NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 4, 2009 -> 01:11 PM) Gave him a B although leaning towards B- Interesting. I figured you were the A. I wonder who that is.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 4, 2009 -> 12:28 PM) Fields seems to be another guy who can't hit and won't make it. Do the Sox ever develop players who can actually, you know, play? Was Frank Thomas the last non pitcher to be drafted who hit it big? Crede? I guess Getz is going to turn out to be a good one, like Durham was. I guess we are good at drafting second basemen. What are you talking about? As a rookie in 2007 he hit 23 homeruns in only 373 at bats. This year he is getting on base at a .354 clip and has an OPS of .714, as he adjusts and the league adjusts. And he's improved noticeably at third. What else do you want? By the way, and this from a Crede fan... his OPS in his first three full seasons (2005 being one of them) were .741, .717, .757. Not a whole lot different than Josh right now, except Josh gets on base more often.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 4, 2009 -> 12:27 PM) Nuclear is not a sustainable/renewable fuel source. I think its sustainable, though not renewable. I also think, because of the environmental impact of the leftovers, it should never be allowed to make up any large chunk of our energy needs. But I think it could do well as a small part, especially in the next quarter century, while we get moving on the good stuff.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 4, 2009 -> 12:05 PM) Galarraga's a quality starter. If Bonderman returns and can be in the 4.5 ERA range, then the Tigers have a great chance to win this division. At this point, I don't see a team in the ALC that doesn't have at least a pretty good shot at winning it.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 4, 2009 -> 11:48 AM) Maybe I just remember the 1987 Minnesota Twins and the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals. I will never get sick of the White Sox making the postseason where anything can happen. Who knows, if Quentin doesn't get hurt and the White Sox are able to align their rotation correctly in the playoffs, what happens last season. You don't have to lead everyday like the 2005 White Sox. If the ball doesn't go through Graffinino's legs in 2005 and El Duque is left off the playoff roster like KW wanted and most of Soxtalk wanted as well, the White Sox probably don't make it out of the first round then. Anything can happen, any team can get hot. I don't think this team is good enough to win, but if they get there its not like the NBA where only a couple teams have a realistic shot. Look at how many wildcard teams have won it all. If the WS title is the only thing that floats your boat, 1 in 92 years must make you very ornery. I know a quick exit sucks, but at least you have a shot. There is nothing to indicate the White Sox are on the verge of a long run of winning WS. There is a lot of luck involved. Agreed, nicely put. Also... If all a fan gives a damn about is championships, and everything else is irrelevant, then that fan (for basically any team) will go through life very disappointed. Having a team make the post-season is way better than not, and making a run at a division title is way better than being in the basement all year.

QUOTE (sin city sox fan @ May 4, 2009 -> 12:13 PM) Will Betemit be our DH next year? I really doubt it. I don't think that Konerko, Thome and Dye will ALL be gone, so there are plenty of available good DH's. Also, Brandon Allen is waiting in the wings to potentially take over 1B next year. I think Betemit stays a bench guy, barring more injuries.

QUOTE (BearSox @ May 4, 2009 -> 12:03 PM) Still, no one knows when we will find an alternative fuel source, and like you said, wouldn't it be better if we didn't have to rely on other countries for such important resources? The sun, the tides, the wind, geothermal forces and rivers all say "hi".

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ May 4, 2009 -> 10:17 AM) That's silly. Does a warm weather team not deserve to win the Super Bowl if such a thing happens because they don't play in "football weather"? Come on now, football is just like any other sport in my opinion, the weather should not be a factor in deciding the best team under ideal circumstances, who is the best team should be what decides it. Just like the one thing I don't like about baseball is you get weather like there was in Philadelphia during the World Series last year, 6 months of playing hard and the winner is decided in s*** conditions. I guess I just disagree. Conditions are part of sports. Football played inside is a disappointment, IMO.

Part of the picture of who goes into the HOF is their total effect on the game - going beyond stats, and beyond their results. Personality, and how they may have changed the game, are also factored in. Nolan Ryan was a huge presence during his career.

QUOTE (G&T @ May 4, 2009 -> 10:06 AM) Most of the monsters are bigfoot by a different name which makes the show boring to begin with. They did find a fresh water dwelling shark that was sort of a monster. There are fresh water sharks.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 4, 2009 -> 10:47 AM) then its a good thing I'm not a constitutional lawyer There is a school of thought that says, by nature, all Constitutional law is incorporated to the states automatically. I tend to agree, because of what I said earlier (states cannot directly contravene federal law). The whole argument is effectively moot anyway.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 4, 2009 -> 10:30 AM) Basically, if an Amendment wasn't incorporated, those rights would apply only to Federal law. The US Government couldn't make a law restricting free speech, but the State of Illinois could if it wasn't against the state's constitution. When the Amendments are incorporated, it means that the federal laws supersede the states' rights. If the incorporation of the 2nd holds, you'll likely see things like the gun laws in Chicago struck down for violating the 2nd; until this court ruling, they could violate the 2nd (or any other non-incorporated Amendment) as much as their own state constitution allowed. At least that's how I understand it. Sort of - and this is where the debate comes in. What you said is true, however, states cannot enact laws in contradiction of federal law (Constitutional law included). So now, really, the states can't do that. Well, they can, but its unconstitutional, and would be stricken down.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 4, 2009 -> 10:29 AM) He's a danger whether we call it legal or illegal. He's still kicked up on goofballs either way. That's my point. That's why they should remain illegal, and laws should be enforced, to keep those guys off the street to the extent possible. Heck, use some of the marijuana savings to go after the hard stuff.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 4, 2009 -> 10:05 AM) Why go electric when you can get 5 blades! And hilariously, that happened. And so did six. I know because I own one. Pretty soon razors are going to be the size of your entire face, and have approximtely 237 blades. You'll just put it on your face, push the whole thing down and inch, and you're done.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 4, 2009 -> 10:27 AM) See, and this is where I say the system is broken. I fear, too often, those tax breaks DONT equal new jobs. They just equal larger exec pay, high company profits (stuck into a bank.. or offshore tax free account), and better stock prices, with little benefit to the "working man". OK. So let's say you are right on that... how does that send jobs overseas?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 4, 2009 -> 10:23 AM) The question in reply is...how much of the additional danger associated with a person on harder drugs is related to the fact that those drugs are illegal? They're more addictive and we pay the bill...but which bill is higher...the bill associated with the illegal trade of those drugs + the cost to society of locking away those people + all the other costs of keeping them illegal, or the costs to society of providing treatment along with the negative costs of people using the things in the case of widespread legalization? Really have no idea which is the case, but that's the counterpoint there...people are doing the things anyway, and if we're worried about unhealthy lifestyles, having them do the things illegally, where it can feed things like the Afghan war, the Mexican wars, gang revenue, etc., may make society a lot worse. How dangerous some dude kicked up on goofballs is has zero to do with the fact that it is illegal. He's a danger to others.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 4, 2009 -> 10:25 AM) can you translate into plain English? Legal mumbo-jumbo confuses me. I work better with examples. There is no plain English translation of this - it is the epitome of legal mumbo jumbo. I'm sure some folks could take a valiant stab at it though.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 4, 2009 -> 10:15 AM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights) The 9th Circuit just recently held that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated. First time any court has found that. Particularly interesting that its the 9th doing this, as they tend to be a very left-leaning circuit. I seem to recall a year or two ago, we have a big old debate in the Buster about the concept of Connstitutional incorporation. That was a good one.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 4, 2009 -> 10:21 AM) The idea,as I understood it, is to cut taxes on the rich, allow them to spend more money within their company, which then trickles down to jobs for the lower brackets. Am I miss understanding this? If my understanding is correct, then when you start outsourcing and shipping jobs overseas, you are now longer trickles down jobs to lower brackets int he US. And then the system is broke. Am I making sense. Well, the "within their company" part is off to me. What you are describing isn't trickle down - its just lower business taxes. And there, you are right, the lower they are, the more jobs will stay at home.

I for one think that the idea of US companies fleeing overseas due to taking away some tax shelters is vastly overblown. We aren't talking about picking up a business and moving it from Chicago to Des Moines (which is hard enough for large companies, and rare even then). You are going to take a US company, owned and managed by US people, and move it to another country entirely? That will be incredibly rare. The only area I see that having significant impact is where foreign companies set up US legal entities, and they may move some of those operations out, potentially. But in those cases, they'd probably take the much easier route of sending profits back home. I just don't see it as a big risk. Dealing with taxes like this on a local or state level, of course, is a whole different ballgame.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 4, 2009 -> 10:15 AM) I dont necessary support trickle-down... in fact, i tend to think it doesnt work because of corporate greed. I am saying that under ideal conditions, it CAN work, but not right now because of how our economy is structured with overseas jobs and outsourcing. I am not sure you understand the concept of trickle-down economics. The idea is that tax cuts for the wealthy will put more money into the economy, which helps all income brackets. I'm not sure how you are making the stretch from there to overseas jobs.

IMO, there is a huge difference between legalizing marijuana, and legalizing hard drugs like coke and meth. This is for at least two reasons: 1. Cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. are much, much more addictive than mary jane could dream of being. This lures people into unhealthy lifestyles, and we all pay the bill. 2. Marijuana doesn't create the public safety issue the other drugs do. Simply put, does a guy stoned on a joint scare you? Of course not. Does a guy up on an 8 ball scare you? It probably does, and should. A person on hard drugs is a danger to others. A pot head really isn't.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 4, 2009 -> 10:01 AM) My belief, is that in a "America First" economy, trickle down economics really CAN work because you have people to pay. The problem with the economy as it stands, we pay for goods, the money goes to the company, they send that money to cheap labor overseas. It's a broken system. If we can keep jobs HERE, we all thrive. Money gets into an internal loop. You are a self-proclaimed social conservative, and you support the idea of trickle-down economics. That would pretty clearly make you a Republican. How did you end up being an Obamaton?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 4, 2009 -> 07:47 AM) No, I learned that reasoning behind that method from watching a TV show. Ah. Gotcha.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ May 4, 2009 -> 07:43 AM) I agree. The reason its so nice to shave in the shower is the heat/steam opens your pores. I learned that from "Lost" like 3-4 seasons ago (in the hatch), and haven't looked back since. You learned how to shave from watching a TV show? I guess that is no sillier than learning about shaving from SoxTalk.