PseudoSABR

And the personal insults keep on coming. I hear a rumor thats not allowed. He's calling the comparison stupid; it's up to the rest of us to make the inference about you.

Why do you care what the Pohlads spend their dough on? I couldn't care less. Looking at what Boston got back, I'm glad the Twins kept Justin. I'd like to see him get a reasonable extension and spend his entire career as a Twin. If the Twins want to keep him, they should work on it now, because Morneau will have a big season next year. Loyalty is often thrust upon the player as a responsibility, how about management taking a turn? Justin could age gracefully into full time DH duties, and provide a good bat in the middle of the lineup for years to come. I was being sarcastic.

Morneau for Lester this offseason?

Yep. It'd be nice to see someone have the courage to cross the aisle and sit down with an opposing individual and have a real conversation about how to fix the social system. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in this political climate. Everyone is too busy drawing dividing lines in the sand so they can appeal to their base without looking "weak", as if approaching a situation and attempting to compromise with the other side in improving this country is "weak". It should be viewed as just the opposite but that's not the world we live in. Many have, in fact, they're built into every title II or title XVI program. You work, you still get some benefits. The problem is that there is little to no money going toward those who have to provide the excess training to the uneducated and/or working disabled, so employers have minimal incentive to hire that person and promote them, especially when a simple cart-pusher at Wal-mart working part time costs that Wal-mart store over $2,000 just to hire, drug test, and train, and then they could just not enjoy the job and leave. It's much, much worse if there are any provided health/vacation benefits with willingness to bring on someone who is actively using something like Vocational Rehabilitation Services. My job for nearly a decade now has focuse in one way or another with finding employment for different marginalized groups (DD and mental health primarily), and I get no incentive for placing someone, the rules to claim any payment from the federal or state funds for the training I do provide are ridiculous, and employers simply do not want to hire someone working with a job coach. These are interesting insights. Thanks.

Buying low on Jon Lester seems like a good idea to me. he's got a babip 30 points above last year, while his xFIP is exactly the same.

I'm also mad at Terry Ryan for not selling low on Morneau! He could have saved some money! Mar!

He gave up a homerun (I wonder what the pitch was). Otherwise he was still pretty superhuman.

Thieves aren't terribly bright, as I recently learned. Had my iPad stolen from my house and the dumbasses didn't realize that iPads have a built-in tracking function. An hour later, I was at their house with the cops. I saw that an fb. That's hilarious. My buddy's Laptop was stolen last year, and the cops managed to get that too. It's awesome when the law works. Were the thieves kids? Just curious.

Or don't try to lie about following two teams. If the car is gf's aunt's, then say she's a scumbag Indian fan.

The posts I wrote a week ago? Oh right. I admitted to that hyperbole, but the most recent exchange of posts have (I assumed) been about my post yesterday, where I tried to be thoughtful and resisted hyperbole, even if I was snarky. I'm not stopping discourse from happening, in fact, another poster took the time to respond to each of my points.You've spent three or four posts trying to shame me; I'd say it's you who's being pathetic. What's your angle? My posts generated the admission. My angle was to call you out for the pompous fallacy of belittling jocko when, to that point, your contributions had bee slimy moral high-horse grandstanding with an insulting string of hyperbole. Pot calling the kettle black. Don't present yourself as some moral beacon with nonsense like that. I don't hate the welfare system in the name of tax breaks or hating the lazy. I want it gone because it is eating away at the middle class. You have no moral highground and should be ashamed for the insulting manner in which you tried to present that you did. Carry on with diehard to your hearts content. Pot calling the kettle black. Pot calling the kettle black. Say it enough times, one becomes exempt I guess. Apologies to everyone witnessing this thread, for the current petty exchange. I think we're all better than it.

He also seems like a loyal friend. Welcome aboard, Roger!

Nice first post. As much as the Twins medical staff seems to leave much to be desired; it's hard for me to believe that their culpability is so obvious or so legitimate, and that the Twins would be so willfully ignorant and stubborn to stick with an ineffective staff out of some myopic notion of loyalty.

Development. In lower stake games, it's easier to work on your game without worrying about results. Players like Dozier and Hendricks might be examples of players promoted too quickly...

The posts I wrote a week ago? Oh right. I admitted to that hyperbole, but the most recent exchange of posts have (I assumed) been about my post yesterday, where I tried to be thoughtful and resisted hyperbole, even if I was snarky. I'm not stopping discourse from happening, in fact, another poster took the time to respond to each of my points.You've spent three or four posts trying to shame me; I'd say it's you who's being pathetic. What's your angle?

Did ya miss RP and I? You were welcome to weigh in, instead the bulk of your remarks have been moral high-horse crap about people dying in the streets. Like I said this reflects the national conversation. Well meaning people get nowhere because yhou hyperventilate about nonsense to take false moral superiority. That smug grandstanding not only contributes nothing it derails the conversation. You're disingenuously mischaracterizing my position, and I don't really get why. Reread my post, there's nothing about people in the streets. But whatever. Diehard had no problem taking my post seriously.

One would think that Nishi will want to go back to Japan next year, rather than waste away in the minors. So the Twins will probably save that money.

I'm not the only one using that phrase. Obviously, there's hyperbole on all sides. But I don't see much in the terms of counter pointing that harsh assessment. Well, what would you do about the illegitimately needy? Like I said, I'm not seeing much to combat the hyperbole from the libertarian side. (FWIW, I took out the last line of my post.)

diehard, thanks for being thoughtful and thorough in responding, but it will take me a couple of days to retort.

You know, I would've responded to your whole post - but this just rubs me wrong. I respect your opinion Psuedo, but seriously, screw this smug nonsense. You know what really stands in the way of smart policy and fixing this process? The left's Mrs. Lovejoy impression every damn time this conversation comes up. That we're going to "dump" people "in the streets" and duct tape, spit, starvation, and other BS. This claptrap is what stops the conversation from ever happening in the first place. Hell, in this little space of the interweb your shrill nonsense derailed the conversation and it is the perfect microcosm of the national debate. Someone says "Medicaid reform" and the left-wing can't wait to start running ads about the elderly being shoved off cliffs by fat-cats. I could give similar examples of college financial aid, school funding, social security, and just about any other welfare program. You want a smart conversation? Put down the damn bunny and the gun you have to it's head and let's talk. You and other of your political persuasion are what is stopping this from happening by your own version of "oh so you want the terrorists to win?" response to a perfectly pertinent question. (Iraq war, just for the record) As a libertarian I can look you in the eye and honestly say I have the same intentions. What you can't do in return is honestly say you mean to discuss them. The drivel you tried to pass as arguments in this thread alone show your real intent. I, and I think most other libertarians at least, are ready for that conversation. It's you and the rest of the Lovejoys that have to back off so we can have it. Look, I am absolutely trying to rub Jocko the wrong way, not you--that's where the tone is coming from. I am being smug (and I do take some pleasure in the irony of 'laziness' motif). If you want to bring some integrity to the conversation why don't you practice it? Sorry, if I don't take your offense seriously, when you whip smugness right back at me and let Jocko's smugness slide. Lovejoys? Drivel? I mean, come on, dude.

Great news. It's nice to see the Twins willing to bite the bullet on their mistakes.

I normally don't really care for Sully, but I think his recent take on Paul Ryan (and libertarianism) might coincide with some poster's here. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/paul-ryan-vs-fiscal-conservatism.html A blip:

Look, it's insulting to characterize people who disagree with your viewpoint as pure talking points. I get beliefs from my experience with people, not from the radio (as one former BYTO poster once accused me). I don't need to drag out my own experience (if you're actually curious, PM me), but I've rarely encountered people who truly need to be cut off and who through mentorship and opportunity don't desire to try hard, to acquire work ethic, to be a productive member of a community. Seriously, even the people with the poorest attitudes can become motivated under the right circumstances. That fact that some people rise from poverty to achieve success is notable speaks to its rarity. People rarely escape poverty without some outside assistance; I think it's absurd to suggest that such people are testaments to the fact the everyone can overcome poverty. There's something really disconnected in your analysis of why people fail or why people choose to fail if you believe that children aspire to live on welfare. Seriously. No one aspires to live on welfare, especially children. (Of course there are people who see such few options for themselves, that they see welfare as the best path for their life, which is sad, not blame-worthy). I understand your point about normalizing welfare-lifestyle, but your solution (or non-solution) is just lazy. We have the history of civilization to tell us what happens when the poor and incapable are left to their own means. You get the plague. I mean are you actually imagining what urban environments would look like without social welfare? I don't think you're following your thought experiment to any arduous end; you somehow assume that pain and misery of poverty-stricken children will suddenly result in them trying harder at their underfunded and poorly-instructed classes, that some how seeing their parents and themselves go without food and healthcare will teach them the value of some good ole fashion work ethic. Again, imagine what wide-spread poverty looks like. There are places in the world and instances throughout history where you can see the ends of your philosophy. Despite how you try to characterize my point of view, I'm not some dumb flower-kissing hippy. I don't want people to mooch, and I understand their tendency to do so. I think we can create efficacious welfare to work programs if we have 1) the funding 2) the policy 3) the jobs on the otherside. If simple laziness were indeed the root of why people grow dependent on welfare we'd see jobs going unfilled and a premium on motivated workers, which would result in higher wages. But of course, that's not the case. At the base of your assumption is that there are indeed enough jobs to employ all of the people who are welfare which is a total and obvious falsehood. Another silly assertion that libertarians like to proffer is that if we simply cut taxes on businesses, we'd suddenly have enough jobs to employ everyone. This is something I've asserted before, but we could cut taxes to zero and businesses would still not come to America for it's low-skilled labor. Our standard of living and hence our labor is far too expensive to compete in free world market. It will always be cheaper and more profitable to build a plant in Indonesia because their labor is cheaper (both because of economy there and the lack of civil rights and worker rights). What is more slippery is how do you decide who needs help legitimately and who does not? I'm pretty sure that welfare programs try to do this, but with what success, I'm not sure. Even if we can decide who the illegitimate needy are, what happens to such people? Pretty soon you're breeding criminals, because desperate people do desperate things. I agree there's illegitimate needy people, but I think they are such a small percentage, that we can regard such people as sunk cost. A broken dish in a restaurant, to run out a dehumanizing metaphor. Any effective welfare-to-work program will involve fraud, and needs to guard itself against defiant people, but we can't simply get rid of the programs because they might be abused. We all agree let's help people who need it and avoid creating a system that breeds ineffectual citizens. We all agree with that. But what I am not seeing from you is ideas of how welfare-to-work might operate. In fact I'm seeing zero ideas from you, just in your words, libertarian talking points. Which strikes me as lazy. (To Levi's credit, he's willing to get nuts and bolts about how to fix it, and what we find is that we often agree at what kind of welfare mechanism we'd like to see). The libertarian policy is no policy. Again, which is damn lazy. There's hard work to do on social welfare, but your philosophy contributes zero to real-world workable solutions. You stand in the way. What I find so offensive is that you also seem so lazy in your analysis of why people fail and how people become lazy and what the day-to-day living on welfare is really like. I don't think you've spent a lot of time thinking about the roots of failure, when and where it happens, the psychology of it; much less, how to break people out of the attitudes of failure. Again, no one wants to simply give a man a fish, we want to teach a man to fish; but the process of teaching/training is complicated, especially in terms of the unwilling or the broken, but it's totally within our capacity to design such policy and to people it with individuals who can get the job done. We need smart, tough policy. Not railing against the idea of public policy (government) in general.

This

I am so bloody sick and tired of reading this line or something like it on the forums. The Minnesota Twins were the most consistently successful small market team of the 2000s. They made the playoffs more often than not and while they struggled in the postseason, overall they posted one of the better records in all of baseball for the decade. So why shouldn't we have a little faith in the front office? Because the team had two awful seasons? Because of that, we should ignore the entire decade the preceded it? Jesus... People around here need to step off the ledge and take in a little perspective. Yes, the Twins are bad right now but their farm system is on the rebound and help is on the way. They have a solid core of young-ish players. They have money to spend. Stop cherry-picking the past two years of horrible baseball and ignoring the ten years that came before it. +1.

Seth, Pelosi might be a gun-ho Democrat (she was speaker of the house, dude); she's hardly as extreme as Michele Bachman. Maybe you should pay more attention.