NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2009 -> 11:38 AM) Semi-automatic? Hell, we don't even ban fully automatic, large caliber, military style heavy weapons. The guy in this case had a fully automatic AK-47 and it was totally legal for him to have it, and that's a hell of a lot more powerful than what you just said. Just Google the ATF rules on this. You cannot have a fully auto weapon, you cannot covert to that. This guy probably bought the semi-auto version of the AK-47 and illegally converted it.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 6, 2009 -> 11:43 AM) There's also no such thing as a semi-automatic machine gun. Well, sort of. There are machine guns back-converted to single shot weapons.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 6, 2009 -> 11:38 AM) Semi-automatic? Hell, we don't even ban fully automatic, large caliber, military style heavy weapons. The guy in this case had a fully automatic AK-47 and it was totally legal for him to have it, and that's a hell of a lot more powerful than what you just said. What? That cannot be right. You cannot legally own a fully automatic weapon as a civilian. If his AK was fully auto, then it was changed to be that way, or he got it illegally.

I guess I'll be moving my half day off. Hopefully.

Nothing on Sox site yet. But, Trib confirms.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Apr 5, 2009 -> 03:17 PM) I'm dying to know who's going to be on what teams. I thought the rosters would be set by now. Nothing yet, and the Barons have an exhibition game tomorrow night. They don't typically announce the FULL rosters until ST is completely over. And then it will take a few more days, probably.

Obama isn't going to ban guns, and even if he wanted to, it would never fly. Heck the AWB isn't gonna fly either. This was just a down-on-his-luck guy with some anger issues, who leapt to some ridiculous political conclusions in order to justify violence. By the way... read that last sentence I typed above. It also happens to describe exactly what you see from radical Islamic terrorists - except they are usually far more down-on-their-luck than this guy. Either way, don't go trying to link this kind of behavior with all gun rights poeple (Balta, I'm looking at you), or all Muslims (Alpha, I'm looking at you).

He was the Bush nomination I was OK with. Eminently qualified, and while he wasn't maybe my ideal match ideologically, at least he has an interperetation level of the Constitution that is fairly consistent. The other guy Bush nominated, however...

Linebrink is my biggest concern in the pen for 2009. I just think he's not 100%, and I have this feeling he's going to get destroyed. I hope I'm wrong. Fortunately, I think that Thornton is perfectly capable of being the primary 8th inning guy.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 05:18 PM) Speak for yourself. I am skeptical of the endangered species act and don't think they fit in with clean air or clean water because humans directly rely on those two other things. Other than that I agree with you about "beliefs" and their place in the law. Let me lay out an example for you of how the extirpation of predators resulted directly in many human deaths. The rockies in Colorado used to be home to all sorts of large predators, that were rapidly extinguished from the area - wolves, Grizzlies, etc. - during the 19th and early 20th centuries. As a result, the non-predatory animals like Elk and other ungulates, realized they didn't need to stick to the margins of the forest and the creek beds to feed - they now fed in the open. This allowed the greenery along the creeks to grow much more out of control than they had before. This resulted in huge dams of debris, and this was made worse by the fact that mink, beavers, etc. were also reduced and could no longer stage the creeks. This in turn resulted in much wilder swings in river levels downstream. That resulted in much more catastrophic floods, such as, the Big Thompson flood that killed a lot of people in Colorado. The lesson learned doesn't need to be specific here - its much more elemental. Quite simply, the more that humans do to massively shift ecosystems, the more unexpected and unwated consequences result. This is the KEY argument for conservationism - its not saving the earth (which will be fine), its saving ourselves from the earth's reactions to us. And rendering important species extinct will most definitely effect ecosystems.

QUOTE (vandy125 @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 04:54 PM) That all depends on what you think about gay marriage. I was looking to not take a stance on it here, but I'll try and show the negative (that I am not yet fully convinced of) since you are taking the positive. It has already been argued that there is a financial cost to gay marriage due to insurance, blah, blah, etc (of course this is debatable too). There is also the argument that it leads our whole society to accept something that many people do not want to accept (again not saying whether or not that is a good thing). You believe it does not infringe on other people, others would disagree. It is a matter of what you believe and that is what gives us our laws. I don't think anything that we do is done in a bubble. There are repercussions for everything that we do that affect those around us. So, it matters as to whether or not you believe that those repercussions are large enough or not to put into law. I'm not going into a full out huge dissertation on this because frankly I think that there needs to be a split between religious view of marriage and government marriage. As our government sits, we are not supposed to be sanctioning religious ideals. I have never understood and will never understand how it is that people are OK with the idea of legislating their beliefs onto others, when those others' behavior has no effect on them. I can fully understand not agreeing with gay marriage. I just see no place for telling everyone else not to do something, because it makes you uncomfortable. Its just an incredibly arrogant and selfish mindset that, IMO, doesn't belong in the laws of a country built on personal freedoms.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 02:35 PM) LOL

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 12:57 PM) using sampling should make the process less expensive. sampling can also be abused pretty bad, a lot of room to get the results that one wants. i think we are ushering the era of large swings of census data based on what party is running the white house and the census. I have that fear as well - census becomes partisan similarly to re-districting. But if they use sampling, the stats will show you sample size and sampling groups, so you can do the math and get a variation number and see where it should be.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 12:45 PM) If it is all about rights and such I don't see any difference at all. If I wanted to marry my cousin why can't I? (I know I could in some states but in general i'm fairly confident you can't). As for polygamy leading to a high frequency of abuse, well, what's to say I wouldn't be in a loving relationship with 3 or 4 wives who all loved each other? Nothing. Should medically retarded people be allowed to marry each other? I'd think they'd have a pretty high chance of having children with problems. I mean how can you (not you directly) claim it's all about the "right to marry" and yet still deny it to others. I believe gay people should be able to engage in a civil union with all the legal rights and privileges that a marriage allows. I also believe in civil unions b/w two consenting individuals with no sexual relationship. For example, my grandmother has two friends, sisters, who never married or had kids and lived 100% of their adult lives in the same house. I believe they, or any other pairing that makes sense, should be allowed to have the legal privileges a civil union could provide. But to me, the term marriage is a union between a man and a woman. You will never change my opinion on that. You are simply using the hyperbole here, saying it we allow gay marriage, why not marrying anyone or anything as many as you want, which NO one is saying. Its really simple to me. People should be able to socialize with whomever they want, in whatever way they want, as long as it doesn't jeapordize the health and safety of others. Gay marriage doesn't do anything to you, and doesn't harm anyone. Polygamy and familial marriage do.

QUOTE (SoxFan562004 @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 12:38 PM) Gold Gloves stopped meaning anything to me when Jeter won, he is a bad defensive SS. Also, wasn't there a year when Raphael Palmero (sp?) won and he played in a ridiculously low number of games? The Palmerio one was the worst, IMO. I don't recall his total games that year, but, it was really small. Complete joke.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 12:36 PM) Obama nominates a uniquely qualified person to run the 2010 census. Expert in statistics. Worked in the Census Bureau under George H.W. Bush. The Republican response of course...is to respond angrily, because the guy actually may know what he's doing, and we certainly can't allow that. As usual people in Congress acting like they know a subject they clearly don't. And Republicans adding one of their fave things - attacking well-educated people as if they perversely prefer ignorance. There is not a single stats professional in this country who doesn't use or hasn't used sampling - it is part of the field of study.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 12:37 PM) ROFL. I could write a script for you guys to tell you how this thread is going to go to save you all time, if you like. I think you should start a new thread on some political topic, lock it, and then add all the posts by each poster with what you think they'd say. That might be pretty amusing.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 12:35 PM) So there's nothing wrong with polygamy or first-cousin marriages then right? Polygamy results in abuse at a high frequency, and first-cousin marriage results in children at an astronomically high rate for all sorts of problems. In both cases, the societal damage is documented and huge. Gay marriage does no such thing - it doesn't promote abuse any more than any other marriage, and it doesn't result in retarded or handicapped children.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 12:18 PM) Considering that they've decided that the best way to respond to one of the biggest presidential blowouts in 40 years appears to be to double down on their base, I'd like to say I'll believe it when I see it. I didn't say the GOP was going to walk away from it entirely, or at least I didn't mean to. Nor did I mean that the party is smart enough now to make a massive shift. But, you are seeing the beginnings of a slow shift away from that base. Also, the base itself is changing to take a more economically drive mindset.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 10:10 AM) little to none, but I disagree with it. And this right here is the single biggest reason why the social conservative movement in this country is, thankfully, dying off. If the GOP makes a comeback, it will be as small government, low tax, pro-business, personal freedoms crusaders.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 09:48 AM) boo! I am overwhelmed by the staggering profundity of your artfully crafted retort.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 09:37 AM) What will Daley's 2016 Olympics bring to the suburbs? :headbang That writer apparently never left the year 1985. The urban flight stopped in the 80's, the city has been growing since then, and in fact the city has undergone one of the great urban renewals in recent history. His entire lead in is garbage. Regardless of the Olympics point, this guy really is clueless as to reality.

So, got off the blue line at Damen yesterday on the way home from work, and they were filming something pretty big. I asked someone there what movie they were filming and they just shrugged their shoulders.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 09:07 AM) Or the left wingers who use the same arguements against banning any abortion procedures... I don't know what that has to do with the topic, but, OK sure. I was just trying to explain Balta's post, as it seemed to confuse WilliamTell.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Apr 3, 2009 -> 08:58 AM) It's now legal. I like Iowans.