TheLeviathan

Yeah, you could tell it was a restaurant beforehand. I didn't know about it until I was on my way to Alexandria one time and drove by it. I turned around to make sure I wasn't hallucinating. The Nicollet club was in my (figurative) backyard. I think that lasted like a month.

2 years 20M - I'm on board. And sign Storen too while we're at it.

I was going to ask if he was the one behind the strip club right off of 4....

Point 1: You're hyperbolizing the Gaza blockade. Using this sort of language one could determine that every form of sanction is "starving people to death". Hell, we're starving Russians because of a cyber attack by your logic. How evil are we? Hardship is part of the point, certainly. It's a recourse instead of violence that every country in the world uses when they are threatened but want to weaken their enemy in non-military ways. The Gaza blockade is being done by Israel (and Egypt by the way) because Hamas - a terrorist organization - is using Gaza as a means to attack Israel. The same Hamas that has legitimate authority inside Palestine because the people support them. I'd venture to guess again that if the Gaza Strip and Hamas chose not to fire rockets into Israel they'd lift the blockade. Care to take a guess as to what Hamas promises? More of this. They are entitled to not die. And the people you want to exalt as the victims elected a party that calls Bin Laden a holy warrior, promises Jewish extinction, and other doozies. Do you just not understand what Hamas is? Point 2: the sentence "There are radicals on both sides" sets about to make an equivalency. They DO NOT stink as bad as the other. One seeks genocide, one seeks survival. The survival group does overstep at times. But they never match genocide. Not even remotely. It is total horse *#@^$ to suggest they are as bad as each other. Point 3: This isn't enemy of my enemy, this is recognizing who is the problem. Who is preventing peace. Who is intractable. Who needs to change before anything will happen. Israel could do EVERYTHING you demand and guess what? The other side will still want them dead. I'll try this way: Every now and then someone will retaliate against a racist in a way that I'm sure we'd all condemn, by your same logic now both sides "stink". I guess I view that retaliation as unfortunate,but I can condemn that single act and still recognize that the larger problem isn't somehow balanced by that act. That peace still is impossible because of the racist, not because one racist was retaliated against. Things aren't now equal, I would never now refer to the problem of racism as "both sides stink", if I do I've lost all context. But I'm afraid that is the root issue. I love this video. I have to imagine your average lefty, anti-Israel person, or whomever has such a misguided view of this situation was loving the beginning of it. That it speaks to all of the things you think are true. And then at the end you get a cold dose of reality. That's the reality of this issue. I don't think you fully appreciate what that reaction at the end does to a people. To be surrounded by people that will present themselves as victims and misunderstood but at the end of the day they want to see your whole people die. That they want that. And this wasn't some hardened Hamas jihadist. This was a student in America that isn't afraid to say she hopes Jews will gather to make their extinction easier. This is the sentiment, the stated goal of the elected officials of her government. Process that for a little while and tell me again that a blockade is all that terrible in light of that sentiment.

Fullmer was an injury prone player who was the Mets 7th best prospect. (He was 98th on the 100 list at midseason before being traded) Cessa was 16th, in the Mets system. That's akin to us taking Buehler and Stewart. I would say most people are looking for more of a haul than that.

They didn't wait, they decided to firesale. And they got two pieces back. My point was that it wasn't a "haul" by any stretch.

You? I'm learning I've hung around with a bunch of geezers for like 15 years now....

There is a worrying trend of each administration broadening it's executive power now for about 20 years. Each time the party in office defends it little realizing the power it'll give the other side later. In terms of my concern for fascism in this country, that trend is by far the most worrying aspect. We've allowed too much already.

1) Gaylord - Lacrosse - Chicago - Mundelein - Evanston - Burnsville - New Ulm - Phoenix An elementary school teacher who has worked with kids my entire life in settings most people would run screaming from. Married to a wonderful woman with one amazing kid and another on the way. 2) 30ish 3) Lifer. Game 6 of '91 made it passionate 4) '91's world series. Living in Chicago during our heated rivalry. Dating a White Sox fan during those times. Jim Thome hitting a home run off Matt Thornton at my son's first baseball game (Twins for life, thanks for betting me hun!) Anything Nishioka. 5) Koskie, Knoblauch, Radke 6) I was one of those sad folks who migrated from the ESPN boards to the promised land of BYTO. I begrudingly migrated here when it was burned to the ground in a corporate takeover. 7) It's a daily stop. Lots of long time relationships here, old jokes, old friends, and good content. Really, the discussions here surpass the vast majority of sports message boards. And we go so far beyond that. It's my one stop, talk it out like we're at the bar after work, kind of club.

Gambling on Dozier's streakiness worries me considerably. But I question whether position players are all that valuable any more mid-season. When's the last one significant move? Cespedes? And that wasn't necessarily a "haul". I think off-season is the time to do this and I consider it a mini-disaster if we can't find a way to make that happen. We'll have lost a considerable asset's peak value.

Yes, they have all the power. And they choose to use it only to defend themselves where, if the situation was reversed, they would cease to exist. The point is, no matter who you are, how much power you have, or what you stand for - if you are in a feud where one side refuses to recognize your basic right to exist and will honor no concession or offer peace.....why is it at all your fault? Why, if you are open to talks and concessions and peace but the other side is adamantly intractable and will accept nothing but your complete surrender and death.....why are you the bad guy in that scenario? Why isn't the intractable, violent side the one we're focused on? Because we have such low expectations for them that we've just given up?

Considering no position player has gone for any kind of substantial price mid-season for awhile (that I could find), "longshot" may be generous. If we don't deal him now we're either keeping him for two years and playing out the string or trading him at a much reduced value at some point in the future.

At any point you compare hard line Israel with Hamas is the moment you lose a lot of credibility with me. Those two are not even remotely the same thing. Look, I hate this BS. Let's make this real simple - pick any afflicted group you want in the world. Racists vs. minorities groups. Homophobes vs. LGBTQ. Misogynists vs. Women. Anywhere a group is struggling with another that treats them with contempt, wishes them dead, or wants nothing to do with them other than their subjugation. In other words, there is a violent and intractable side of the pairing. Now put it through this: You to Afflicted Group: Hey, you should really concede some stuff and play nice so we can make peace. AG: Ok! I like peace! So if we do that we'll be able to have meaningful peace and work together? You: Well, no. They have openly stated they'll still hate you. Mostly the meeting is just to get you to concede, there is zero chance they recognize you as valid or accept peace. They'll still want you dead/oppressed. AG: Ok, but this is a good first step right? You: Not really. In fact, more militant parts of their group may even start to violently attack you even for agreeing to the meeting. And then they'll keep attacking you later and blame you for pulling out of the talks and fighting back. AG: ...... You: So you're totally in right? AG: Um...no. You: Well, I guess we know who the real villain is here huh? Peace is a two way street. Until one side is even open to that (they haven't been, not seriously, for 50 to 70 years and counting), then the blame falls on the intractable party not both. Don't get caught up in the details, focus on this: If one side is intractable, they concede nothing, they will not budge from "you will die!" - who is the real problem? You're condemning Israel largely because they are more rational and more open, but not "open enough". It's easier to criticize them, I guess, because they at least present the option of being better. While the other side refuses any compromise or even basic humanity towards the other so you just....ignore them? Make them the victim? How the hell does that make any sense? The settlements are annoying. They make things a bit harder. But they're not even close to the problem. They're just the easier one to get morally high and mighty about.

I would vote "Joe Mauer spontaneously combusting while watching a first pitch strike"

MLBTR took a few comments from LEN and extrapolated that he thinks it's a 1:1 deal. His actual article doesn't suggest it at all.

And that's fair, but I guess my question is - what does it gain them? The international community goes after them no matter what they do. The other side doesn't treat any concession as a step forward. So why would they bother? Just for their own moral conscience? I don't think people really take the intractability of the Arab side of this as seriously as they should. Or they've never really considered how impossible that makes the situation.

That is not what I said. That's what you want to characterize me as saying so that you can argue it. Makes it easier for you I'm sure. At least four times I've expressed regret with Israel's actions. They are too hardline. Their settlements are problematic for peace. They will need to stop in order for peace to happen. All of that is true and yet I still sympathize with them. Because no matter what they do, or attempt to do, they are the bad guy for Europe and many on the left in this country. They just want to exist and everyone around them wants them either dead or gone and somehow they are the problem. They have demonstrated the willingness and commitment to peace and yet you doubt them and exalt those that call for their death. You look past the declarations of genocide to concoct equivalencies based on speculation. You want to fault them for not compromising with people who clearly and explicitly state no desire to compromise. To, in fact, deny their compromise and kill them anyway. Do I want Israel to stop their settlements? Sure. But what good will it do? What has any concession by Israel accomplished for them? What does history tell us they will reap for their actions?

The very same article you quoted also substantiates several of his claims. (And refutes others) Whether he's speaking the truth or not, I don't know. It was an interesting perspective. The AP rejecting the claims is par for the course, not all that surprising. "complete pass" - good lord. Denying the history of this conflict as part of the current narrative? Now that's odd. And probably worthy of other, stronger adjectives.

They offered, initially, to pull back ALL settlements. They were rejected on these grounds: "no to recognition. no to negotiation. no to peace" It's not a characterization at all. It's a statement of fact. Hamas continues to say such things, a simple google search will give you some real doozies. Elected officials in Palestine. Not just random extremists by the way. Not speculation. Real people in real seats of power. And that's to say nothing of the larger Arab states that use the Palestinians as pawns for leverage that say the same.

All of this is true, but all attempts made previously were rejected. So how long do you keep slamming your head against a brick wall? Even if the current Israeli regime is far too hardline themselves, what difference does it make? Until that wall softens, what's the point? Compromise and peace have to be a two way street with willingness on both sides to see the outcome desired. Israel regimes have come and gone with varying degrees of willingness, what hasn't changed is the other half of the equation. So I'd grant that right now things are hopeless because both sides are obstinate, it hasn't always been that way. And I don't totally fault the Israelis for eventually saying "screw it, these guys won't even try"

You're still guessing. You're countering facts with speculation. We know what Hamas believes. We know they have a large footing inside the Palestinian government. So to use nick's example, we shouldn't judge America by the KKK. It's a small group with no power and influence. But if the KKK held 40% of the seats in Congress....well then perhaps it should make a sizable difference in our opinion. No? Dug up some nice pieces from the Atlantic. Worth reading and questioning your basis in what you believe. As for your last post - Israel was settling the Sinai Peninsula after they took it in battle. When Egypt called asking for peace they deconstructed their settlements and withdrew. They made the same offers to others and were told the "three nos". Their peace with Egypt has maintained, in good faith. As one would expect considering both sides want it. So we know that when Israel seeks peace and agrees to it, they have been true to it. Is this some kind of exception? That only with Egypt is peace possible? Time and time again their efforts for peace have been met with rejection. You're asking them to compromise with no return. To compromise with those you are conceding to telling you "Thanks, but we still plan to kill you" What an absolutely bizarre demand to place on someone. And then to villify them when they don't do it? Incomprehensible.

Good lord, you should be ashamed of this post. "Probably"? That isn't something you need to guess at. I don't have to guess at the proliferation of extremism on one side, so if you're going to suggest it is equally (or even remotely) balanced....perhaps you should attempt to establish that?

It's a false equivalency though. Israel has demonstrated, repeatedly, willingness to seek peace and make concessions. Their treaty with Egypt, in which they withdrew settlements in exchange for peace, has largely worked well. It has kept peace and Israel stayed true to their word. So has Egypt. But for those in Egypt that signed it? Kicked out of the Arab League and Sadat assassinated. Imperialism, comparing the construction of settlements to genocide, supporting the demonstrably more violent side in an effort to "make a difference" - this is just absurdity. And frankly, stinks of ulterior motives than looking at truth and facts to make a decision. What that stink of I've never been able to put my finger on, but it stinks. Facts and history tell us which "side" of this has been more reasonable, more willing to compromise, and more forthright in seeking peace. Until the other side matches that and calls off violence, I can't support that side, even if I sympathize with their plight and wish them to be treated well. They need to do more to seek peace first and foremost.

I would encourage you to look up Hamas, things they stand for, things they've said. Then I'd encourage you to look up how much of the Palestinian leadership/governing body is compromised by them. This article, while not perfect, also might help.

The Camp David summits, at least according to reports, fell apart because of Palestinian leadership. Even as all of the Gaza Strip and 95% of the West Bank were offered to them. Clinton felt Israel was committed to a solution and Arafat was the problem. The global community has demonstrated no willingness to see this process fairly. And I often wonder when this issue comes up if people are actually forming an opinion based on reality or just shuffling to their side. For example, if the situations were flipped exactly as they are now but with Palestine being surrounded by Jewish enemies, would people stay on the same sides they are now or flip? I get the impression that those that support Israel, largely, would no matter the facts. And the same is true for the reverse. For me it has nothing to do with anything other than that juxtaposition I offered earlier. I side with the group who is only fighting to exist, not the side that openly seeks the non-existence of the other.