Texsox

There is a concern with choosing someone too young and having them serve for three decades or longer. If they go outside Europe, I believe they will go older to shorten the time.

Wearing my Jerry Garcia baseball tie . . .

And it should be remembered that they were not necessarily bad contracts when they were signed. If Danks stayed healthy, that contract wasn't looking too bad. If Dunn had been Dunn and not Done in year one, it would not have looked that bad. s*** happens. Players are winning these and the team and fans are losing.

Are you suggesting that people who make more money love their kids less? That their kids will miss them less? That their kids don't need them to read them a story, play catch, or attend a school function?

As I said before, I have a lot of empathy for people who have little or no choice in where the work.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Feb 11, 2013 -> 08:47 AM) They will go with someone from Africa. One of the leading canddates is from Africa. What happens more times than not is the leading candidate has both strong support and equally strong detractors, leaving a path for the guy who is the 2nd choice but without much "baggage". Like SS2k5 I enjoy the pomp and circumstances and ancient ritual that lead to the choice.

Hmm. Let the politics and jockying begin. The last person from the US that was even close, and it wasn't that close, was Cardinal Bernardin. Cardinal Dolan in NY would seem to be the leading American candidate but there are a couple guys that Rome will prefer. I believe the first American will be much older, Dolan is only 60. However, Dolan is an awesome speaker, and seems to be well liked by the other Cardinals. You will hear a lot about the guy in Africa whose name escapes me now. It would be a nod towards breaking up the European influences. There is another candidate in Mexico and one in Canada that may also receive some attention, but I doubt they will get past the first round of voting. If they stay in Europe, there are a few Italians that will be mentioned, but Cardinal Scola is probably the only serious candidate. I can't wait for the non stop vigils outside the Vatican, watching the smoke from the chimney.

They are the envy of most of the world. Cheap, honest, delivery everywhere. Under a buck for delivery from NY to LA is easy. You can fill a plane with all the mail. Under a buck Granjenos, TX to Wahpotin, ND for under a buck? Amazing.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Feb 6, 2013 -> 06:04 PM) Color me confused...I see a 9 on his back yet he signed yet #17...I guess I could just look up Carlos May or how many days till ST but that would be too easy Carlos May wore 29 his rookie year then switched to 17. I should have looked closer at the pic. Sorry. 17 days to spring training.

February 06, 2013

How would you be losing your Constiutional rights? You would still be part of a well regulated militia. Wouldn't a lack of restrictions and status as a militia be losing rights?

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 02:47 AM) So the numbers are not perfect. But I think it’s an absolutely fair point to say that overarching gun laws will end up punishing a lot of people who had never done an indecent thing with their weapons. Nice analysis. Now we would have to look at what the punishment is. Is the punishment not being allowed to mount an M-16 in the bed of your pickup truck? Or is the punishment not being allowed to own more than 10,000 rounds at one time? Or is it not being allowed to buy a gun without a more detailed background search? I hope we all would agree that there are reasonable "punishments" or restrictions that a well regulated militia will follow. Hell, you have restrictions at your work on weapons you can possess.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:42 PM) Compared to the gun owners that don't do the bad things, a handful. So why do gun owners talk about all these criminals they have to protect themselves from? Hell it's only a handful.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:39 PM) So to steal a point from an earlier post, how much do you 'restrict' the sales? Millions of people purchase and own guns with no problems, how much to you screw them to keep the guns away from a few bad apples? You already have laws keeping felons and crazy people from owning them. What MORE laws do you want in their place? You already have laws making it a crime to shoot people, use guns in commission of a crime and so on, what MORE laws do you want? Somewhere there is a point where restricting the supply of guns on the hope of keeping them away from a handful of bad people that will get them infringes on the rights of others to have them as well. I still call your attempts at restrictions to be just like a poll tax. And nobody anywhere ever said we should allow 'unlimited sales'. You just threw that in there to be absurd and over the top like usual. Handful of bad apples? What do you call a handful?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:18 PM) So are you advocating to make owning a gun more expensive to operate and own? If so, why are you so eager to price a right away from poor people? Do they not have the same rights as others? You would be willing to force people to spend hundreds or thousands to enjoy their RIGHT to bear arms, but yet have a cow when someone has to cough up $5 for a state ID to vote? I submit that your added expenses on gun ownership are just like a pol ltax, meant to keep poor people from defending themselves. You sir, are racist! (just kidding on that one) No, I am pointing out how restricting sales leads to less weapons in the hands of criminals and likewise, unlimited sales leads to more guns in the hands of criminals. If we're going to deal in the absurdity of don't write laws that criminals will not follow, only write laws that criminals will follow then I believe this shows how they will help solve the problem you mentioned.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:05 PM) First off, my scenario would be that when I go to the range I'd rather not change clips multiple times. So there's your scenario. Second, this is not OUR burden here, it's yours. Like it or not, guns are a constitutionally protected right, so you need to provide a pretty good reason, narrowly tailored, to curb that right. Your fear of being a victim of cross-fire in a fantasy world where every gun owner is a Rambo wannabe doesn't work. "Well regulated militia" isn't enough?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:27 PM) Nobody says don't write laws. Don't write laws that won't fix the damn problem. I'm glad you recognize there is a problem. Then let's look at supply and demand. When there is more or something than there is demand then prices are low. When there is fewer of them and still there is demand then prices go up. When prices increase then fewer and fewer people (criminals included) can obtain them. Same reason not much street crime happens with high end Glocks, too expensive for petty criminals.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:01 PM) More like criminals don't follow the laws already, so why make more laws that only serve to f*** with the law abiding people even more and do nothing to actually help the situation that you are so SURE the government needs to fix to begin with. Gun magazine restrictions will do NOTHING to prevent crime or murders. All they will do is now make criminals out of otherwise law abiding people who don't want to give theirs up. My Glock came with a 17 round clip. That is not 'high capacity', that is standard capacity. Again, the logic is flawed. Don't write laws that criminals won't follow. Only write laws that criminals will follow. Then, as Balta is pointing out, gun owners talk about how they need guns for protection, to protect us from tyranny, etc. Then say it isn't about what is needed. I rarely shoot off more than a few shots at one time anymore. It was fun to practice fast firing, the challenge was exciting. But I could easily be restricted to ten and not 17. We've seen where killers have been stopped when they have to reload. Settling on ten instead of six or two would be fine.

It doesn't take long for an honest sale to end up in the hands of criminals.

Again, do you see where the logic of criminals will not follow the law so we should not have the law fails? Do you see where making drugs illegal does restrict the supply and make them harder to get? You seem to have skipped past that.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 10:21 AM) And no, I don't myself have any experience buying drugs. But I went to high school and college. I also live in El Paso. The s*** isn't rare. Would you suggest that it is? Do you suggest that making them legal would not change the amount that is available?

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 09:55 AM) Geez, I've even been trying for several posts to tone down the rhetoric and have a civilized debate with you, and you come along with this. So keep judging me. Then ask yourself all self-righteously why we don't get along and I act like a jerk to you. Do you not see the hypocrisy? Then I will tone it down also. In the real world there are laws. They protect yours and my rights. To protect those rights we use attorneys. Have a dispute with a credit card company, we use lawyers. Get injured on the job\, we use lawyers. Get arrested by mistake, we hire lawyers. We live in a world here with lots of laws that protect our rights. To assure those laws are followed we have courts and yes, lawyers. How are you planning to protect your rights since you don't seem to have any use for lawyers and courts?

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 09:52 AM) Maybe this sounds cliche, but it's so true... Please explain to me how the same logic made drugs hard to get. Ah, the billions is enforcement we spend? Customs? Border Patrol? ATF? FBI busting smugglers? If they were legal people could produce Meth out in the open, grow marijuana in their gardens. Now I assume in your world drugs are easy to get, but over here, the laws have made it harder and cause prices to increase. Again, not having a law because criminals will not follow them is a silly argument that would eliminate all laws.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 09:25 AM) Is it absurd to not enjoy being lectured about bravery by a lawyer? I'm sorry, but to me, lawyers define gutlessness and cowardice. You and Balta have prejudices against gun owners, I have them against lawyers. So I told him what I thought about him talking about what makes a real man. Because that is something he knows nothing about. In the real world we have laws. When you buy a home, do you want your rights protected during the sale? Oh that's right, you'll just pull out a gun at the closing and solve any of those problems like a real man. You are so unequipped to live in a civilized society with laws.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 09:26 AM) That's the point. Criminals don't follow laws. Why are we trying to stop their actions with more laws? I don't see how you can run to the gun control side with this one. This concept goes one way. First of all, I own guns. Second of all, your point is since criminals will not follow the law, then we should not have the law. Criminals murder people, why have laws against it? Criminals steal things, why have a law against it? Criminals drive drunk, why have laws against it? See the flaw in the logic of only having laws that criminals will follow? By making high capacity magazines illegal we begin to restrict the number that are available. When there is more and more of something the chances of them getting into the wrong hands increases. I am in favor of a well regulated militia. I do not see much value in high capacity magazines outside of killing lots of people. In your world there, yes. In suburban Toledo, Ohio? No. How can a militia be well regulated if the government does not know who they are? But perhaps I love the Constitution too much to allow it to be circumvented.