iamshack

QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 06:23 PM) Murdering someone with your car is more heinous than fighting dogs. murder - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought Dante Stallworth did not murder anyone. He did not seek out this person and attempt to run him down on the road and end his life.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 02:02 PM) I think Vick's treatment is some what hypocritical. First of all, im not sure where this "drug" ring idea is coming from. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3148549 I see no mention of vick and drug ring, and I really doubt that the federal govt would not even charge him with those crimes. But Im not an expert on the subject, so I would be interested to see where its coming from. Secondly in regards to vick "ruthlessly killing animals", should Mark Buehrle be suspended from baseball for "ruthlessly killing" deers and other animals when he hunts? Its hypocritical to value some animals more than other animals, so if we are really outraged by the barbaric acts of killing animals, we should be outraged equally by all those who hunt and kill animals. Why do they hunt? For sport and entertainment purposes. Why did vick have dogs fight? For sport and entertainment purposes. I dont think what vick did is right, but I certainly do not think that killing an animal (regardless of how heinous) could ever rise to the level of killing a human. And for everyone who is saying "Oh Stallworth made a mistake, weve all driven drunk" maybe thats true. but if vick said that "oh everyone I know dog fights, it was just a mistake" would it really matter? The answer is no. Stallworth has millions of dollars and access to a program called safe ride where a NFL player can get a ride at any time. He killed a man because he just didnt care about following the law. Do you not see the difference between a domesticated animal and one that is wild? Humans have worked, over the course of their history, to domesticate certain animals domesticate - to adapt (an animal or plant) to life in intimate association with and to the advantage of humans Humans have trained and bred dogs over the course of thousands of years to adapt them to life in intimate association with them. As a result, domesticated animals, and dogs in particular, have taken a very revered and particular place in human culture, especially in their relationship with man, that is now ingrained in our social and even moral norms. Dogs are a companion of man, an animal that lives in his home and protects it, interacts with his offspring, is fed and cared for by him, etc. For the majority of human culture, dogs are a very valuable, loved and protected companion in our social hierarchy. wild - living in a state of nature and not ordinarily tame or domesticated b (1) : growing or produced without human aid or care Wild animals share our resources. They attempt to exist on the same planet as humans, and seek to further their species in competition with humans. They live without human aid or care (for the most part, recently humans have attempted to further the existence of wild animals by creating or reserving their habitats, regulating the hunting of them, etc). But due to the separation of wild animal's existence from our own, they certainly do not share the same place in our cultural or social norms or morals as do domesticated animals. While I do not condone the reckless or pointless killing of wild animals either, they have not been trained and bred by humans to have an intimate association with them. Their initial instincts are still to avoid or compete with humans for resources, not to be cared for by them or to protect humans. I don't think that wild and domesticated animals, or their treatment by humans, is comparable at all. And yet Michael Vick chose to consciously and purposefully set up a medieval torture ring of brutality for pure entertainment and monetary gain over the course of a long period of time. Dante Stalllworth made the mistake of socializing with his friends a bit much and making the poor decision to attempt to transport himself home one evening. The situations are just not at all comparable when you consider our social and moral norms.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 05:22 PM) Go watch a human lose his life due to recklessness and make your same opinions. There's a double standard going on in America. Let's kill animals for food. Let's kill animals for sport. Whoa whoa whoa, don't touch the dogs you inhumane bastard! Please. No one is claiming that human lives are not valuable, or that it is not a tragedy when people die because of a drunk driver. The difference lies in the intent. Stallworth made a horrendous decision. Unfortunately he was in an accident with a guy that ran out into the middle of the road in the middle of the night. The fact that Stallworth was impaired at the time did not give him the best chance to avoid the guy. Therefore, Stallworth has been punished for that. I'll leave what I believe to be major hypocrisy regarding driving while under the influence of alcohol out of the equation for the time being. What Vick did was to systematically torture animals for monetary gain. And not only that, but his cohorts abducted other people's pets in order to help train his attack dogs to further that torture. He did this over a course of time that showed he felt little or no remorse whatsoever for his actions, and then he lied about it. He has paid a major price, which I have stated, and he deserves another opportunity to make a living. Great. I wish him well on the football field. But simply because the victims of Vick's were dogs, while the victim of Stallworth was a human, somehow that makes his crime less horrifying? I just cannot agree. In fact, I find Vick's actions to be far worse than Stallworth's. Just a question: Whose actions do you think are more commonplace in our society, Vick's or Stallworth's?

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 05:04 PM) I didn't say he's not guilty of the dogfighting ring. I don't think I've ever implied as much either. And honestly, the guy has several houses, or at least had. You think he'd actually live in the house the whole dogfighting ring was going down in? Hell no. He was living in his own mansion "handling his business". And yeah, there may have been a weed connect for him amongst his friends. I'm pretty sure he didn't know where all his money was going. Not many people making that much money would. I sure as hell wouldn't. So honestly, I don't believe he knew his money was going to drug beyond a recreational, go get me a dimebag, you should have money for it already, type of deal. Now financing the dog ring, he probably did do. My whole thing is this. The guy lost his contract, got suspended without pay from his job, got thrown in jail, did his time there and people still want to crucify him saying he didn't do nearly enough time for entertaining himself with dogfighting. When Dante Stallworth sped down the lanes high and drunk killing a man. If that's the case, let's crucify any hunter out there including our Mark Buehrle and AJ Pierzynski. Wait, they're hunting deer, so it doesn't count, right guys? Go watch a dogfight in person and make the same comparisons.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 01:30 PM) I'm sure if your wife was ran over by a drunk and high driver who shouldn't have been driving at all, and was struck and killed, you would not even think twice about Dante's actions being much worse. Your argument that it happens everyday is stupid IMO. Humans die every day, yes. So do dogs die everyday. We kills animals for food. Animals die a lot more than humans on a daily basis. Do we care about animals? Yes, but i'm sure if your dog died, you'd be less hurt about it then your wife. Vick's actions aren't anywhere near that of Dante's and I was a way bigger fan of Stallworth's as I followed him when he got drafted by the Saints. Oh, right...I suppose Vick's actions would be more on par with those of Leonard Little, since you weren't a fan of his when he got drafted...

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 14, 2009 -> 04:12 AM) I have actually owned dogs. Dogs don't pay the bills (in fact, they actually increase your bills, but that's besides the point). That's not to suggest that Vick's crimes weren't heinous in any manner; just that Stallworth killing a man did. I actually have defended Stallworth on here before, and while I don't condone his actions, I can understand what he was going through; a 0.12, while definitely intoxicated and buzzing, does not mean you feel drunk, especially if you are coming down rather than going up. You feel as though you sober up very quickly, when in reality you aren't sober - you are just more sober than you were 3 hours before, and that is what gives you the false sense of complete sobriety. I also don't understand where you get that the country encourages drunk driving; I see nothing but anti-drunk driving commericals no matter where I go, and it is a felony in some states. The fact that there are taxis all over and a lot of bars have the option of taxi vouchers helps matters a ton. That doesn't make sense to me. The only thing my comment was facetious, and I consider myself a dog lover. When it comes down to it, Vick will have ended up missing around 35 games, all his credibility, reputation, and a lot of his fans, while also losing much of his career. Stallworth misses 16 games. That's it. Notice I said "Our culture practically encourages it." The state, the federal government, all sorts of organizations can disseminate as much anti-drunk driving material they want. That means nothing. The fact remains that our society encourages drinking. Our culture revolves around going out to restaurants and bars on the weekends which serve alcohol. They do this even though it is clearly understood that people have driven there and will need to drive home in order to leave. Certainly people can take cabs in major metropolitan areas and in bigger suburbs. But don't you find that an incredible amount of possible harm is still left up to chance? Left to people to make their own decisions, usually while in the act of drinking and under the influence of alcohol? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy my freedoms and I am not hoping they take them away any time soon. But if you consider the amount of freedom people are allowed to abuse alcohol, as opposed to other substances which are far more closely regulated, it really makes zero sense. The reason for this is certainly because the middle class enjoys alcohol - if you ever want to guess how closely a government will regulate the use of a substance, all you have to do is determine how much the middle class enjoys consuming it - but I just find the entire issue of drunk driving full of hypocrisy. It is not surprising at all that the sort of thing that happened to Dante Stallworth, and happens every night in every state in the country - because our culture encourages the cause of it so much - the consumption of alcohol. Anyways, sorry for being on my soapbox on this issue.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Aug 13, 2009 -> 11:05 PM) but dogs have sad eyes Obviously you have not owned too many dogs in your life... What Vick did is despicable. I echo what an earlier poster who claimed what Stallworth did was not nearly as bad. Tens of thousands of people drive intoxicated in this country every night. Our culture practically encourages it. And while I am not in any means condoning what Stallworth did, there are plenty among us who commit the same crime as he, but have been lucky enough to avoid the circumstances that have ruined his life. What he did was probably the result of a few hours of very poor judgment - the same poor judgment that so many others are giuilty of. And yet what Vick did was far more gruesome. Something that required premeditation, an execution of a business plan, etc. I'm not going to claim he hasn't served his time; he obviously has paid an extraordinary price for his crimes. But to claim that because his victims were animals, his actions were somehow far lower on the spectrum of despicable acts than what Stallworth did, because his victim was a human being, simply does not compute to me. I wish him well, despite the fact that I would love hang tbones from every orifice of his body and let a pack of rabid wolves tear him to pieces.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 13, 2009 -> 03:54 PM) Is that true? If so, I had no idea. Also, I'm pretty sure Hawk said that the Mariners and White Sox are the two worst fielding teams in baseball. Did he actually say that, or am I making this up? I haven't checked, but that may be the case considering the way Hawk would probably measure defense, strictly by total number of errors or by fielding percentage. But it may the case that the Mariners are also getting to an extraordinary number of balls in play, which would be a more accurate measure of defense.

QUOTE (son of a rude @ Aug 13, 2009 -> 03:23 PM) We just faced the mariners, who are pretty crappy on offense, yet they have a better record than us. Lets compare the stats. Runs: CHW - 529 SEA - 455 HR: CHW - 136 SEA - 107 OPS: CHW - .753 SEA - .718 We are clearly a better offensive team than they are. They may have had a better 1-2-3 in the starting rotation throughout the year, but their 4 and 5 problems are even worse than ours. In my opinion, the reason they have a better record than us is because of defense. Jack Wilson sucks up everything at SS. (i know they haven't had him the whole year, though) Adrian Beltre is excellent at 3B. Franklin Gutierrez is the best CF. Ichiro is great in RF. Their defense is a big reason why they have a record that they have. I am tired of seeing lousy the white sox and their lousy ass defense cost us runs. I really hope that Alex Rios becomes the starting CF soon. Would you be in favor of signing somebody like Randy Winn in the offseason, just to solidify the defense? That's just an example. We have a great pitching staff for the future. I think it's time we start getting some good defense players to back them up. We would obviously have to sacrifice some of our offensive production if we did this, but I think it would be worth it. There was an article about defense in SI prior to the season. The author discussed how the new Mariners GM was attempting to take a page out of the Rays book by seeking to improve the team through defense this season. It seems the secret to the Rays success last year, was not so much that their pitching suddenly got better, but that their defense improved, which in turn, appeared to improve their pitching. It appears as though the defensive improvement has indeed helped the Mariners. I remember thinking I should bet the over in total wins for the M's prior to the season, which was at like 74 or something. Looks as though it would have been a solid bet.

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 13, 2009 -> 12:45 AM) Beckham and Quentin had a bad night, it happens and will happen again. However, Pods continues to make far too many mistakes on the bases. Yeah, I don't think one person has denied that. All I am saying is let's spread the blame around equally.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Aug 13, 2009 -> 12:36 AM) He has been picked off 7 times already, and that doesn't count the times he has been picked off but got lucky and was safe at 2nd. It isn't a brain fart, he is absolutely horrendous on the base paths. And a .350 OBP is the absolute minimum you should accept from your leadoff man, especially when they don't hit for power, are horrendous on the base paths, and are bad defensively. He has helped us this year because he replaced Wise and Anderson who are truly terrible baseball players. But lets not pretend Pods is actually a good player. Honestly, at least he got on base. How about Q and G, who were a combined 0-12 tonight?

Steve, you're absolutely right, he seemingly catches a lot more flack than just about any other player in the organization. Unfortunately, he does make very stupid mistakes on a fairly common basis which makes him the target of much ire. I also think tend to think a few guys are jealous of him because of who his wife is....

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 13, 2009 -> 01:12 AM) Yes, but his stupid base running is basically negating him getting on base. He really needs to become our 4th outfielder, but Ozzie will never do that cause he needs his speedy guy in the lineup. No way to dispute that. But you can't get picked off if you don't get on base in the first place. Let's hold some of the golden boys accountable too, shall we?

QUOTE (fathom @ Aug 13, 2009 -> 01:08 AM) He's not doing a lot of things right on the baseball field right now. He's basically playing like he did in 2006. His bat speed is gone right now, as he has no chance to pull the ball with any authority. Even his stance is a little different, as he's keeping his hands lower. At least he got two hits, unlike Q, who was 0-6. Let's face it guys, the enitre offense is brutal right now. We've scored in 1 of our last 27 innings or so...

Well, I must say, the attitude in here has definitely taken a turn for the better. It's almost like Knightni or Balta sprayed some of the "accellerator" from Oceans 13 into the game thread...

If this keeps going, at least our team ERA will come back down after the last few weeks of s***ty pitching...

I take it Kotsay stabbed a liner down the line and tagged first? Can someone please describe the play?

QUOTE (Friend of Nordhagen @ Aug 12, 2009 -> 11:43 PM) And if anyone could get picked off of home, it's Pods. Haha....very nice.

By the way, how has Q looked tonight? For all the new assholes being handed out tonight, how is he escaping criticism?

QUOTE (joeynach @ Aug 12, 2009 -> 11:01 PM) Fire burning...fire burning. If the sox lose this game blame ozzie for not being proactive in recognizing that the 2rd time through they are getting to him. Seriously? I'm not sure anyone can second guess either decision. He's been extremely effective tonight with a very reasonable pitch count. He has a no-hitter and a perfect game under his belt and you are acting as though he is Charlie Haeger or something.

From now on, everyone who wishes to post in the game thread will be required to attend a yoga class earlier in the day. Everyone. BREATHE.

QUOTE (jphat007 @ Aug 12, 2009 -> 10:53 PM) 0-4. Welcome to the White Sox. Enjoy your money. Honestly...have a beer.

This is quite the tightly knit group right now... I think we need to start a support group...and I am only half-joking.

QUOTE (GO CHI SOX! @ Aug 12, 2009 -> 07:39 PM) Hey, how do u watch Sox games when they are playing Oakland? I'm not sure there is a way. Even at the sports books it usually isn't on, unless you catch it on a little monitor they sometimes show it on. I just barely figured out how to watch them when they play the Angels...I didn't realize you could find them on the LA FSN channel on regular cable. I think maybe you can order all the FSN channels through cable somehow. You could probably get it that way.

QUOTE (GO CHI SOX! @ Aug 12, 2009 -> 07:17 PM) I agree. Alot of people out here in Vegas love the Bears. The only problem here is u have to get up early for a 10AM game, but its no biggie. Where do u stay around in Vegas? Im near the Chicago bar and grill right off of Fort Apache and Sahara. Ahh, I've been there before. I live on the north end of the Strip, just north of Circus Circus.