NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 12:07 PM) I know I'm in the minority but I feel that the 2nd amendment is completely outdated. I don't see why we need to own guns as individuals. It just doesn't seem like something a civilized society would require. I could see a case where hunting specific rifles were allowed but that's about it. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 11:52 AM) but that infringes on the right over every American to own a gun. You cant say "the right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right , but just not these people" PS: my comment comes off as rather simple, give me a few moments to come up with a clearer response. Voting is an individual right, but we don't allow people younger than 18 to do it. And the method of voting does prevent some people from being able to do so, due to work or other circumstances. The freedom to practice religion is an individual right, but there are limitations on that too. You can't legally sacrifice animals or people, even if your religion says to. The freedom of speech is an individual right, but you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. The common thread here is that there are exceptions made in regards to basic public welfare, or just plain practicality. You can't allow violence, and you can't possibly address every problem present for voters. So, even with individual rights, they are not truly unbounded. SCOTUS is saying that restrictions on types of weapons violates the individual right, when the law in essence prevents an entire city from having ownership of a practical weapon. A pistol is dangerous, but not significantly more so than a rifle. Less so in some ways, in fact. So its not a limitation on the extremity, to prevent pandemonium. A law banning nuclear weapons from individual ownership - now that is a ban on the extremity.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 11:45 AM) Pretty much if they look at bankruptcy, those contracts are done for anyway. That may be their plan as well. Or one of the plans.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 11:29 AM) You think the Congress went protectionist over the Ports, wait until they try that... And because of that, as well as debt and value considerations, I think the more likely path is that GM will sell off a lot of bits, try to thin down, and re-invent itself. Of course, that won't succeed as long as they have those labor contracts hanging over them. That's where merger or sale to a Japanese firm would help out.

Wall-E is getting not just good, but downright spectacular reviews. I might have to go see that this weekend.

So... road game, against a lefty, against a pitcher they've never seen, coming off a depressing loss, on getaway day before a big series, with Konerko on the DL, Crede maybe still hurting, and no Thome in the NL lineup. Basically, all signs point to a loss. Therefore, I am confident of a win.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 10:55 AM) As I said a couple of days ago, GM is a dead man walking. Its debt is trading at 15%, so its effectively cut off from the credit markets. Here is an interesting thought... what if GM, the largest US car company and at one time one of the largest businesses on earth, gets bought by a foreign company? Or merges with one? I think that's not outside the realm of possibility now.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 10:48 AM) Yes. Wow.

An interesting note on this case, and 2nd amendment cases in general... SCOTUS had, until this case, seemed downright allergic to touching 2A. The seminal case had been Miller, which was (I think) a 19th century decision, and which had all sorts of oddities. So this is a very big deal. Also of note... one of the justices from the Miller case had put a warning of sorts in his opinion on the case. He noted that 2nd amendment protections should be taken with a grain of logical salt, and that it should not be allowed to protect ALL arms to ALL citizens in ALL cases and uses. 2A, in its essence, was written as a check against a potentially corrupt government. That being the case, the end game of 2A as written would then extend to protecting even the most powerful weapons available. Such protections, while in some interperetations Constitutionally valid, are probably not a good idea for the public welfare. In this case though, pistols do not seem to fit in that category, so its hard to justify the handgun ban as a move for public safety. Fascinating stuff.

QUOTE (moragasoxfan @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 08:50 AM) Apparently Coolio. What's your take on his breaking stuff? There has been discussion that he's got great velocity and decent control, but that his breakers may not have much consistency, and his fastball may be somewhat flat.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 08:42 AM) Actually its supposed to be quite a dark comedy actually. An alcoholic "super" who isnt too keen on being a hero. they actually cut a statuatory rape scene from the movie I haven't read anything on it to speak of, just saw the preview. So I'll take your word for it. I know the premise though, and it seems like a nice line. I am looking forward to the film.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 09:14 AM) reading the majority and the dissent, this was a very interesting ruling with two GREAT writings. Scalia has some of the best written opinions, and Stevens dissent was equally as interesting. Although, I still have the impression that Roberts and Alito are just schills. Alito is absolutely a shill, and was a joke of a nomination. But Stevens I think is a little more grounded. That all said, I agree with the ruling, and I look forward to reading the opinions.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2008 -> 09:02 AM) In the midst of today's selloff, here is the stat of the day, GM is trading at prices not seen since 1955. Let that sink in for a minute. Is that reflective of splits?

QUOTE (moragasoxfan @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 09:56 PM) I have a mark on the kitchen wall that puts him at a little over 6' 5", and at spring training, he said he was down to about 230; however, at his last official weigh-in (last month), he checked in at 240. Interesting. So we apparently have a friend of his on the board? By the way, what's with all the italics?

Saw a preview for Wanted. Also saw a commercial for it. Looks like a candidate for worst movie of the year. Ick. Anyone seen Get Smart yet? I used to watch that show as a kid, so I am hoping this will be good. Also saw a preview for Hancock, which looks pretty funny. Looks like a movie you need to take as a comedy, not a true superhero movie.

well, if Ozuna is auditioning for a position, last night didn't help much. 0 for 3 with an error.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 03:51 PM) Isn't Pablo hitting right around .300 this year? Defensively Uribe is superior and offers the same versatility there as Pablo (ie, can play all the positions with the exception of LF). Offensively, Pablo is significantly better. He's also a better bunter and baserunner. If I had to make a choice, I'd probably keep Pablo simply because I like the Sox regular's defensively which would limit the need for a defensive replacement (and therefor Uribe's use). But the Sox have few everyday players who can get a bunt down and therefor we would have a bigger need at that spot (ie, Pablo). Pablo hits for more contact, Uribe for more power, but their OBP's are pretty similar over the years. Ozuna would need a much higher OBP than Juan to make up for the extra bases, and he doesn't really have that. I just don't see having a good bunter and decent baserunner on the bench as a huge deal (especially when Wise and Anderson can run). Nice pluses, but they don't make up for Pablo's poor D, and I think Uribe is a slightly better hitter overall.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 03:48 PM) Why not hold off on the decision and send Anderson down to AAA where he can get significant ab's (knowing that Wise will be the primary backup in the OF with Ramirez being able to fill in). If there are any serious injuries, you just call Anderson back-up and at that point decide between Pablo/Uribe. Because Anderson adds plus D at all three OF positions, speed, a better bat than either of them right now, and talent to improve. Ozuna is headed downhill, and Uribe is just mired. You do make a good point about OF being a little more flexible, though - with Swisher back, plus Wise, and Ramirez in a pinch.

QUOTE (moragasoxfan @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 03:35 PM) The radar gun on the field in B'Ham is a little hot; he actually topped out at 97 on Friday, according to other sources. You're right about his height; he's probably closer to 6'5". However, he does weight 235 - 240 lbs. Welcome to Soxtalk!

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 03:43 PM) I disagree entirely. pablo can do more things off the bench in situations than Juan can. He hits for more contact, can bunt, and hits the other way naturally. We are talking about a situational player here, not even really a once a week guy, and Pablo offers you more versatility than Juan does. Pablo's only added versatility I can see over Uribe is speed (and Ozuna's speed isn't what it was), and the ability to bunt. Uribe can play all the same positions as Ozuna, except a lot better. Neither can hit well, but Uribe is still better than Ozuna at the plate. So as far as utility and versatility go, I think Uribe has more to offer. All told, I'd rather have Bourgeois and Getz than Ozuna and Uribe anyway. The Uribe/Ozuna discussion is like deciding between brussel sprouts and haggis. I'd like to pass on both, thank you very much. But at least a few people actually like brussel sprouts.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 04:20 PM) Keep Pablo, he brings more energy and seems to be more liked in the clubhouse. Despite his 0 power, we are not a team starved of power, what we are missing is guys who can hit, hit the opposite field, bunt and run. Ozuna does that better than Uribe. Pablo plays third, SS and second fine, not great, but not horrible. Uribe is just as likely to make an error because of his tendency to be lazy in the field. I have to strongly disagree on the defense here. Pablo is passable at 3B, substandard at 2B, and awful at SS. And Uribe is a better or far better fielder than Pablo at all three positions.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 03:12 PM) Pablo: hits .300 (yes, I know, it's in limited at bats). Uribe: hits .200. I'd keep Pablo. Plus, Pablo has better speed. Pablo hit .300 ONCE, in 2006. His last two seasons (last and this), he's hit .244 and .275, with OBP's well below .300. He also has near-zero power. His OPS last year was .562, this year its .582. Uribe, even in crappy seasons, puts up high-600 OPS numbers. Bad as Uribe is at the plate, he's better than Pablo.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 03:10 PM) Would Pablo have the option of accepting a minor league assignment? Charlotte is already crowded, and frankly, I'd rather see Bourgeois or Getz on the roster than Pablo anyway. So I am not sure what value that adds.

Uribe can cover 3B defensively as well as Pablo, or better. Uribe can also play short and second with plus defense, which Pablo couldn't hope to do. Neither can hit, though at least when Juan does hit, it goes far. The only plus I see for Ozuna is speed, but with Wise and Anderson on the bench providing some of that, Pablo's value as a PR is miniscule. And Uribe might actually have a small amount of value in trade - Ozuna has none. Mr. Ozuna, you served a purpose well for this team the last few seasons. But its time to go.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jun 25, 2008 -> 02:18 PM) Technically, all the SC said is that they can bring writs of hc before federal courts, not that they get a trial. Just saying. That may lead to a federal court ordering a trial or a release, but that's a separate matter. Sorry, I was simplifying. I should have said "SCOTUS says they get judicial access rights" or something to that effect.