Iwritecode

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 7, 2017 -> 11:04 AM) Except for the rest of the world. The rest of the world doesn't have the US constitution working against them. My point is that even passing more laws may not help. Take the Vegas shooter for example. I haven't looking into it much but from what I've read, he didn't really do anything illegal up until the point he started shooting at the crowd. He purchased all his guns legally and there was nothing in his background to trigger any kind of warnings. IIRC the guns used in Sandy Hook and the Colorado movie theater shootings were purchased legally as well. It's possible that the answer is in mental health but then we have to have a line drawn somewhere as to who is or isn't mentally stable enough to own a gun. I can't imagine that would be an easy distinction to make.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Nov 7, 2017 -> 10:38 AM) What something would be is the weakening of the NRA. There are far too many guns on the streets. More guns means more gun related deaths. I don't know how anyone could conclude anything else. Maybe. But it seems like these conversations only occur when some mass shooting happens and nobody has come up with a way to stop those.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 7, 2017 -> 10:40 AM) But they weren't 'illegal' when they were purchased, they just changed the law to make them illegal. You ban guns, now they are illegal. Go round em up! Last I heard you can't get a gun with a domestic violence conviction, but you can still drive. You can even drive with a DUI on your record. I don't think it's the guns that are illegal. I think it's something about the person that changed. Like if they got a domestic violence conviction after they purchased a gun, they are no longer legally allowed to own one.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 7, 2017 -> 09:34 AM) The system works fine, it is the human component that failed. And just what 'proposal' do you want them to pass that would have made a difference? i agree that mental health needs to be addressed. it has been that way for a while, not just some oversight that happens to be a problem for any one party. I agree with all of this. This isn't a new problem. Mass shootings have been happening for decades. Neither political party seems to be able to fix it. Everyone keeps yelling that we need to do "something" but nobody seems to know exactly what that "something" is.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 2, 2017 -> 01:43 PM) https://twitter.com/thephatic/status/926151175669473280 That was interesting and even a little difficult to read. This really says all that needs to be said about the people that do this though:

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 07:54 PM) 1) you don't actually know that. None of us do. 2) there was no consent, but also, nothing happened. What in the description Rapp gives constitutes sexual assault or rape? Spacey made a move, Rapp rebuffed it and left, and nothing further happened. OBVIOUSLY I condemn Spacey for even MAKING the move in the first place, and he's a really skeezy dude and deserves this backlash, but I guess my question is what crime did he actually commit? Like... endangerment of a minor or something? Honestly asking. Don't know much about the laws here. 3) In the context of the point I was making, I brought up his character to strengthen the argument that he wasn't trying to use Spacey to get a leg up in the business. Read the whole damn post and stop extrapolating they way you want to. In your first 2 points you seem to be trying to justify his actions somewhat. Consent or not shouldn't matter and shouldn't even be part of the conversation. There is obviously some law in place. Just watch some of the old 'To Catch a Predator' episodes with Chris Hansen. Those dudes were never even in the same room as a minor. But the intent was clear and they were all taken to trial and punished. So just because "nothing happened" doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed. There is some gray area in the terminology but if the victim felt uncomfortable then it was harassment at the very least.

QUOTE (Latilleon @ Nov 1, 2017 -> 05:39 AM) How could you forget 93!?! Cito Gaston, 1992 & 1993. Tom Kelly won it twice with Minnesota (87/91). Sparky Anderson won it with Detroit in 1984 in addition to his Reds wins and Tony LaRussa won in 89 with the A’s (and should have won in 83 with some ugly team). It doesn't matter. The person the message was intended for will ignore it anyway.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 31, 2017 -> 04:02 PM) This isn't like college basketball ... a guy taking a job at Tulsa only to skip away to a Power Five conference job after two seasons. The Sox supposedly are the next great thing. Why is Chicago a stepping stone job? It's a great city and Cleveland got Francona to go there for gosh sakes. It's not like the south side job is trash with this young talent coming up. A good manager might win 2, 3, 4 titles in chicago. I'll give you points for enthusiasm but winning the World Series is really, really hard. Much less the same manager winning it multiple times with the same team. It hasn't happened much. Especially for teams not named the Yankees. Bruce Bochy — San Francisco Giants: 2014, 2012 & 2010 Tony La Russa — St. Louis Cardinals: 2011 & 2006 Sparky Anderson — Cincinnati Reds: 1976 & 1975 Miller Huggins — New York Yankees: 1928, 1927 & 1923 John McGraw — New York Giants: 1922, 1921 & 1905 Joe Torre — New York Yankees: 2000, 1999, 1998 & 1996 Walter Alston — Los Angeles/Brooklyn Dodgers: 1965, 1963, 1959 & 1955-x x-Brooklyn Connie Mack — Philadelphia A's: 1930, 1929, 1913, 1911 & 1910 Casey Stengel — New York Yankees: 1958, 1956, 1953, 1952, 1951, 1950 & 1949 Joe McCarthy — New York Yankees: 1943, 1941, 1939, 1938, 1937, 1936 & 1933 Not sure if that's an all-inclusive list. Just what a quick google search gave me.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Oct 31, 2017 -> 01:26 AM) Am I the only one that sees the irony in these two posts? I saw it too. It's not surprising.

QUOTE (zisk @ Oct 30, 2017 -> 12:44 PM) Ozzie was a fine manager besides his love of running his mouth too damn much and quiting on his team before the season was over. FIFY

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 27, 2017 -> 10:18 PM) I never thought the Sox were a laughingstock organization just cause the Sox are located in the great city of Chicago. Cmon. Harry Caray made Chicago his home for decades. Michael Jordan played in Chicago for many years. Gale Sayers. Walter Payton, Dick Butkus, Bobby Hull. Kane. All those Cubs like Williams, Banks and now Bryant. Sox had Bo Jackson come to town. Frank Thomas. Sox won it all in 2005. I don't think it'd be embarrassing at all for Girardi to move onto Chicago. Sure he probably wouldn't do it, but I think it'd be because of the Kenny Williams factor. A true baseball man probably wants nothing to do with Kenny. Aside from that ... Chicago. Anybody's kind of town. Famous or not. It's not the city, it's the team. We are literally the 2nd city's 2nd team. We've been forgotten more times that we've been remembered. All those other things that makes Chicago great like Jordan or the Bears or the Blackhawks or Harry have nothing to do with the Sox. Well, Harry does but how many people outside of this fanbase even remember that he was an announcer for the Sox before the Cubs?

I'm trying to figure out the Mets reference...

Anyone still watching Mr Robot? I started watching the S3 premier last night but only got about halfway through before I had to get to bed. Gonna watch the rest tonight.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 12, 2017 -> 10:56 AM) Someone tell me this Executive Order doesn't just undo all the fighting we've done to prevent Obamacare repeal. What was the point of all of that? Someone smarter than me explain what just happened. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/tru...rder/index.html It sounds like a mixed bag. On one hand, it would allow people more options to buy insurance. The premiums would be lower, but the benefits would be less as well. The problem with that is that it would mean less people paying for Obamacare, which means the people that are still on it would have to pay more to make up the difference.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 11, 2017 -> 02:57 PM) Rape =/= sexual assault. Actually, it is. It's a subset of sexual assault. Not all sexual assault is rape. But all rape is sexual assault.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 11, 2017 -> 03:38 PM) Would you rather have a loved one have a guy she's hanging out with make an unwanted advance or would you prefer that guy drug and rape her? Um, neither? Although you seem to be downplaying what Trump has actually been accused of. He wasn't on a date with these women and just mis-read their signals.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Oct 11, 2017 -> 03:24 PM) You can make an argument without falsely attributing opinions to others. Trump = bad The other guys = sexual deviants. Menaces to society. How do you differentiate between "bad" and "sexual deviant" when they have all been accused of basically the same thing?

Strasburg now expected to start.

QUOTE (whitesoxjr27 @ Oct 9, 2017 -> 10:45 AM) Not sure how to feel about today's game. Watch Jake throw a gem. I could wrong. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 9, 2017 -> 10:54 AM) I guarantee you will be wrong, Jake won't throw a gem. It's Jose vs Max QUOTE (whitesoxjr27 @ Oct 9, 2017 -> 11:06 AM) Thank you for the vote of confidence! QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Oct 9, 2017 -> 12:08 PM) I will bet you a million dollars Jake doesn't throw a gem today QUOTE (whitesoxjr27 @ Oct 9, 2017 -> 12:09 PM) I am NOT betting the house. QUOTE (whitesoxjr27 @ Oct 9, 2017 -> 04:11 PM) I am at work. Does Jake look hittable? QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Oct 9, 2017 -> 04:14 PM) He hasn't given up a single hit today. Not likely to either... QUOTE (whitesoxjr27 @ Oct 9, 2017 -> 04:15 PM) Guess my earlier prediction was right. QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Oct 9, 2017 -> 04:17 PM) Well, except for the whole "throw" part. Q is looking pretty good though... QUOTE (whitesoxjr27 @ Oct 9, 2017 -> 05:33 PM) I am a dumb ass. Why was thinking jake was pitching today? Old age setting in. I thought you were just playing along.

QUOTE (whitesoxjr27 @ Oct 9, 2017 -> 04:15 PM) Guess my earlier prediction was right. Well, except for the whole "throw" part. Q is looking pretty good though...

QUOTE (whitesoxjr27 @ Oct 9, 2017 -> 04:11 PM) I am at work. Does Jake look hittable? He hasn't given up a single hit today. Not likely to either...

QUOTE (maxjusttyped @ Oct 9, 2017 -> 03:06 PM) Chris Sale, with the Red Sox season on the line, against the best offensive team in baseball: 4 IP, 2 H, 1 R, 6 K, 0 BB. FIFY

QUOTE (ptatc @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 01:51 PM) Sure but not living things. They are probably used more to destroy targets and clays more than living things. There are a lot of hunters out there... My point is that guns are one of the few things that we create that has the primary purpose of destroying things. I could probably name 100 other things that can be used to destroy something (drills, bats, hammers, cars, knifes, pencils) but they all have some other primary purpose. Guns simply do not.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 01:37 PM) They only kill if aimed at a living being. When you use them for skeet/trap shooting there is no living being. Tobacco is only used by living being. Firearms have another purpose, tobacco does not. When you boil it down, the only purpose guns have are to destroy things. The reasoning behind wanting to destroy something may change. Hunting, sport, defense, etc... but that is still their sole purpose.