NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 12:26 PM) The fact that their son killed several people at a grocery store for no reason other than that he did not agree with their political beliefs. So, you are a tabula rosa guy then, eh?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 12:26 PM) And my response has always been that (1) I do not believe your third point is true at all, and (2) by claiming that it is you're still, in some part, saying that sort of rhetoric plays a part in this. I just don't see how it does any more than a million other things this guy could have come across to set him off. You are welcome to believe your #1, but on #2, no, I quite clearly am not. I believe in personal responsibility. Therefore, even if someone is in a s***ty situation, that is not an excuse for violence, and the fault rests with them. But s***ty situations will make those violent acts more likely to occur. Both things are true.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 12:10 PM) I don't see how you can make the distinction without in some part placing blame/fault on them. You're saying that they've created an environment for these types of events to happen. So have video games. So have movies. So have books. So have a million other things that this guy might have seen/heard/read/been exposed to in his life. I think that's a huge stretch. No, I am not. I think I've been clear in this thread, but perhaps not. What I have said was: --There is already, and will always be, some anger in the political realm --This shooter is bats*** crazy, and there will always be some bats*** crazy people --The more vitriolic rhetoric and hazy hints at violence are spewed by people in the political world (candidates, officials, talking heads), the more likely it is that someone already crazy will go over the top --If and when that does occur, it is 100% the fault of the person who actually did it --People who are voices to a political audience should, IMO, take some responsibility for their words and try to be civil, which I feel lowers the risk level --Those same people have every right to not listen to my advice, and act like imbeciles All the above I believe are true, and I see no conflict amongst them. No one is stretching other than you, in attempting to paint others as being on some extreme they clearly are not.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 12:08 PM) Movies should be banned because John Hinckley attempted to assassinate Reagan based on his belief that Jodie Foster told him to do it. It's movies and movie stars that can cause something like assassinations to happen. Without them, the likelihood of these types of events would be lowered. That's the logic we're using now? I'd love it if someone who is well-educated like yourself, would avoid taking people's statements to extremes that you know full well they didn't intend. I don't remember the poster you are quoting saying anything about banning anything, except perhaps guns at a certain distance from officials (which I don't agree with). No one is using that logic. Not anyone here, at least.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 12:04 PM) But I'm not saying it is. Yeah, I'm just trying to keep clarifying the distinction I am trying to make here.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 12:01 PM) And this is what I mean when I say that this violent political rhetoric can cause something like this to happen again even if this particular incident wasn't caused by it: via I don't see how anyone can doubt that this sort of encouragement will increase the risk of violent incidents. But that is not the same thing as saying its actually some person or organization's fault that it occurred.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 11:49 AM) The New York Times had one as well. Hilton is sold out for Kansas on Wednesday. Should be fun. Is that a surprise? Back in my day, Hilton was sold out for every B8/B12 game, and a number of OOC games (Iowa or rivalry games, or big name teams), reliably, every year.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 11:32 AM) I thought you were saying that the 2nd statement was true? I was saying they are BOTH true, but that one does NOT directly cause the other. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 11:41 AM) I'm not sure how enforceable this is...and I'm not sure I'll ever get to say this again...Peter King may have a good idea. I think that's a bad idea, 1000 feet is a huge distance and a significant encroachment on rights. But even more importantly... QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 11:42 AM) That wouldn't exactly do anything to prevent the situation that just happened. It's already illegal to shoot someone. Exactly. This is why many gun laws that are hyper-specific don't work. People who want to shoot someone will not be in any way, shape or form deterred by such a law. It does nothing.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 11:16 AM) Do you have proof of this? Because this is the part I don't agree with. This is the part where I think the media (both sides pointing the finger at the other side) is making s*** up. Palin and politicians don't belong in this conversation, period. This guy was crazy. End of story. That's the only conclusion here. Until some EVIDENCE comes out that he was motivated by that crap, it has nothing to do with it. Bringing up the "let's use this tragedy to tone down the rhetoric" is just a cop out. It's blaming what some asshole did on how we speak about/to one another. It's fabricated bulls***. I point back to my quote of Thomas Jefferson. Blame him. Blame Obama for using a gun quote. Blame US history. I can bring up a million examples and somehow relate it to this tragedy, but it doesn't mean it's the cause or that it played any part WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Continuing to bring this s*** up is purely political. You want to point the finger and say "these assholes on the right/left are the reason this happens. If they only spoke nice to each other this stuff wouldn't happen." BULLs***. It would, because some people are just CRAZY. I think you must have been thinking of someone else's post. How can I have proof of a statement about the general state of discussion? And did you not see that in every single post, I've said clearly - in fact right in the line above the one you highlighted - that the two are not causal? That was my whole point, which you missed.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 10:41 AM) I want to make this perfectly clear: No. One. Is. Blaming. Palin. Hope that helped. Except YOU, with your very first post in this thread: QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 8, 2011 -> 05:28 PM) this is what happens when you encourage an atmosphere of radical, irrational fear and hatred and use ridiculous rhetoric like Sarah Palin does. Unbelievable. It was just a matter of time I guess.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 05:20 PM) It wasn't a very good conversation, and we had a FEW drinks BECAUSE of you. I"m sorry my absence left everyone so sad that they needed to drop a tear in their beer.

Why is it hard for people to seperate these two things? I see people on the left and people on the right incapable of understanding that BOTH of these statements: --Killer is a nutjob and Palin/Limbaugh/Matthews/Whomever are NOT responsible for this --Recent political rhetoric from highline people is making the atmosphere more conducive to problems like this are TRUE. Not just one or the other, and not as a direct causality.

Wall Street Journal with a write-up about The Mayor.

As a general rule, the best announcers and particularly the best PBP guys, are on the radio and not TV. I remember listening to the Bears radio team growing up, I love me some Hub. Hard to find good PBP guys on TV. Also, this coming from a total amatuer and someone who knows very little about hockey... I was impressed by the PBP guy on TV for the recent B-Hawks Stanley Cup championship. Seems to me that PBP in Hockey would be especially hard to do.

Well I've been offline for a while, but I figure I'll go back to putting out the daily morning markets highlights, NSS style... 9am: Job Openings and Labor Turnover reports for Noveber Pre-market bias is positive on some better than expected results in Euro debt auctions for Greece and Italy.

QUOTE (juddling @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 08:17 PM) He still reads stuff here from time to time but he said he's giving up posting for a while. I could tell him he's been missed if you want?? Tell him I like it better when you post than him. Its the avatar.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 05:28 PM) For anyone trying to pin blame for this on any politician or political party, I want you to look at this picture. Because this picture tells you not only who is to blame, but plainly shows you who this guy is. He's a nutjob.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 04:57 PM) Where did I ever say they were vastly overpaid? I was pointing out the fact that pensions are literally killing state economics. The fact someone can work for 20 years and retire making 100% of the salary they were making after working for 15 years is not a good system. Look at the link below and tell me that these are not good paying jobs which will allow you to retire at 55 years of age and then let me know what I am missing. Teachers with 20 years of experience can make roughly $80K. That is not grossly overpaid but not bad for 8 months of work which also covers you for therest of your life when you retire.....and I know that CPS is not an ideal workplace but the suburbs are worse as far as the salaries go. The teachers union in the state of Illinois are out of control and have been for years. School districts pick up 95 to 100% of the benefit cost in certain districts....who pays for this, not the district that is negotiating the contract...at least they are not covering all of it. http://www.cps-humanresources.org/Employee...eachers38.6.pdf No one disagrees that the pension system is a problem. And as I said, I agree its a big problem. I was simply pointing out the plain reality that for ANY job, if you make a significant dent in the benefits provided, you WILL either have lower quality overall or have to up the ante in some other area. That is not specific to the public sector either, its just the way jobs work. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 05:32 PM) What teacher works 6 hours a day? None that I have ever met. Typical high school teachers work significantly more than 40 hours a week and usually have work at home as well.

OK, you two are just being ridiculous now. Basically, Balta is saying that Palin's stuff was in poor taste, and SS2K5 is saying its not related. You are both right.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 12:43 PM) We actually had a discussion about you. We weren't surprised that the others who mentioned that they'd be there didn't show up, but we all were surprised that you didn't keep to your word LOL, hopefully someone at least had a drink for me.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 03:36 PM) I put it up there Thanks - that was my vote.

Where is the "Sale to start for Peavy, then start in Charlotte when Peavy is healthy" option?

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 03:26 PM) That was the case 50 years ago when the private sector paid more than the public sector. That is no longer the case. Government jobs are secured positions for the most part. Hiring may be cut back but layoffs are mostly nonexistant. The fact a person can retire at 50 and collect in some cases 100% of their average final 5 years of employment is disgusting...thereby they than can go get another government job because of the connections they have made working for 20 years in government and then get another pension after putting in, this time, 10 years. There is no guarantee you are getting higher quality people. I think you just made my case for me. Without the ridiculous pensions, the salary compensation of these folks will look much lower in the long run (full career) than those in the private sector. Teachers in CPS might make $25k or $30k a year to start, which is a good place to start, but most never make more than say $40k or a little more. People with college educations almost always make more than that as their careers progress.

I was offline for the days around this. This thread is hard to read. But I'll actually say that, with one notable poster excepted, most of the posts in here are actually not the level of stupidity I see elsewhere. I see a lot of people, rightly, saying this is not about left and right, this is about a lunatic with a gun. I also see some people, rightly I'd say, pointing out that the general encouragement of anger and hatred in the political forum that has increased in recent years is not helpful - but is also not the REASON for this to have occurred. And as much as I despise Palin, she has absolutely zero fault in this. Her gunsight thing was stupid and oh-so-Sarah, so I have no sympathy for her now getting hit with this. But you just cannot blame her for this, there is now way she wants something like this to happen. I think most people here have the right idea, and I can tell that because the debate is mostly now about subtleties of whether or not Palin and the like should possibly tone down the rhetoric. Blame is not being assigned, again, by most people here. I applaud that.

There will still be competitions for the last bullpen slot (Infante, Carter), the question of Peavy's health and therefore Sale's role, and the final bench spot (De Aza, Lillibridge, Gartrell).