NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:54 PM) He was just being sarcastic, it was pretty lame though. I was just citing the most recent post in a line of absurd, illogical arguments from the severely anti-gun crowd.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:37 PM) I think Getz settles into that role. Alexei needs to be hitting 6ish so he can hit with runners on or become a speed/stealing option after our 3,4,5 GDP out of an inning. I'd rather have Getz lead off and Lexi hit #2, or possibly 6-ish as you say.

QUOTE (scenario @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:03 PM) Except that Pie is 3 years younger than Brian. Seems bizarre that the Cubs would stick a fork in the guy at 23 years old. Wasn't meant to be a perfect parallel - more a similar career start with similar potential in a player, and similar in the way the organization handled them.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 03:45 PM) Good. You were pissing me off. I was just about to shoot you. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand hyperbole ruins another thread in the Buster. Thanks for playing.

If you are going to say that all people who choose to carry or own guns for defense are deranged lunatics, then no logical argument can be had. You render any discussion pointless. And, your legal right to not get shot (which really is the right to not be a victim of crime) is full and well protected regardless of whether or not people carry or own guns. Those are two wholly seperate things. Using your logic that others can't carry guns because it infringes your right to not get shot, would mean that no person could ever carry any weapon ever. The job of the law is not to sanitize society of all risk - that is not possible or even prudent. Here is a better analogy - pollution. You have the right to not have someone else's pollution negatively, significantly, effect your health. This is why there are laws controlling pollution (well, one of a few reasons). So with guns, this is ALSO why its illegal to simply start spraying bullets in the air everywhere, or to fire a weapon in any irresponsible way, because it COULD negatively effect you. What the law does not allow for, nor should it, is to stop all pollution of any kind, or to stop people from possessing anything that may harm others.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 02:14 PM) Guns do not make you more safe. If you want to collect an arsenal because it makes you feel cool that's your right, but once you bring them in public it infringes on my rights. It should be legal to own a gun, but not legal to bring it anywhere. I dont care how much of a vigilante hero you might invision yourself being. Tell me what "right" of yours is infringed upon by the fact that someone else has a gun in public.

I had a bad alternator in a car years ago, and it presented exactly like this. I'd defintiely say alternator.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 02:44 PM) I see, thanks for the clarification NSS. I thought I understood the incorporation business but I'm not quite there yet. I probably wasn't clear with my original, overall statement. I have done some research on this, years ago, in college, but I am not truly an expert either.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 02:18 PM) Pie's need more time at the Major League Level. The Cubs refuse to offer him this. The consensus is that Pies' approaching bust territory, but the kid's has shown some promise whenever he's given the chance. I'd be more than happy to stick him out there with BA and see what happens. Pie's treatment by the Cubs is pretty similar to BA's treatment by the Sox. Both are potential break-outs, or potential busts. I'd be all for what you suggest - picking up Pie and setting him against Anderson out there.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 01:56 PM) Admittedly my info comes from wikipedia (I have not read the sourced decisions), but their article clearly states that the 2nd hasn't been held as incorporated. It does seem like they're saying "We haven't made it official ever, but if and when it comes down to it, we probably will." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation...s)#Amendment_II Legal incorporation for the states means constitutional incorporation. That is to say, if its incorporated, that means that the states implicitly have to treat it as if it were constitutionally protected in its own. But, a lack of incorporation definitely does not mean the states can choose to ignore 2A. As 2A and parts of 1A represent individual rights, by nature, the states cannot specifically act in contravention of those protections without being at odds with the overarching US constitution. It is a subtle but important differentiation. In other words, if the US Constitution specifies a right to individuals (not states), then the states cannot remove that right, and any restriction they place on it will be bound by federal constraints. So again, the question isn't about the right applying to the states and their citizens. The question is, to what extent can the states or localities limit that right without standing athwart the legal boundary set at the federal level. Where that line is, is not black and white, and hasn't been set very clearly by legal precedent at the national level.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 01:28 PM) There's not a chance. I just wonder what kind of offers he's getting. I would doubt he's even getting $8 million a year offers. If that's true, and he can be had for like $6M per, then I hope the Sox try to sign him.

I never buy electronics in a store, its always more expensive. I go look at things at the Best Buy nearby, then go find the best price for that product online, as long as its from a retailer that is at least semi-known (Amazon, Buy.com, etc.). You can often avoid sales tax this way too.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 01:10 PM) You're correct in that the 2nd Amendment hasn't been incorporated to the states, but I know of no reason (and I'm definitely not a legal scholar) why it couldn't be. There is zero question that 2A applies to the states. The only question is to what extent the states or localities are allowed to restrict the right.

I don't see JG getting his desired $13M per over multiple years. I think he's under $10M. The buying side of the market is drying up everywhere but NY and Boston, and since he isn't going there, he's going to be very disappointed.

AZ offered him only $4M? Of course he turned it down. But, that is an indication that JG could maybe be had for even less than the $10M being discussed, if that is what the market is really offering.

I want to live in a Pringle universe. That is all.

Chicago's handgun ban does far more bad than good, and doesn't serve its intended purpose. Now too, with the latest SCOTUS decision, I'd guess that ban will be stricken some time soon.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 11:11 AM) Circuit City to liquidate its remaining merchandise, shutter its remaining 567 stores, lay off 30,000. Aside from the impact of dumping those people on to the job market, another thing a liquidation like this one really does is it hurts an awful lot of smaller shops. Think about your neighborhood Circuit City...how many of them share parking lots with another store? Or have a small cafe next to it? Or even sit as part of a mall? All of those shops now suddenly will have lost a big part of their customers, because no one's coming there for the Circuit City any more, and if the building starts to get run down or trashy, then you're talking major urban blight. It will definitely be painful - that's a big company to be ceasing operations. But, companies like Best Buy and the like will benefit in the long run, and they will hire more people.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 10:53 AM) I am more upset that this guy is getting off scottfree than I am that the reason they used to take down Blago is being completely ignored while installing our Secretary of State, because I really believe the only reason the Gov was arrested was because the entire state hates him. Well, I'm upset about Geithner, and about Blago, but I am not AS upset (yet) about Clinton or Richardson. I don't find the accusations against those two to be as bad, and they aren't anything like proven yet either. Blago, we've all heard enough evidence that its painfully clear what he did, and Geithner, his tax evasion is accepted fact.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 08:34 AM) What we need is more AK-47's in this country. Countries with AK-47's have no problems. Empty argument. I did a few research articles on this in college. Looking at other first world countries like the US, there is a consistent theme where the removal of guns does not stop violence, and in fact often it increases. There are also plenty of single-country examples (i.e. Switzerland) where a well-armed public keeps crime rates lower. And in the US, communities that have high rates of gun ownership tend to have lower crime levels than those with lower rates of ownership. Its really very simple. When you restrict guns via laws in the US, you only end up taking guns out of the hands legal and law-abiding gun owners, who overwhelmingly are not the problem. The criminals, by nature, don't care about those laws and get the guns anyway.

QUOTE (TheBigHurt @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 02:54 AM) Quite frankly I think I have the right to b**** when the team I'm a fan of constantly is in tatters every hyear because management never seems to fill the holes. Sorry. Tatters every year? 3 division wins in 9 years, a world championship, competitive for the post-season late in the season almost every year, and only one finish below 3rd in that same 9 years. That's better than most franchises in baseball, no matter which measure you choose. So yes, you have the right to b****, just like you have the right to predict the sun won't rise tomorrow. You just won't get a lot of people agreeing with you.

No question its an individual right. We had guns in the house growing up, and I was taught how to use them. I have owned guns, and carried them. I no longer own any - personal choice, living in a condo in Chicago with a little kid and no use for it, I elected to sell. Most of the key 2A arguments have been discussed here already, so I'll add something different to the discussion. Until this very recent SCOTUS case, they had avoided 2A like the plague. The only significant ruling they made on it before then was Miller, a highly flawed case. But one interesting thing to come out of it, in the opinions, was the discussion of a problem that 2A represents, due to the timeframe in which it was written. Specifically, it was stated that the amendment as written would actually protect the most dangerous and powerful of firearms. In the modern age, that would mean something like a SAW, or an M-60, or a projectile rocket of some kind (bazooka, RPG, etc.). Obviously, that is impractical, so even though 2A is strongly worded in its protection, you do have to be careful to put it in time context. That's why certain restrictions on the most powerful of firearms are reasonable. But, they need to be kept to a realistic minimum. Now, what I do NOT think is reasonable (and SCOTUS seems to agree) is municipalities or states restricting whole classes of weapons that are simply guns, and not fully automatics (i.e. handguns).

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 10:50 PM) Everyday Thomas, yes, they would... but then again, everyday Thomas wouldn't be making this kind of money. Since he makes this kind of money, and it's just an "oversight", of course it'll get glossed over. Now if this were a Republican, he would have had to withdrawl his name... Geithner isn't a Democrat, as I understand it. He's an independent, and I think I read he actually was a registered Republican at one time. Since he hasn't run for a party-backed elected office before, I don't think he's ever really declared his party.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 02:52 PM) Well to be fair how many people still have actually ever heard of this guy? Especially when compared to someone like Hillary, who is grade A guarenteed ratings anytime she has a scandal. That's my point. It makes me sad though, as I think there SHOULD be more outrage about Geithner than about the other two, in this case.

If we have an award in 2009 for worst thread idea, this had better win.