fatbeer

You just insulted me personally in case you don't get it. Sorry for disagreeing with your politics.

when you call mitt romney immoral for giving to charity your calling me immoral, and i'm going to take that personally. You got that? Or is that to difficult to understand in the era of andrea mitchell and msnbc? It does not give you license to insult another poster. Period. End of discussion. Have I made myself clear enough yet? Nice bold cap locks post to a response to a 4 day old post. There is no personal insult that would be good enough to describe what you just did. WOW. Grow up.

I might not trade him to the Cubs because of that reason, but I would trade him to the Cardinals Yankees or Dodgers among others without worrying about that. The key is making the trade during the offseason when it really doesn't inconvenience him or his family. By the way are there any examples of teams that have traded a guy like this at the deadline in his first season of a contract?

You could trade him next year at the deadline, but I don't know what an over the hill guy hitting .252 with 13 HR's at the deadline gets you, and it isn't really safe to expect anything more from him. All we need is one team to think he can repeat this year that isn't the Twins and we should get an offer worth taking.

One of the main reasons Gary Johnson didn't vote for a lot of those things is because he wasn't a member of congress. The list of people who have been in congress and voted the way I would like on fiscal matters is limited to pretty much Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul, and Bachmann is so flawed in other ways she's not worth discussing. The "Tea Party" was born in spring of 2009 and created a new era of Republicans which Paul Ryan seems to fit in. I have always been on board with "Tea Party" principals, but it took a really safe district or a lot of courage to take a "Tea Party" vote that would not change an outcome prior to 2009.

No High school or small colleges allowed stadium?

Single source news will never get you anywhere. Romney's ideas can not be held up for scrutiny because he proposes nothing concrete. The mainstream media portrays Ryan's plans as what they are. The debate over them is minimal as he is in a minimal position at this point. Romney after stating he was for the Ryan budget plan has backed off. Vagueness is Romney. Are Matt Lauer and Wolf Blitzer a single source? Pro Obama guest are no longer being allowed to get away with spewing talking points and moving on.

Considering they didn't trade him because of the 3 year deal I wish it was a 1 year deal. I'm sure he'll be alright next year, but he's one injury away from batting .230 with 5 HR's the rest of his career. Been fun to watch but winning games this year doesn't matter.

Soucheray seems really close to retirement and Reusse is only going to work until he dies and I have a feeling he has himself in death pool. After that the station is just old KFAN sidekicks who are great in that role or when the main host takes a day off, but don't really work 5 days a week. There's room in the middle of the day for political talk, but going against Rush Limbaugh that probably will never happen. Nobody will ever live up to Soucheray in Reusse in their prime. They were the last ones to have a decent sense when people cared and when people would rather hear about the prior nights dog walk or dinner Reusse coming in on the 4th of July because of a hockey story was classic. 2 sports stations in this town could have worked, but the last two years of sports made it real tough.

It's amazing how much the mainstream media is turning on Obama in the last few days. Probably because they know whats in Romneys tax returns and are sick of the Democrats trying to make that a story.

Macky is easily tolerable if you had no option but KFAN for 15 years. I'm still waiting for the first time Paul Allen comes up with an intelligent thought that he didn't steal from someone else.

The conventional wisdom is that Romney has hurt himself by not releasing more years. If you think insistence on the issue hurts Dems, fine, but the poll numbers don't seem to support that. And Reid and Pelosi aren't running for President so it doesn't matter in this presidential race if they put out more returns. Romney has been effectively hurt by the issue but continues to refuse to divulge more tax returns to the American public (while requiring his potential VPs to divulge more to him). That suggests that his undisclosed tax returns show even more tax shelters or other issues that wouldn't sit well with many voters. He's hurt by it because thats the angle of the lefts attack. But were not talking about what has been done, we're talking about what is happening now. Poll numbers can not reflect anything but the past, and in my opinion the Democrats are only hurting themselves. His tax records will be very similar to those he's already released, the left will have fun with that and it's to close to the election to allow that. The left asked for his tax records, he released them, and ever since the momentum from that ended the left has been asking for more daily. His dad released several years when he ran for president and if he ended up becoming president I might care. Why doesn't Warren Buffet pay his secretary a fair wage? Not releasing them at this point will not make one reasonable voter assume he doesn't pay taxes, the lefts spin might sway a few undecideds. I think when we ignore the charitable givings we're left with two choices. Lobby the heck out of Obama to ban charitable givings from lowering taxes, or admit your to partisan for your opinion to mean anything.

When Mitt Romney sits down in front of his computer and registers on Twins Daily, I'll worry about political cheap shots sent across his bow. When you call Mitt Romney immoral for giving to charity your calling me immoral, and I'm going to take that personally. You got that? Or is that to difficult to understand in the era of Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC?

Don't worry I understand. Political cheap shots are OK, calling someone out on them is not OK. The discussion was about charitable giving not the mormon church. I understand people want to project a boogieman image on Mitt Romney, but you have to expect when people from your side use the word immoral a significantly less insulting word might be used in response.

Speaking of rubechat I got the ban for complaining about Dubay calling someone a drunk about three weeks before his first arrest. I guess when you know how right a person it's tough to deal with.

Gotta love the classless left. You people don't know how to hide your true colors. Pseudo stated it pretty plainly. The Mormon Church is a better run business than most actual businesses. Their net worth is outrageous. If anything, that's a compliment, not an insult. But go ahead and feign outrage if it makes you feel better about it. Calling charitable giving immoral is impossible to let slide. Don't insult me by saying my feelings are fake.

I like the fact that the guy that wants to ban me joined in the political discussion. Thats pretty tacky.

Calling someone immoral for giving money to charity of course isn't calling someone a name. It's kind of pathetic what is tolerated and what isn't, but sorry man. I figured saying the name of a certain political parties mascot was OK. And just for clarification "all over these forums" must mean something different to you then me because I would have seen it before at some point if it was all over these forums. What is this place rubechat?

The man gives to charity huge amounts of money to causes outside of his church. Call him immoral again you classless partisan ass.

Pretty significant movement towards Romney on intrade today for whatever thats worth.

Gotta love the classless left. You people don't know how to hide your true colors.

Nate Silver sees Obama's chances at over 70 percent. I just don't see how the math works in Romney's favor. Obama will need to have a serious gaffe in order for Romney to win. If you go by current polling the 70% figure is reasonable. Of course a pollster has a tough time figuring out turnout so a 3 or 4% swing from polls is not all that uncommon. I'd say Obama is in the lead but the wind is at Romneys back.

How do we enforce personal responsibility? How far are you willing to go? People in the streets? Starvation at some halfway house? Duct tape and spit as a safety net? How grizzly should we allow our human ethics grow to teach people this lesson? (Poor people, just try harder! Learn some personal responsibility! Or else!) Assuming you are able bodied and mentally competent I'm willing to go real far. Capable People live in the streets by choice. Go to your nearest church and start sweeping the floors, go to an AA meeting work on your problem and start sweeping the floors, go to a hard working mom and watch her kids, or apply for a job in your area of expertise, taco bell is always hiring. Poor people in this country are rich by all global standards.

This is where I really, really think Ryan will isolate the majority of his own political base. Even the most conservative Christian right-wingers see taking care of those who truly cannot take care of themselves as vital. Meanwhile the suggestions Romney paid no taxes keep on coming, while ignoring his charitable givings. It's my moral obligation to help others, not my legal obligation. The left doesn't understand the difference. Charitable givings are nice but after you deduct how little he paid in taxes that normal Americans have to pay (and the many tax shelters he has available to him), it's likely that his taxes + charitable giving is still a lower % than what most Americans give over. But the point of his tax returns isn't that he's some wealthy prick (well, not completely the point). In an era of tough economic times, wouldn't we all be better off with a discussion on the economic disparity that different classes of Americans face? Everyone knows that the rich get treated better by our system but I don't think many people understand just how much better. The former Dodgers owners never paid income tax because of all the tax loopholes in the system. We have a presidential candidate that hides a lot of his money in foreign accounts and, under the Ryan budget, would have paid less than 1% in taxes. Money has made it nearly impossible for normal Americans to run for Congress. Money from a handful of very rich people may have a determinative effect on all elections going forward, heck one person kept Newt Gingrinch's presidential run alive long after republican voters had left him. Money may lead to many Americans being disenfranchised by voter id laws and gerrymandering. Discussing the role of money and the differences among the classes of Americans is a good thing. Shining a light on Romeny's actions can help with that conversation. At this point what helps Rommney more? Releasing 10 more years of tax returns that are similar to his first returns released so we can have discussions of Warren Buffet's underpaid secretary's tax rate, or letting Harry Reid and the Democrats in general make complete jerks (can I say the word I want to say on this site) of themselves? We saw the charitable givings on the original tax return, it was huge, and the left ignored it. As for the discussion about the rich being treated better by our tax system system I'm pretty sure there are a lot of rich Democrats including those running for office. If the Democrats want to have that discussion then it starts with Reid Palosi and Obama releasing 20 years of tax returns. See how that game works?

This is where I really, really think Ryan will isolate the majority of his own political base. Even the most conservative Christian right-wingers see taking care of those who truly cannot take care of themselves as vital. Meanwhile the suggestions Romney paid no taxes keep on coming, while ignoring his charitable givings. It's my moral obligation to help others, not my legal obligation. The left doesn't understand the difference.