Soxbadger

Well now people are saying that hopefully the Badgers dont have a Maroney situation where Dale Martin becomes something and they passed him up for Clay. And while it may not impact the team that much, you still dont want one of your top 2 recruits to have academic questions surrounding them before they take a snap.

John Clay, Wisconsin RB, has been ruled academically ineligible for the 2007 season.

As long as Im still member No.14 I dont care. I really dont care at all, but still its nice to be famous.

Regardless of what happens, the White Sox have been getting guys to stay. Konerko, Mark, and even Javy took less money to stay with the Sox. Maybe Garland will go, or maybe he will be willing to take less, but regardless the Whtie Sox have shown they will atleast make some what reasonable offers. Buerhle showed he wanted to be a White Sox, and that is the type of player I dont mind if management takes a risk spending money on. My guess is that they move Contreras if they can get anything for him.

Im thinking about trading a propane grill for a charcoal grill. Was that worth reading Stevo? And yah I dont know why I read these threads either, maybe Im just a glutton for punishment.

I can remember when this board was just like 50 people. Its almost unbelievable.

No this was just to prove that you can drive fast and smoke weed in a hybrid. I know that whenever I consider buying a hybrid my first thought is: "I doubt I can go over 100 and hit my bong in this b****, Im going to get a BMW."

I was at first against this but after finding this I definitely think Id agree to this trade: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Willy+Mo+Pena Anyhow unless the Sox are getting a great deal, Id just keep Buerhle, keep trying to sign him, and if it doesnt work take the draft picks. You dont just give away one of your best and most beloved players.

Id rather just keep Buerhle. Not interested in trading him just to trade, and since no team really wants to pay for his talent, might as well just keep him.

Congrats to my favorite Sox player of all time, hopefully some day youll make it to the Hall.

This is a very narrow ruling and I think it is entirely consistent with previous law. This wasn’t a kid on the street holding a sign, it was a kid at a school sponsored event. So I do not see anyone arguing that a student should be allowed to wear whatever they want to school, and I think that is actually not a bad thing. IE: I can wear nazi regalia in public, but I could probably not wear a nazi uniform to school. I can wear a shirt that said “F N***ers” on the street, but I would undoubtedly not be allowed to wear it in school. These are the same type of freedom of expression restrictions as the case at hand, and while some may be pro-legalization of marijuana (I am) it does not change the fact that at this time it is illegal. In fact I do not think that even if it was for tobacco smoking that the court would have reached a very different opinion, tobacco is illegal for children under 18, they cant buy bongs, water pipes, or even cigs, so why should they be allowed to come into school and promote its use? I do not think any variation of the sign would change things, as I said my HS had a 0 tolerance policy in terms of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. Any sign, reference, to such would be met with severe and harsh repercussions. Im not exactly sure why a student would not expect such a policy, although if this kid was seriously involved in some sort of debate about the merits of marijuana legalization, then Im sure this case would have turned out completely different. But saying something just to say it, is not protected speech, and never will be. There has to be a point to what you are saying, and it has to be at an appropriate time and place.

Mplss, It is two completely different cases. One is about a student during school activities, another is about the govt regulating speech completely. I would think the court would have come to a different conclusion. The case at hand was specifically about a student who was doing an activity during a school sponsored function. I would expect that I could wear my “don’t worry get stoned” shirt at the Daley Center, or any other govt building and there really is nothing they could do. On the other hand if I was 17 and in HS, I would expect to get atleast a detention if not more, for wearing the exact same article of clothing. Students just do not have the same rights to say whatever they want during school hours and school functions, as they do outside of school. For example, if this was on a Saturday, and was in no way shape or form connected to the school, I would be absolutely outraged by the decision.

We dont live in "the world", we live in "the United States". You can ask 100 people on the street what they think the term "Bong hit" means, and I would be shocked if less than 75% did not associate it with marijuana. It really doesnt matter if the word comes from latin, thai, or anything else the fact of the matter is, in the United States, BONGS are illegal. http://www.smokingwithstyle.com/bongetiquette.htm I honestly dont know how some one could argue otherwise, like I said, go to any head shop in Illinois and ask for a Bong as compared to a water pipe. Innocence may be bliss, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. Chapter 720. Criminal Offenses Offenses Against The Public Act 600. Drug Paraphernalia Control Act (Refs & Annos) (d) "Drug paraphernalia" means all equipment, products and materials of any kind, other than methamphetamine manufacturing materials as defined in Section 10 of the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act, which are intended to be used unlawfully in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing into the human body cannabis or a controlled substance in violation of the Cannabis Control Act, [FN3] the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, [FN4] or the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act. It includes, but is not limited to: (5) objects intended to be used unlawfully in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing cannabis, cocaine, hashish, or hashish oil into the human body including, where applicable, the following items: (A) water pipes; (B) carburetion tubes and devices; © smoking and carburetion masks; (D) miniature cocaine spoons and cocaine vials; (E) carburetor pipes; (F) electric pipes; (G) air-driven pipes; (H) chillums; (I) bongs; (J) ice pipes or chillers; As you can see bong and water pipe are explicitly listed as drug related. Now there are exemptions in 720 ilcs 600/4 but they are limited to tobacco pipes and other items related to the use of tobacco. Now this just brings back the argument that a “bong” can be used for tobacco. And while that is true, I just cant but that argument. I have seen bongs used thousands of times, and I can count less than a handful where it was used for tobacco alone. Just based on my one life, and what I know to be true, I cant buy such a fake argument. And I doubt anyone will come in here and tell of their story how they have a nice bong at home and only use it for tobacco. Because isn’t that the only argument that would pass muster, that these bongs are sold for tobacco use only, not that tobacco use may be incidental to the fact it is primarily used for marijuana? So once again, you can argue irrelevant facts about where the word came from, or what it literally means, but the reality is that bongs are used for a single purpose, and that is getting blazed.

Jenks, Go to any store on Belmont, etc and ask for a "bong". They will politely tell you that they are "water pipes" and not to call them bongs. Why? Because you cant call them bongs. It is illegal to sell drug paraphenilia, bongs are that. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bong Notice how there is not one mention of tobacco. A "bong hit" is a very specific term, it means packing up a fat bowl and getting blazed. It does not mean smoking tobacco. Im sorry, but I do not think I have ever seen some one use a bong for tobacco, it makes me laugh just to think of how terrible that would be. Anyway, I would argue in the alternative, that even if he was advocating hitting bongs of tobacco, (i hope atleast vanilla flavored or something exotic not just drum), it still should not be protected because I dont think students should be advocating tobacco use either. My stance is more along the lines that cigs are worse than marijuana, so Id be more inclined to rule against if that truly was his argument. Atleast if he argued that he was making a political stance about the legalization of marijuana and how the US govt has gained the right over time to restrict what a person can consume. Or maybe even that marijuana should be reevaluated compared to alcohol and tobacco, the 2 legal drugs, and why the US govt has treated one so differently than the other. But he wasnt doing that. He wasnt making a political statement, something that should be protected. He was trying to get attention and be a jackass. I guess I dont think that jackassery is a constitutionally protected speech. I love being a dissident just as much as the next, but when you do the crime, just pay the time. Can anyone honestly say that they would go to school unviel a similar sign and not think their would be some consequences if they were caught? At some point the law cant just be theoretical ideas, it has to be practical.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f...placemanner.htm Well hell this is the 3rd time ive treid to type this message but my browser keeps failing and losing the message. Basically, I disagree in principal, but I agree with the ruling based on the previous law. The Court has consistently held that the First Amendment does not allow any speech, all speech, or to do whatever you want. As long as the restriction is neutral and is applied across the board, a school, govt facility, etc can regulate the time, place, and manner of the speech. In this case it was a school sponsored event, during school hours, which basically means that is the equivalent of being at school. In HS I could not even wear a shirt with paraphenilia or alcohol on it, so this is basically the same thing. Im not sure how he “legally” thought he could get away with it, because even if he painted a flag with a huge marijuana leaf, the school still could restrict it for a variety of reasons. And I don’t think that it will change as the Judges are replaced by newer ones, because even the most liberal attorneys, like myself, understand that the First Amendment was not originally intended to allow anyone to say anything at any time. And while it would be nice to allow that in society, the costs are outweighed by the practicality of allowing everyone to say or do what they want. Hence, Im not even really sure how it wasn’t even more lopsided.

Well Vince did the right thing and basically ended his story line. When I told my friend who watches wrestling every day he was basically devastated. I mean of all the people Benoit, it just is one of those unimaginable things. Going from supposed to win the belt last night, to dead.

Huh? I swear that the White Sox have constantly been increasing their payroll. Wouldnt that be "invested in sustaining the competitiveness of the team." Which teams in the AL Central have a higher payroll than the Sox? Or should we just say unless the Sox spend like the Yankees or Red Sox they just arent trying? All of these threads are a joke.

First sentence, statement (ends with period). Second sentence, question (ends with question mark). Third sentence, statement (ends with period). Yes I know that using "what" suggests that I would want some sort of answer, but I already know what has happened. Anyways, care to elaborate on Williams should be fired. Last I checked he wasnt in the bullpen or hitting.

Even if Chris Young makes the HOF, Williams will still be one of the best GM's that the White Sox have ever had. He puts together teams that win 90 games in back to back seasons, and 1 year of failure and people want him gone? What the hell has happened to White Sox fans.

Why would he be fired?

I dont care what everyone else says. 90% of the people in the world are idiots, so Im not exactly going to base my evaluation off of what other people think. The guy is 24 years old, and still could have a major impact for the White Sox. You said that Danks vs Floyd was not a good comparison, I pointed out that Floyd had better stats than Danks at similar ages. Floyd was a higher rated prospect than Danks ever was. I just dont think that you can call a player a bust on less than 20 starts. Or did you not realize he only had 100 ips in MLB?

(No point really) My questions are serious, so many people are quick to forget that at 18-25 people are still developing and maturing.

My question would be: "How does it feel to be such a highly touted prospect and have fans and organizations who are unwilling to be patient and allow you a chance to develop? At 24 can you really be considered a bust?"

So the Phillies are idiots, why exactly is this proof that Floyd could not still turn out to be a very effective pitcher? They traded for Garcia without a physical, how stupid can you possibly be.

And if you were here 3-4 years ago you would have seen half the threads were most Sox fans wanted to trade Jon Garland for a bag of balls. What is exactly your point? Floyd is 24, was once considered one of the top prospects in all of baseball. In 2003 he was rated 9th overall by BA. Even in 2005 he would have been the White Sox highest rated prospect. Fans are stupid, the fact that they thought they hosed us on Freddy Garcia shows exactly the calibre of fan you were talking about. Anyone that watched him pitch 1 game last year knew something was wrong.