Brock Beauchamp

If a catcher is more than defense-only, they tend to make the MLB squad.

Everyone has had their say and the conversation has descended into bickering. Let's move on from the "99.99% white people" conversation, please. It's going nowhere.

It took me a few seconds to get the real joke. Well done.

I still haven't made it past the first episode, as my wife wasn't feeling well last night so we didn't watch anything. That is unlikely to change, as both Jessica Jones and Man in the High Castle dropped today.

Oh, agreed, I'm just not convinced he's enough to shore up some of the issues I have with the defense/offense alignment the Twins are currently looking at in 2016. Again, I don't have a problem with swapping Berrios + guys for Fernandez, or Kepler + more guys for Fernandez, I'm just not sold on trading both of them. But I don't see how this deal gets done without Berrios in it so I'm basically arguing not to include Kepler. The Twins have enough in the low minors to make this a decent deal for the Marlins without including Kepler. And the point of a Fernandez trade is a "win now, RIGHT NOW" approach. I'd do whatever I could to keep at least one of the guys who will help "WIN NOW". Kepler is one of those guys, IMO.

Yeah, I think Kepler has a really good chance of becoming a 3 WAR-ish, good OBP guy that may be able to contribute as early as this season. I wouldn't cry to see him go but I don't want to trade both of the guys who have a chance to impact the 2016 squad.

I'm not against giving up Kepler as much as I'm against giving up Berrios and Kepler. After the Hicks trade, the Twins are lacking in real outfielders. Kepler looks to be on the upswing. And, as always, the Twins need power arms. Berrios fills that role. Even with Fernandez on the team, the Twins could use another arm who hits the mid-90s (and it's pretty easy to start salivating at the thought of Fernandez/Berrios/May leading a rotation). One is fine, not a fan of trading both.

I haven't really thought about it much but the bolded seems like a reasonable place to start. I'm not sure I'd want to trade Jay right now, as I think his value rises in the coming year... But if the Twins need him in there to get it done, so be it. Maybe Gonsalves instead of Jay? Dunno, I'll leave that kind of nuance to the Twins scouting department.

Like any rational person, I'd love to have Fernandez but even I would balk at Berrios+Kepler+Stuff, especially after the Hicks trade. One or the other (plus other guys), yes... But both, ouch. I'm not sure I can get behind that kind of haul. The Twins farm system goes from "pretty good" to "barren at the upper levels" after that trade.

We can break them into two groups but at this point, I feel every option is on the table. #QuestForTruth

What about the Timberwolves themselves? I feel we're only dancing around the real issue here. What I need to know is whether NBA players are against school shootings.

If one wants to be snarky about it, one could say that out of various American races, white people are some of the people least against school shootings because white people shoot up schools more often than most other races, relatively speaking. Asians? Hell, now they're against school shootings. Virtual 100% lock. Go, Asians! http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s179/Twotimesdown/asian.gif

What about Klingons? Could you be more specific?

They do quite a bit for their communities. Fix roads, restore running water, etc. they often try to restore some of the infrastructure that has been missing for years.

This thread reminded me to watch the first episode. It's one of the finest first episodes of a television shows since... Well, ever.

We shouldn't assume relative peace of today will continue to be the relative peace of tomorrow. It wasn't so long ago when certain Irish elements were, in fact, blowing people up. Context is necessary here. People don't become terrorists for funsies. There has to be a breakdown of society, a complete lack of hope things will improve, and some pretty damned dire circumstances to create such an event. Just because white people aren't suffering from that malady today does not mean they're incapable of the same horrors currently seen in the middle east. There are 1.6b Muslim people on earth, roughly 25% of the entire world's population. The overwhelming majority of them are not blowing people up. Do you also blame the citizens of Rwanda for not stopping the genocide? After all, that's a Christian nation. It's far too easy to shrug off this kind of situation, refer to the populace/religion as "savages", and move on with your day... But, in the end, that accomplishes nothing. Suggesting white people "won't allow" this sort of behavior flies directly in the face of not-very-distant history and implies an inkling of superiority.

I agree but that is through the lens of today's society. It's possible, maybe even likely, the entire western world will be vegan in 200 years and we'll all be considered barbarians for eating the flesh and products of animals. And someone 200 years from now will say "eating the flesh and products of animals has always been wrong".

Yep, enter the "society" argument of my earlier post. Destabilization of a society is the easiest way to remold it into something new, often for malevolent purposes. At times, ISIL puts on a good face and "helps" the citizenry of the Middle East but ultimately, their brand of crazy works best if you scare the **** out of the populace and make them desperate enough to follow you off a cliff.

I disagree, partially because the text and its interpretation is fluid. Today, an increasing number of people are against killing of any kind. I expect the death penalty to be eliminated from America within my lifetime, which would be the last state-sanctioned killing we allow (let's not get into the abortion and "life" vs. "conception" argument here, everyone... That's not the point). Yet just 100 years ago, the death penalty was commonplace and few thought twice about it. 200 years ago... You get the point. If you want to argue the "here and now" interpretation of a religion, I guess we could do that... But even that interpretation is ever on the move and apt to change rather suddenly (see 2005 gay marriage versus 2015 gay marriage).

See, I don't believe that question can be answered. Which faction of Islam are we referencing? What faction of Christianity are we referencing? There are dozens from which to choose and many vehemently disagree on some pretty fundamental things about their respective religions. I firmly believe most people use religion for good, or at least an attempt at what they believe to be good... But inherently, a religion is nothing more than a set of guidelines that individuals use to steer their lives, for both good and bad. I guess my point boils down to "Most people are either inherently good or just want to quietly live their lives." I don't really care about the religion, only what people do with it. And given the wealth of Muslims around the world who aren't blowing up **** and declaring war, I have no reason to think Islam is any different than another religion.

My point was a generalization about religion and society, not specifically Islam and ISIL. I didn't make that clear. My point is that society, religion, and government are products of the individuals that represent them. Islam, or Christianity, is not inherently good or evil. America is not inherently good or evil. Its people - specifically the power brokers - are what define the religion, society, and government. The people choose to follow or they do not. And all three of those things are intertwined. The people of a society take part of the religion and use it for evil. They build a government around these evil ideas. Or vice versa. Maybe they do good with that power instead of evil. That doesn't mean Islam itself is evil. That means the society built up around ISIL is evil and they use the parts of Islam that conveniently line up with their agenda. Or maybe they started with Islam and built the society of evil around it. In the end, it doesn't matter. It's the people we should condemn. Islam, like literally every other religion on the planet - is used for both good and evil; the only difference are the people involved. This argument reminds me of a question I posed to myself years ago but never developed an adequate answer, likely because there isn't an adequate answer: Is the industrialized west more progressive and tolerant than much of the world because of Christianity or is Christianity more progressive and tolerant than much of the world because of the industrialized west? The two things are impossibly intertwined. I don't believe anyone can answer the question earnestly. Nor am I sure the question is worth answering. What matters is the end result and the actions we take to get there.

This is the crux of the situation. Society is corrupting Islam and twisting it for their own benefit. Not unlike what Christianity largely did in Europe for... Oh, I don't know, a millennia. One cannot fully separate the governmental and societal influences from the religion. Both are being leveraged and used to feed off each other in a terrible, destructive way.

I feel Paul and Sanders are complementary pieces of the right and left. Both seem to be good men, though I find Sanders' policy less distasteful overall (some of his ideas... sheesh, pie-in-the-sky stuff).

Yes, this. The right wants to condemn all of Islam while the left wants to talk about how Islam is a religion of peace. Religion is what the people make of it. Most of Islam is peaceful but there's nothing wrong with calling out the sects who promote violence, just as there's nothing wrong with calling out sects of any religion that promote violence.

I don't care for much of Rand Paul's policies but he's a good guy to have in Congress. He's an anti-partisan pot-stirrer who often does what he thinks is right, not what the party thinks is right. We could use a few more Rand Pauls in Congress. Not necessarily Libertarian, just people who put their conscience above party politics.