Texsox

I'm excited. The lumber company just dropped off a couple thousand dollars worth of cedar and metal roofing. My brother-in-law and I will be starting on my back patio roof and makeover. I'm seriously looking at a grillzebo next with the cost savings from the roof project. I'm going for a kind of Texas hill country feel for the back yard.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 06:11 PM) There is a big difference behind an erosion, and a huge hit to the fan base, ala White Flag. White Sox fans are a bitter lot, and would absolutely flee in droves over another massive sell off. They would come here and post

QUOTE (harkness @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 06:02 PM) I'm starting to think these guys are really trying to be competitive to save their jobs... we are doing nothing but losing but they are trying to add add add. There are holes that everyone knew would be there. I wonder if that guy that was cut because of his kid is available?

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 06:02 PM) Yes you're right. I should say, there are boundaries, trying to alter history like it is an Orwell novel isn't cool.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 06:02 PM) x2

QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 06:00 PM) That may be true but honestly given the past nine (soon to be ten) seasons I wonder if that opinion remains in play. There may be more fans now willing to 'blow it up' and start over of course with a different front office making the decisions. Mark I believe you have to look at the fans in groups. A lot of people buy tickets and go a baseball game or two during the year. They may go to the Sox or they may go to the Cubs, or Kane County, it really doesn't matter to them. They just like the show. We may pejoratively label them as fair weather fans, but I think of them more like movie goers. They may like a certain actor, but they also just enjoy going to a movie. You lose those ticket buyer with any rebuilding. The hard core fan base, the season ticket holders, and probably a lot of people here, are more willing to sit through a rebuilding. But many posters here could actually name the Sox affiliates and a few of the players.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 05:57 PM) Isn't that cute. Using your admin privileges like that. You showed me!! Actually anyone can do that. After you hit reply just go in and make any changes. After 12 years here you should know that by now!

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 03:24 PM) If the Sox did sign Morneau, they would probably have the best 2010 roster in baseball. This made me laugh, then cry.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 05:51 PM) yes, Jay bruce is the difference maker. Keep throwing good money after bad, Kenny Hahn. As soon as they print the standings on the financial pages, I'll care more about them trying to win this year by spending money.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 05:28 PM) One thing I can say with confidence is that this team is not "THIS" bad. They're 6-19 in their last 25 games. Barring a whole bunch of injuries I have confidence this team will not remain a sub-.250 winning percentage team the rest of the year. Chris Sale will not win only nine games - as of tomorrow it will be 3 weeks since his last win. That won't continue the entire year. Jose Quintana will win at least 4 more to get himself to his usual 9 wins. At some point this will flip back to more "normal" in at least some ways. That may not make them a competitive team, but they're not the worst team in baseball. Agreed. I also don't expect them to have another super hot streak like they did to start the season. I expected them to compete into September, I still believe they can.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 05:20 PM) I think I understand what you mean. I think the easiest answer is just that getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk can have severe ramifications on everyone around you, and its one of the main causes of death in the country. Whereas if someone is drinking and puts themselves in a risky situation like hooking up with someone they dont know they still arent putting anyone else at risk. There are great reasons why we do that, and it is really the only way to handle it. Perhaps coming at it this way will make the most sense. It seems like everyone around the drunk is responsible for their safety *unless* they get behind the wheel of a car, then it's totally on the drunk. And again, not specific to this case and I probably should have started a different thread.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 05:09 PM) Making out with someone should never be putting yourself in a dangerous position and I think that line of thought is dangerous. Agreed. The more I try to state my case the less clear and further away from my point I get.

I agree. Maybe another way to say this is in one case we protect the drunk from their actions, in the other we don't. The additional of another party is the big difference.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 05:05 PM) Did anyone see the rapid collapse suddenly hitting? No matter how much I doubted this team even I didn't think that "lightswitch off" moment was possible. It seems way easier to have it turn off than on.

Confidence, momentum, expectations, bad luck. It can change in a blink of an eye. But usually not, and I just don't see it right now with this team.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 04:55 PM) Drinking to the point that your judgement is impaired beyond the ability to consent isn't a crime and doesn't inherently pose risks to anyone else. I agree. But isn't it interesting that if the person places themselves in a dangerous position (behind the seat of a car) we assign blame to them. If they place themselves in a dangerous position, (Making out with someone) we do not blame them. Again, it feels like the right thing to do, and there really isn't a better public policy, but I do see a contradiction. Perhaps to close the perceived gap on my part, the people who are around the drunk and allow them to drive should face a similar consequence as does the rapist. They have some control over the drunk who is too impaired to exercise sound judgement.

BTW, I prefer to think of free college more in terms of expanding public education from 13 years to 15 or even 17 years. A good start would be 15 years. That would then include either two years extra of remedial K-12 years, a couple years of trade, tech, or community college, or if you do enough concurrent enrollment or AP classes, it would get you pretty darn close to a bachelor's degree. And that is really what is being proposed, extending the 13 years that we already provide.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 04:43 PM) DUI has nothing to do with consent, though. That's the difference. I'm trying to point out the difference in the personal responsibility. My point is in the case of driving the person IS responsible for their actions, in the case of having sex the person is not responsible for their actions. Same level of drunk, same person. While drunk we are responsible for some things, but not others. Am I making sense? I know this is my explanation, not your ability to read and think.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 04:32 PM) How is consent relevant in the case of drunk driving? Yes. Drunk driving presents a grave risk to others. Being too impaired to consent is about your own personal safety. That is the inconsistency I am trying to explain, but not very well. A person is charged with DUI. We agree they are responsible for their actions. Now do we also believe that they are too drunk to consent to having sex and if someone has sex with them the other person would be charged with rape?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 04:28 PM) I'm not seeing the inconsistency. If I'm walking down the sidewalk while heavily intoxicated and get hit by a drunk driver, there's no question who's at fault there. The drunk driver is responsible, as is the drunk rapist. Agreed. Can that drunk driver also be too drunk to give consent to sex?

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 04:23 PM) Interesting point. Are you stating this in general or as it pertains to this case? In general. A drunk gets in the car and causes a crash. After staggering out of the car the drunk has a sexual encounter. They are responsible for the crash, but too drunk to give consent to the sex?

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 04:19 PM) Brazil -2.5 over Haiti? O/U 3.5? Ecuador over Peru? O/U 2? I like the under in the Brazil game. I also think Brazil will have a challenge to cover. I'm thinking a 2-1 or 2-0 game. Brazil has to find a way to get some better shots.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 12:43 PM) Who says no in the case that you're giving? Are both parties actually able to give or deny consent? Hypothetically its whoever says no. In a solely legal sense what you present is a tough case because at some point both parties could be intoxicated enough to be unable to actually consent. In that case now you have to figure out whether someone actually denied consent with very little evidence and probably no one able to testify about how things actually happened unless there was some other witness. Isn't that part of the issue? Neither person really can say no, but that is different than giving consent. In other areas, such as driving, we tell the drunk driver, you are responsible for your actions while drunk. Then we might tell that same person that they aren't responsible for having a sexual encounter because they were too drunk to consent. We have this patchwork of responsible and not responsible when drunk. I don't have a solution, but it seems like we are not consistent.

I'm looking strongly at a 3rd party candidate. For me it will be easy to vote for someone else. I know Texas will go to Trump. The Aggie crowd in College Station (the epicenter of Texas conservatism) will drown out the UT Austin liberals. As much as I would like to help close the gap, I'm not certain Hillary is my first choice.

Will they allow the next manager to bring in an entirely new coaching staff? Some of these guys have been around since Ozzie. Isn't it time to really clean house?