Texsox

QUOTE (LDF @ May 28, 2015 -> 02:02 PM) haha.... nice trying to putting words in my posts. i am not going there. Then what is your point? I have said again and again that criminals break laws. That's not a reason to eliminate laws.

QUOTE (LDF @ May 28, 2015 -> 01:55 PM) for the most part, i have been staying out of this. but come on. there is always going to be a source to acquire weapons, even if it is going out of state. it is part of the illegal activity that thrives in the US. if you need proof, see how the government is dealing with yrs of strict laws concerning drugs. I agree. Are you suggesting that any law that does not stop illegal activity should be dropped?

CNN reported what the cops were saying. Good job to the cops for not knowing what the count was. Alpha, what proof would you accept that a law works?

I usually bundle four or five spears together with one piece of bacon. It grills easier. If I know someone prefers their bacon a little crisper I will precook the bacon a little bit then wrap. It is very hard to judge how long to precook so even better I wind up eating a few pieces will cooking.

This is a dangerous precedent when we use a transaction through a bank to force extradition and claim jurisdiction. Imagine a CEO of an American company being extradited to Vietnam because they have a supplier there and the transaction went through a local bank. FIFA is headquartered in Switzerland, it should have been the Swiss to prosecuted.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 27, 2015 -> 02:43 PM) A sizeable reduction in shootings would help. But when there's so few of those shootings anyway, tough to say that a change in gun laws would be connected. That sounds subjective. It is easy to say anything about the Waco shooting in favor or against. The Waco shooting shows how the laws worked. With more guns, more ammo, more higher power weapons people in neighboring businesses would have been killed. With higher capacity more people would have been killed. Those weapons were not present making this a lot better than the horror it could have been. But obviously there is no objective proof to that statement. Just like saying this is an example where the laws do not work. Again, you are placing an impossible burden on any law if anytime the law is broken you can say, see it didn't work. Also, more and more evidence is coming out that the cops over reacted in arresting everyone in sight. The latest is a guy without a motorcycle that just drove a few friends there to hang out with other friends. Now a father of three who had never been arrested lost his good job and still sits in jail.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 27, 2015 -> 02:07 PM) I'm on probably my 7th or 8th brand of grill up there since they only last outside for about 2-5 years. Once this one wears out I am moving my Weber up there and buying a Genesis for my house here. Nice choice. QUOTE (brett05 @ May 27, 2015 -> 02:19 PM) If you are getting so much grease that you are putting out red hot coals you need to get better cuts of meat. Honestly something is wrong if the grease is putting out red hot coals. Plus the grease hitting the coals adds to what we call "charcoal flavor" so we really do not want to avoid that entirely.

How would you show that a law prevented a crime? What evidence would you accept?

America cleaning up the world. The whole thing sounds a little crazy. But we'll see if the US justice system can legitimately claim jurisdiction. I see that as the biggest battle to a successful prosecution.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 27, 2015 -> 01:29 PM) Oh yeah that is a typical configuration of the off brand grills, my brinkman looks just like that and I get mad flare ups. I actually burn it off and then scrape them with the brush. One thing to check is for any rusted out spots. I had basically an open flame in one section of the burner, which in turn took out some of the deflector. Replacing the parts helped a lot with that grill.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 26, 2015 -> 04:15 PM) They also make grill pans with smaller openings that help lots with asparagus. Try dunking in lemon juice and garlic powder, then wrapping in bacon. Mmmm, bacon.... Do you bundle them together of one spear per one piece of bacon? I've also used a cast iron skillet on the grill for bacon wrapped veggies. After allowing some of the heart healthy bacon grease seep into the veggies I will finish up on the grill to dry it up a little bit.

I have about the same design, only a four burner and the burners seem to be a little closer together. I also have some flareups but they are usually minor and within the first few minutes. I usually watch closely through the gaps and have a spray bottle of water to control the flareups.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 26, 2015 -> 02:10 PM) I'm not going to attempt to read your quadruple negative there, but I'll repeat: you're ignoring that these laws are being proposed on a belief that they will prevent similar crimes in the future if they are enacted. They're not being proposed simply to add more punishment for crimes (and given that a lot of these crimes end in suicides/intended deaths, that wouldn't even make sense). Without the tragedy, there's no push for new laws. No one disagrees with your general point, but you need to move past it to the next level. We already have gun/murder laws. People are punished for using guns in unlawful ways and/or for murdering people in unjustified ways. The question now is do we need these other laws on top of existing laws. I'm not ignoring it. If anyone passes a law because they think it will prevent a crime, they are idiots. I believe I wrote that more than a few times. Laws do not prevent crimes. Laws establish what to do with the criminals. There has never been a law that has prevented a crime from being committed by criminals. So if you use that as a criteria, we would not have an laws. Do we need these laws based on a biker shootout in Waco? No. If that is the only reason these laws were written, that one situation, that is wrong. How about the gang member who is caught with automatic weapons and high capacity magazines while cruising their neighborhood? Now they can be arrested and potentially prevent a crime by getting them off the street instead of being allowed to do nothing.

Let me simplify. Name a law that you couldn't say we don't need because it wouldn't have stopped a tragedy? Using that logic we wouldn't have any laws. We don't need gun laws because it wouldn't have prevented this tragedy. We don't need assault laws because it wouldn't have prevented this tragedy, We don't need murder laws because it wouldn't have prevented this tragedy. My argument has been and continues to be: We don't have laws to prevent these tragedies, we have laws to punish the people who cause these tragedies. No law has ever in the history of laws stopped a criminal.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 26, 2015 -> 12:23 PM) You're still missing the point. If none of these tragedies occur, you wouldn't be advocating for more gun laws. But because these tragedies occur, you think they're necessary. Don't you see the disconnect there? And if your aim is to just tack on more jail time, make existing laws tougher. Don't create entirely new requirements that won't do a damn thing but inconvenience a hell of a lot of people. Again, if each time there is a tragedy you say the law would not have stopped it, so the law is bad, there would be no laws. It takes laws to lock these people up. Making the existing law tougher doesn't make sense because not every attempted murder (for example) is the same. Person A attempts murder (1) with a hammer -- one sentence Person B attempts murder (1) with an illegal automatic weapon (2) with an extra large capacity magazine (3), another couple charges. Why make A and B face the same charges? And again I will give this example. Taxing criminal activities. No one expects criminals to pay their taxes, but it has allowed the law to lock up criminals. The damn thing it does is lock criminals up, the same as every other law. It doesn't, and never will, stop a tragedy from happening. And can't you see that criminals never obey the law, that is the definition of a criminal. I will ask again, name one law that has stopped all criminals?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 26, 2015 -> 11:23 AM) How many times are you going to change the topic in one post? I pointed out how advocating for X because of Y was stupid. You are taking it off in so many other directions looking for an argument. YOU are creating a strawman. Any of the anti gun restrictions short of confiscation that the antis would have wanted would NOT have prevented the Waco incident, so using the Waco incident as proof that we NEED those laws to stop MORE Waco incidents is just factually wrong. End of story. You are looking for a bigger argument that I was not stipulating or participating in. Have fun talking to yourself. One topic, one direction: Advocating that a law isn't necessary because it won't stop a crime is silly. Because we have gun laws, these criminals will face charges. You seem to believe we shouldn't have these laws. No laws, no punishment. I want punishment, you want to protect criminals from punishment because they aren't stopped by a law. Thank you for accepting this plain and simple truth and not replying.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 26, 2015 -> 11:31 AM) Every time I go to a park district course like Indian Boundary or Joe Lewis and it goes well I get suckered into thinking I can get away with it twice. Saturday at Joe Lewis they ran out of carts and my 10:08 tee time became noon, they packed everyone in right around me so it took 5.5 hrs. Golfing from 9-6 does not make the wife happy. Not worth the $28. Ugh. I wouldn't have stayed.

All stiff shaft Titleist 913D Driver TaylorMade 3W and 19 degree Hybrid Titleist AP1 irons 5-GW (48*) Cleveland 988 52-56-60 degree wedges Putter of the day I am still evaluating my fairway metal. I'm hitting a 10+ year old TM "bubble" 15* 3 Wood. It keeps coming back no matter how hard I try to replace it. As long as you have 14 or less, you are "legal". You can hurt your game with a variety of flexes, different grips (too excess), etc. As a beginner I'd suggest skipping the long irons and adding hybrids and getting a fairway metal perhaps a 17* 3 metal. The 3 metal will really help off the tee on par 5s and long par 4s where you probably won't hit the green in regulation.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 25, 2015 -> 11:52 PM) i am suggesting that since it would have not stopped this, to try and USE this as a reason to pass it is the height of stupidity. Biker gangs, who deal in illegal guns, shoot each other. Hey, you know what? I bet stronger background checks would have stopped that! And increased waiting periods as well as clip size restrictions! wrong answer, try again. What events should we use instead? Perhaps the shoot out at Disney World that didn't happen which was a great example of the law working? Name a law that stops criminals? Again, laws against murder with punishments that include capital punishment didn't stop them. So we shouldn't use this a reason to pass laws against murder? You are creating a strawman argument. We write laws to establish punishments for those criminals that break the law. What happens in Waco is the people that are caught face many additional charges. Instead of simple assault or something like that they also face a list of weapons and drug charges. Non of those laws stopped anyone, but it does allow the government to lock the criminals up longer. Tax laws didn't stop Capone, but they landed him in jail. But I can't believe you truly are saying don't establish a law because it doesn't stop anyone. Laws don't stop criminals, that's why they are called criminals. We wouldn't have any laws if we only kept on the books laws that stopped criminals. The height of stupidity is saying don't have this law because criminals will ignore it. Duh, that's why they are criminals.

Experiment with different wood chips. The box I am using is a V shape and sits between the deflectors. I made "chicken on a stick" this weekend and the main flavor came from Cabernet soaked mesquite chips. As was mentioned before, allow the grill to get up to temperature. With the wood chips I tend to over heat the grill, then lower the temp before cooking. All cooking is about controlling the temp. I use indirect when cooking steaks. I will basically bake them indirectly then hit them with a blast of heat for a couple minutes on each side. Also have a spray bottle of water handy in case of flare ups and a cold beer always ready to help with the hot spot near the grill.

QUOTE (South Sider @ May 24, 2015 -> 11:40 AM) that just speaks to how tough it is to win a World Series. Ironic in this thread. Winning a World Series 10 years ago means less than not winning one on over 100 years if you currently have a(nother) great team.

QUOTE (flavum @ May 24, 2015 -> 09:36 AM) 1951-1967, they didn't have a losing season. It was a different time with different expectations, so I guess it depends on your definition of greatest. 2005 was great, but in the wildcard era of 1995-2014, to only have three playoff appearances in generally a bad division, in the biggest market, isn't good enough. My point is they survived those seasons just fine. "Isn't good enough"? Maybe for some people, and they can find a new team to root for. Perhaps two or three teams as the season progresses. My earlier point is that just may be the new tradition of choosing a team to root for. Geographic reasons just are not as important as they use to be. I'm trying not to judge. Picking a new team each May (July, August) could be the new thing. Imagine baseball if all the sub .500 teams were run out of business by fans that ignored them. We could reverse all the expansion, get back down to a dozen or so teams, all with tremendous talent. Towns like Pittsburg, Toronto, Chicago (Sox) and Miami might just be the new minor league cities. Why support losing teams? Cheer for the winners, drop the losers.

Historical perspective. When some of us here started following the team in the mid 1970s the last playoff appearance was in 1959, prior to that 1919 (which was a scandal). The next playoff appearance wouldn't be until 1983. That was a 24 year gap. Yet the team was there, it survived just fine. Since then the about once a decade there is a post season appearance. After 1983 was 1993, being swept in 2000, and finally 2005 and 2008. The past 15 years has been the greatest period of White Sox baseball in the team's history. And people want to switch teams. Put away the red Sox and Yankee gear and come on back every ten years or so when the team is winning.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ May 24, 2015 -> 07:58 AM) The cubs are about to push the white sox into obscurity. They are fun to watch. Every move has worked. The good ole boys network that is the white sox is a joke. Bell Ventura and lack of organizational philosophy are the issues. The next road trip after coming back 3-9 with hawks doneand cubs in first place will be the end of any white sox hope in this city for a few years. The Cubs haven't been around since 2005 when the Sox pushed them into obscurity. That was of course after the Cubs pushed the Sox into the obscurity of St. Petersburg, Florida in the 1990s.