PseudoSABR
-
Posts
6,120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by PseudoSABR
-
Charting The Competition: Chicago White Sox
PseudoSABR replied to Nick Nelson's topic in Twins Daily Front Page News
Something that's been overlooked and will play out significantly is the Twins have way better depth both in the rotation and on the field to deal with injury, failure, and regression. -
Through the Fence: Sluggers' Gala 2/12/16
PseudoSABR replied to Bob Sacamento's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
I think observers might be drawing the conclusion based only on observable work habits within the Fort Meyer's facility.- 20 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- byungho park
- oswaldo arcia
- (and 2 more)
-
Look who's being floated:
-
You're not observing anything. You're reading into the use of exclamation marks, for chirstsakes. For instance, I'm sadden by Scalia's passing, but thrilled that his ideology is off the court! It's a low blow and totally undeserved by ChiTown
-
Right Obama will nominate someone like Judge Sri Srinivasan (who in 2013 was confirmed to the DC Circuit 97-0) or Judge Merrick Garland (though he's in his 60s) both have conservative credentials but are known for being non-ideological. As you suggest, the Republicans could play this very poorly.
-
Sad for Scalia's family. I think Obama nominates someone like Sri Srinivasan (who was confirmed 97-0 to the DC circuit; he was bush's solicitor general, but is said to be non-ideological). The Republicans could really overplay blocking a moderate choice and hurt themselves in the general election. Although I didn't like Scalia's politics or his attitude, he's purpose the most influential justice of this generation.
-
I think the quest for "real" solutions is just another way of kicking the can down the road and doing nothing. There's real possibility that all we can do is approach the problem with incremental regulations/laws, and play the long game on shifting the gun culture. That's probably all we got. I'm certainly not holding my breath for an epiphany.
-
What unintended consequences could possibly outweigh saving even one life? You're going to have to be specific if you're going to convince me of your sincerity here.
-
Oh okay. We'll take your word on that one.
-
However small, it matters. Quit trivializing small gains - when those gains are, you know, human lives. It's a despicable argument that's being made here.
-
1) You're not sorry. 2) Any amount that such measures are effective - HOWEVER MINIMAL - saves lives. If the time in between bullets, reloads and gun switches is increased it saves lives. If one gun does not get in the hands of someone who should not have them it saves lives. The only reason you are (or anyone is) underwhelmed is because you're being intentionally obtuse about how important even the smallest difference makes. We don't give up the good for the perfect. We need not solve all gun violence in order to take measures that actually save lives.
-
What the heck is realistic? I think that point is couched within the let's do nothing argument. There's been plenty of plausible solutions that although wouldn't eradicate gun violence, would make it more difficult for potential mass-murderers from accruing an arsenal. Any added difficulty potentially saves lives. It's going to take a process - one legal and one cultural. From background checks, to closing loop holes, to placing sensible restrictions on semi-automatics and magazine sizes, to restrictions on quantity as well. And as you've suggested liability for the gun manufacturers. There's also possible solutions through technology (like guns that can only be fired by the actual purchaser). The only thing that keeps any of these solutions from being realistic is the recalcitrance of gun owners and their lobby.
-
You don't punish the team because they are culpable in the actual act. You punish the team because you want to make it each team's duty to investigate the possibility of steroids use and to educate against it. Those teams that end up having players that test positive could be guilty of not acting with due diligence (i.e. outright player defiance and subterfuge would not implicate them).
-
Well, don't be shy.
-
In fact Congress has worked in the opposite direction when they passed this: I do agree, the gun company's need skin the game to incentivize their involvement in the solution to the problem.
-
Baseball America's Top 100 Prospects
PseudoSABR replied to Seth Stohs's topic in Twins Minor League Talk
http://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/top-100-prospects/ Buxton - 2 Berrios - 28 Kepler - 30 -
Your instincts are just right. The government can't make you buy potatoes and they can't make you buy insurance. But they can tax you. The truth is the current system gives you a choice - freedom to - (1) pay a tax/fine (2) buy any insurance of your choosing. The way the rest of civilized earth does it provides no choice at the cost of paying less. Let's remember Obamacare is born out of the Heritage Foundation's think-tank. On healthcare. We live in a democracy and we decided that healthcare should be more robust. On the subject of the morality of healthcare; I absolute think morality holds accountable how we treat the weak highest of all. If your religion teaches you different, I guess bully for you. On marriage. You dare to complain about *literally* how you cannot limit the freedom of others to marry, and yet center your argument on the complaint about your supposed infringements of freedom? It seems you believe in line-drawing just fine, and have no problem restricting the freedoms of others when it suits your beliefs.
-
That sounds like politics - to make a point, rather than pass a law. It is true that many liberals think guns in the home is generally a bad idea, but we also value being reasonable people. So we negotiate. I don't know Senator Moynihan's politics, but looks like he's marking the goal post, rather than the fifty yard line--the spot where the deal gets done. Such a strategy is akin to the conservative/NRA no more gun-control laws what-so-ever mantra, which, of course, is equally--and pervasively--a nonstarter.
-
No one's forcing you to buy anything. Keep your freedom and pay the fine/tax. You have a choice, just like driving or not driving (if you don't like having car insurance). We are obligated to pay taxes and fines throughout our society; and we debate how we should spend those taxes, but tax-obligations really don't implicate your freedom. If we had universal health insurance, there would be no mandate, it would simply be a tax--so you must prefer that solution because it doesn't implicate your freedom as much? As for guns there's always been restrictions on what we can legally own, buy and sell. Just because you want to buy your very own nuclear submarine doesn't mean that society should just let you enact your second amendment rights in such way. There's always been line-drawing in regard to fundamental rights whether it's speech, hand guns, or the right of privacy. Conservatives and liberals debate about where the line should be, but no one in their right mind suggests there shouldn't be a line, or some reasonable restrictions on how we enable our rights.
-
He's all but said so. Earlier, it looked like he might be within reach of Rubio, and although he made ground (as compared to the polls), even he sees he's out. It's too bad though because it would have been fun to see him "prosecute" Trump or Cruz.
-
Bernie and Trump look to win by double digits. Kasich looks to finish second. Rubio looks to finish fifth (though he's close enough to overtake Cruz and Bush). (Maybe there was something to the Marco Robot criticism other than just media forcing the story?) The Republicans are in a scrum, and I don't see many dropping out beyond Fiorina and (maybe) Carson. I don't think Kasich will do so well in heavily evangelical states like South Carolina, where Carson could do considerably better. There won't be clarity in either race until at least Super Tuesday.
-
Why outsource your opinion to Limbaugh? Watch the segment for yourself.
-
Before the debate Saturday, I would have agreed; but I think the scripted Robot criticism sticks to him, and he won't be able to rise above the other establishment candidates to stop either Trump or Cruz. Honestly, the Republican nomination may not be decided until the convention...
-
http://i.imgur.com/cJ6pDMq.jpg
-
Via Marco Rubio Glitch
