? That's pretty much where I am coming from. I have said all along, no one really knows how the physical confrontations occurred. But it seems pretty obvious that the situation occurred because Zimmerman was, at the very least, overzealous and created a situation that did not need to occur.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:29 AM) They have none. Not the case. As stated earlier, they represent the public safety department in response. They don't have police authority, but there can occasionally be consequences to ignoring them. Probably not in this scenario, but it can happen.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:20 AM) I'm going to have to go ahead and call this out...because this isn't about race, and I'm sick and tired of people trying to make it about race. Fact: Zimmerman is Hispanic, NOT white. Facts: A black kid was wandering around a gated community where other minority's lived, including other black people. Zimmerman's neighbors in said community are black. So, I beg the question, why are people continuing to try making the kids skin color an issue? Would it be a valid issue if it was a gated "whites only" community? Yes. But...and get this...it wasn't. So let's stop pretending it was. Sorry, but, this is just a huge leap to make. First, your "FACT" that Zimmerman is hispanic is irrelevant, or possibly even makes it MORE likely. This is a sad fact in Chicago, and I am sure elsewhere, that Hispanic and Black communities often do not get along. Look at the way neighborhoods are here. So the fact that he is Hispanic does nothing to reduce the chance this was racially motivated, and may even increase it. Here is the reality - you cannot possibly know if Zimmerman's judgment was colored by color, nor can anyone else. There is no "pretending" here, except by anyone who thinks they KNOW it was, or KNOW it wasn't, racist. One thing for damn sure - regardless of whether or Zimmerman or Martin turned out to be the aggressor during the physical confrontation, the confrontation itself was caused by Zimmerman acting beyond what he reasonably should have been in his role. Zimmerman caused the situation to occur.

I have to respond to whomever it was that said "shoot to wound" earlier... that is never the smart path, nor is it remotely practical. First of all, when you shoot someone, that legally will be considered deadly force - period. Regardless of where you shoot them. This is consistently upheld law. Second, shootings at close range with pistols are notoriously full of missed shots, because the nature of the scenario and the weapon make accuracy very difficult. One of my favorite pieces of trivia, is that the FBI did an analysis of shootouts at a range of less than 10 feet, and found that 4 of the first 5 shots MISS. Aiming for anything other than center mass is absurd, since most people have a hard time even hitting that at close range (for a wide variety of reasons). QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:05 AM) What does smoking pot have to do with anything? Some of the most brilliant, peaceful people in the world smoke pot. More importantly, people who are under the influence of marijuana are actually much LESS likely to be violent. I doubt he was high.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 04:05 PM) or forcible felony Which is defense of life and limb, or however you want to state it, because that is the nature of a forcible felony. Not sure what you are arguing about here.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 04:01 PM) It's not a simple self defense argument due to that law. In other states you'd be right, but not Florida. I don't know where you are getting this. The Florida law at play here does not alter the fact that you can only act this way in self-defense. It absolutely applies. Just because there is no per se duty to retreat, does not alter the law as perversely as you seem to think. Zimmerman still cannot shoot Martin unless it is in defense of life/limb.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 02:33 PM) Btw, after second though, I'd like to know any legitimate situation where this would be applied, because that would be the worst possible thing you could imagine for emergency response. The absolute last thing you want in any sort of emergency situation is a delay in calling 911. If you are calling 911 and you think you can intervene in a situation before the police can arrive, but you suspect that the 911 operator will tell you not to intervene and you could face charges if you didn't listen...you won't call 911. Which is of course, what darn well might have happened here if there was a next time. He already grumbled that these guys always get away. Next time, if the 911 operator says don't intervene...then why restrict your rights by calling 911? Sort of an aside now, but... dispatchers are public safety officials. They are not cops or paramedics or firefighters, but they are still part of the public safety apparatus. They cannot compel you to act, however, if they have told you what the public safety department in question (in this case the police) wants, and you knowingly act otherwise, and that act causes interference to the responding agency... that is intereference with official acts. Of course, this is one of those laws on the books that is almost never prosecuted, for multiple obvious reasons. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And your idea of people somehow being less likely to call 911 because a dispatcher might give them instructions - which happens on virtually every 911 call, by the way - is ridiculous.

Just saw an article, that indicates a 13-year-old witness saw Zimmerman on the ground groaning and bleeding, but without Martin in sight... BEFORE the shooting. So, if Zimmerman is claiming self-defense, that has to mean there were at least TWO confrontations. If not, that means Zimmerman got up from his injured position, chased Martin, then shot him, which would clearly not be self-defense.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 11:39 AM) And the simple, undeniable fact is that Zimmerman was injured in that confrontation. Thus, by the laws of that state, he was fully legally allowed to pull the trigger in self defense. The only thing you could get him on is a vague concept of starting the confrontation by following the kid. Is it a crime to follow a kid down the street and harass him because you don't want him in that area? I sincerely doubt it. The bolded is simply not true. That is not, at all, what the law states. He could have been injured any number of ways. This is entirely you making a big leap. And though I do not know the intricacies of Florida criminal law, I can certainly tell you that partaking in acts which lead to a confrontation can, and sometimes do, result in prosection and conviction of defendents for the consequences of those actions.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 11:30 AM) And if this holds true, it makes me a little happy to know he wasn't AS big of a POS as it was beginning to appear. Corzine is a Sox fan btw. We'll see. Someone is going down for this, as I've said all along. If Corzine has a get-out-of-jail-free email, then someone else HAD to know about it, whether or not Corzine did. And other evidence may point to Corzine. Just because they made a "House Wire" doesn't mean that is what actually happened, and it is entirely possible Corzine already knew what was going on, but the emails called it what it needed to be called to cover their asses.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 11:28 AM) Im not sure neighborhood watch is going to help him, here is an example of a neighborhood watch packet in Florida: http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/onr/reso...trev610.pdf.pdf Youll notice it specifically states that they are not to take action themselves. They are only to report the observation. That only makes sense - it is a citizen not given police powers, just like a private security guard, so their primary role is to observe and report. They can only act in so far as any other citizen can act, which is to say, affect arrest for felony in commission (not applicable here), or defend life and limb. Hard to make the argument he was defending life and limb in pursuit, so he's already violated the rules for his role. Defending life and limb MAY apply to the confrontation itself, we will have to see.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 11:22 AM) More importantly though, disobeying the instructions of a 911 operator is not a crime. Nor does the fact that the 911 operator told him not to do something mean that any of his future actions became crimes if they weren't previously. First, it CAN be a crime under certain circumstances to specifically disobey a 911 operator. That can be interference with official acts. Second, even if it is not, there are some realities here that don't seem to be in dispute. Zimmerman was carrying a gun as a neighbrohood watch captain, which I have read is specifically against the rules for their association. He saw someone he deemed suspicious, though there does not appear to be much reason for that belief. He then pursued the victim, for blocks, against a request not to do so by the 911 operator - what this establishes is that Zimmerman himself created the confrontation. We also know that the victim was on his cell phone talking with his girlfriend about being followed, though we do not have a recording of the exact words exchanged. At some point, a confrontation occurs, the vitcim is killed with a bullet from Zimmerman's gun, and Zimmerman himself is bloodied. That confrontation is the key aspect of course - what happened exactly, we likely will never know. But in my view, the whole concept of stand your ground fails to apply here anyway, because Zimmerman was the pursuer. What this case comes down to, in my view, is what happened in the direct confrontation. Whatever evidence they can find about that is going to be the key to the case. Self defense is still a possibility, regardless of the changes to the law everyone is arguing about. But there is no doubt in my mind that the confrontation itself was caused by Zimmerman's actions, which a jury will most likely find to be inappropriate.

I kind of doubt that Jones is really in the discussion, at least for the Sox people who make the decisions. Same with Septimo. Santiago and Bruney are pretty much locked in, barring something odd like an injury. There is one spot left open, and it comes down to Axelrod, Stewart and Stults. I don't see them going with a fourth lefty, so really, its Axelrod and Stewart. Steward looks more like a reliever to me anyway, so, I'd go with him, and have Axelrod starting in AAA.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 23, 2012 -> 03:23 PM) Its a good day for Corzine to have this come out at the close on a Friday... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/corzine-corz...m-fund-transfer He's toast.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 01:20 PM) What in the hell? Seriously. How can they put pants on their website that haven't even been ironed. Honestly though, that is pretty awful, and I'm surprised they would be that stupid.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 22, 2012 -> 08:16 AM) Really, this is only a very limited "problem". There are substantial supplies of just about everything we'd plausibly want to use accessible at the Earth's surface. The problem is actually, again, one of money...it costs money to extract them, it costs land quality and it costs money to avoid polluting the planet at the same time. Also, you are talking about each vehicle with sophisticated batteries having a small amount of said metal(s), and done only once. Not really comparable to gas and oil that are used in large quantites throughout the life of the car.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 21, 2012 -> 09:15 PM) Some interesting results of Walker's tea party policies in Wisconsin: In other words, massive failure. You are looking at "non-farm payrolls (public and private)". One of his stated goals is to reduce state government. In order to evaluate the "success" of his policies - whether you are agree with them or not - is to look at all non-public payroll numbers (including farm, by the way). If that has increased, or done better than other states, then he is "succeeding". By the way, I am not saying his ideas are good. In my view, the better picture is ALL payroll, public and private, farm and non-farm, to see the whole picture. Just saying, this is not a fair way to see how his policies are doing in terms of effectiveness.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 21, 2012 -> 05:17 PM) I'm getting fairly tired of people pretending that this isn't the explicit position of the Democratic Party. First of all, the Democratic party at large has been reticent to allow any flexibility on oil/coal/gas exploration. Obama has, but not the larger party. Not that I even necessarily disagree with their stance on principle, but it gets us nowhere. Second, the Dems want to invest in this, but also invest in dozens of other things, print a bunch more money, and cause gas prices to go higher because of the dollar going lower. I don't disagree that the Dems want more investment in alternative energy - I know that is the case. But there is some other BS they are carrying with it, and they are weighing it down with ideology that doesn't allow for compromise.

For the love of... I am getting so tired of people blaming this, or any, President for "letting gas prices get so high". It amazes me how many people think there is some magic switch a President can pull, some oil rig that can magically be opened, some law that can magically be put into effect, that will somehow alter the basic supply and demand equation at play with oil prices. Hey GOP'ers - you can go open up all the offshore drilling sites near the US, approve all the domestic lease requests, and open up the Keystone pipeline... and gas prices might, in half a decade, go down a nickel. Was that your big idea? Thanks for playing. What have you got next? And oh by the way, your wonderful plan includes increasing health care costs and problems, and letting yet more high paying jobs go overseas instead of staying here. Hey Democrats - you think alternative energy is going to suddenly take over and gas and oil will go away? If you pumped a metric f***-ton of money into it for the next decade, then maybe you can get the US materially close to being energy independent... and STILL be using an amount of oil more than the US output. And prices will still be sky high, because it is a GLOBAL MARKET. What now, do you want to shut down all exports of oil? Ruin some industries and lose a bunch of jobs? And oh by the way, you know that stimulus money and all that spending? That's called printing money, and it is part of the reason for those high prices. There is only one way out of this. It will take a long time - like decades - and cost a whole lot of money. You have to have some flexibility on environmental issues and allow some new drilling and pipelines, AND you have to invest heavily in alternatives for the long run. Then, hopefully, your grandkids can enjoy cheap, renewable, low-pollution energy, and not have to care so much about the Middle East's squabbles. But nothing Bush, or Obama, or Romney/Santorum can do will make this happen in the next election cycle or two. Accept this and move on.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 21, 2012 -> 12:33 PM) Paul ryan's "very serious" (and not at all completely bulls***) new budget would result in discretionary spending being cut around 80% by 2050. http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/0...rious-paul-ryan This hyper-focus on discretionary spending, while ignoring the things that are actually causing the big budget problems (social security, medicare/caid, military, and of course interest on debt), is really getting old. Regardless of where on the political spectrum one stands, I really wish people would accept the basic facts - that non-military discretionary spending makes up a small percentage of the budget, that cuts there by themselves can't make the deficits and debt go away, and that cuts there effect everyone. Please come back to reality, folks.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 21, 2012 -> 10:44 AM) It's not my personal number they call me on, it's my business number. (which is in a different suburb that didn't have this referendum on the ballot) I answer most phone calls at our shop, and at least once a week I hear "Can I speak with the person in charge of the ComEd bill?" (which I am). No matter what I say, they just haggle me about how much they will save me, but how they aren't selling anything or switching anything. As far as I know, business phone numbers are not allowed on the do-not-call list. Ah, OK. Hadn't considered the business end of things.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 21, 2012 -> 10:26 AM) They go door to door in some places. They've annoyed me like this, too. Wow, I didn't think anyone sold anything door to door anymore. The only people who have come to our door in recent years are not-for-profit types or political staff/politicians.