Texsox

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.

What we are seeing is a redefinition of how people become fans of a team. Prior to the 1990s being an out of town fan was very difficult. Almost no news, very few games you could see live or even on TV. Basically only box scores. You were, or became, a fan of your local team out of convenience as much as anything like family tradition. Today, we live in a different world and becoming a fan of a team is evolving. In out instant gratification society, switching teams is really simple. Change the channel, switch a couple book marks, and you are instantly a fan of a new team. Its a generational thing. I have a couple players on my golf team whose sports allegiances switch from city to city. Spurs, Patriots, whom ever is winning . . . Bears suck? Yeah, they do. Let me pick some team that's winning like you did and we'll debate some more.

Obama follows the sports team in his home town -- boring no story. Obama leaves one out, story. Especially anyone who understands the two teams one city rivalries.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 22, 2015 -> 11:22 PM) CNN said tonight the bikers may be targeting police vehicles to blow them up. My gawd. Throw all these bastards into prison and throw away the key! Barbaric. Hope these bastard bikers are ready to do the time when they do that crime.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 22, 2015 -> 10:54 PM) Tex, most of the laws that various anti groups propose are not just for 'establishing the penalties', they are for making more difficult for the average gun owner to be a gun owner. The logic in Moms Demand Whatever screaming that stronger background checks would have stopped this is absurd. Most, if not all, of those bikers are already prohibited persons in regards to firearm ownership, so they can't legally pwn guns. Making it harder for someone like ME to get a gun won't do a thing to stop someone like biker gangs from getting guns. To claim it would would just be wrong. So are you suggesting that because it would not have stopped this, it is a bad law? It's not going going to stop outlaws, no law does. Laws against murder backed with capital punishment didn't stop this. I'm not seeing your point. BTW, many of the people arrested had no criminal history, in fact an AP search revealed that 115 of those arrested had never been arrested in Texas. Almost all of the arrested lived in Texas, so it probably can't be blamed on outside agitators coming to the Lone Star State.. There are a lot of people riding with those gangs that do not commit any crimes. Four of those killed also had no convictions. You've been watching too many movies and reality shows. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-...-biker-31213850

You never would have lasted as a Sox fan in the 60s through the turn of the century.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ May 22, 2015 -> 03:03 PM) Interesting watching all the anti gun groups falling all over themselves trying to find a way to tie this to the NRA. You think background checks, waiting periods and smaller magazine limits would have made a difference? remember, these guys SELL illegal guns. Which they don't get from straw buyers down at Gander Mountain. Do you think a law against murder would have made a difference? How about if Texas executed more people than all other states combined make a difference? Clearly no law or punishment would have made a difference. Unless perhaps, the situation would have been worse with larger magazines, more people armed, etc. Does anyone really think laws are designed to stop people from doing something? Laws are designed to establish the penalties for violating that law. The logic of not having a law simply because it will not stop someone would mean we would reject every law.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ May 22, 2015 -> 02:30 PM) I am seeing this as well and while I have put no effort into discovering, is there an untold racial component to this story? Here are white people rioting and killing people and the coverage is much different.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 22, 2015 -> 02:27 PM) You'd describe this shootout as a "Legal operation"? I'm guessing what the earlier poster was suggesting. David Koresh's attempted arrest and media event was a law enforcement operation.

This was a somewhat frequent meeting of the biker groups. Most were already aligned with the Bandidos. Only after a couple gangs, not associated with the Bandidos showed up were there problems. I've been in that shopping center and it is surprising that only bikers were shot and killed. And, to be fair, until the investigation is finished we don't know if any innocent people were killed. Not everyone was fighting, many were ducking for cover, and far fewer were shooting. One of the Texas newspapers guessed that charges will be dropped for almost all of the people arrested. The cops arrested everyone, the courts set the bail at $1,000,000 each. So even guys hiding or helping people to safety were arrested if they were wearing colors.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2015 -> 12:09 PM) Huh? The attempted arrest of the Branch Davidians / David Koresh

9 dead, 170+ arrested, franchisee loses their Twin Peaks franchise, stores around them closed for days causing people to lose pay, cops wary(er) of bikers out to hurt them, all the alphabet agencies involved . . .

^^ I've been criticized in the past for my point of view, but at some point to be a fan of any team, you have to enjoy the games, win or lose. By this I mean if you only have fun watching the game when your team wins, you will be really unhappy for a lot of time. You'll be watching 70-90 games a year that you will hate, will make you really unhappy, mad, etc. Why? Like above, it's a young team that will struggle, will have a few streaks, and maybe win something. The process may get frustrating, maddening, but over all patience and a love for the process, really helps make the summer. Already for the 2000s the Sox have lost 1200+ games. Do you really want to be throwing s*** at your TV mad for thousands of games in your life time?

QUOTE (knightni @ May 20, 2015 -> 09:54 AM) I was going to try to offer assistance but I see that you have someone. What were your school colors, by the way? Red and White