TheLeviathan

I don't mind Sano playing third either, but the point is - you can better utilize your talents if a guy whose only skill appears to be taking walks isn't playing 1B for you.

Absolutely, I wanted us to spend money. I've also never been shy to share what I would do, sometimes it's been horribly wrong. Last offseason I was pretty much batting 1.000, but that's rare. Either way, I'm not paid to get these decisions right. Ryan is. And he's been getting them wrong for awhile now. You, under the guise of optimism, were setting unfair expectations for our prospects. You can search my posts, you'll never find me advocating rushing prospects or predicting MVP awards for second year players, or any of that. I preach patience because that's usually most fair. But there need be no Light Side/Dark Side. I'd prefer just being fair - that means when it's time to criticize, you do. When it's time to be reasonable/understanding - you do.

If Sano had been moved to 1B we may be watching Polanco play third or short. His OBP is nice, but not nice enough for a 1B.

No more or less than before is my response to the question. Surprise me again Twins, that's all I can hope for.

Personally, I like Mauer. I just wish he'd retire. (And not because of the money...)

It seems like speech stealing is just a thing. The weird part is them all being in denial about it.

I was also on the Fowler bandwagon. But I wanted him for CF/RF with Sano at 3B, I'm still convinced that's a possibility. But the OF was beyond stupid, no matter whether he ended up at 3B or DH.

Park isn't a problem by itself, but as part of a completely foolish plan for the roster it is a huge problem. I want anyone that green-lit the Sano to OF move sacked and I still have the feeling that Molitor was against it. He certainly never seemed in love with it.

No, but we should judge them by the sum of their actions, good and bad. Unfortunately, things have been trending "bad" by and large from drafting, roster decisions, free agent signings, and on and on.

You were among those most vocal about the "next year" stuff for quite some time. At some point, you have to accept how things are likely to play out and this team would have to improve by 10-15 games next year just to be .500, much less a playoff team. This team, at best, should be hoping to go back to being a .500 team on the rise next year. And all those unmovable contracts are Ryan's fault. Would it surprise anyone if he refused to concede that they were mistakes and the team was further away than he thought? It'd match his rhetoric all year long and he's never been one to admit/reverse a mistake until it's well past the point of harming the team. Hopefully we will be dumping some of these guys, this 25 man roster needs serious turnover, regardless of who oversees it happening.

Yeah, it's not even clear what he was trying to say, but it's safe to say that whatever it was....was stupid as hell at best, wildly racist at worst.

Barnum and Bailey would be proud of this convention.

I know I'm in the minority being ok with Molitor staying....but you still don't say that right now. That's just dumb.

If we offer it to Mauer...ya think he'd retire and take it? Just trying to kill two birds with one stone.

Wow...we're sure the source isn't The Onion right? Wow.

I feel like our difference can be summed up like this: You: "We need to reform Islamic practice to be what it really is about (peace, dignity)" Me: "We need to reform Islamic practice to better respect peace and dignity" For me, I'd rather convince people of what is important and have them align their faith. Reason being, telling people their faith interpretation has it wrong is typically a non starter. Hard either way, I admit. Either way, we are changing the problem by addressing Islam. That's the key.

My only comment to your post would be this: Saying what the religion should be versus what it is, is a distinction without a difference. At least not for meaningful change in the world. What does it matter what the theological consensus is (and is this even a real thing? When is the last time that happened with any religion?) when the practice is something else. Islam is the unifying factor. It is what is being abused, misrepresented, and accepted as is. Without changing that belief system through the believers the cycle will just continue. So while you are welcome to distinguish the essence of the belief from the believers, I don't find that distinction particularly useful for effecting change in the real world. Any church is only as good as its members.

Points 1/3 - See I think we have agreed all along. Saying the problem is Islam just means that Islam is the primary tool that is keeping things oppressive, but also the tool best used to fix the situation. Just like the last major religious reformation. But because of how pervasive the influence is (just like Catholicism 1,000 years ago) the only way we're going to see any meaningful change is to and through Islam. Regime change won't work, but we can and should support the reformers. Point 2: You're down the path of "what is Islam really about" again. I can argue Jesus has nothing to do with bigotry towards gays, but his followers are far and away the greatest oppressors of gays in our country. Whether their holy text really allows for that or not is a dead end conversation. It's that way on this issue too. We can even agree Islam doesn't really allow for it, but it doesn't get us anywhere because the practice is still happening regardless. Honor killings are happening at crazy rates. Or throwing acid. I could also post literacy rates for women in these regions. Gay rights too. Look, I think your argument falls down right here: arguing Muslim states are somehow distinguishable from Islam is just false. These aren't secular countries. In fact, that's one of the primary goals I have for a reformation of Islam - get the religion out of the government. But that's not the case. So, yeah, let's get progressive and sensible leaders in place......by reforming the religion and ousting them. As it is now, the population is fine with having regressive fundamentalists because they largely agree with them. Until that component changes, by a reformation in practice and interpretation of Islam, those same leaders will stay in power. (Or they'll put even worse guys in their place)

Ok, I'd cut out the parts I'm replying to but it's really hard on my phone so hopefully I'm not misinterpreting you: 1) You seem to imply toppling totalitarian regimes is the path, but isn't that the central mistake behind the Iraq war? How do you rectify that claim with what has happened too frequently? Namely, that regimes fall and are often replaced by even more hard line Islamists? I agree that it needs to happen, but I feel it has to come from a ground swell of a reformed Islam. 2.I can cite a host of information that verifies the Pew opinions match brutality actually happening, but what can you provide to help show that this is something people say they believe but don't act on? (That seemed to be your argument) I know, for exsmple, that three women a day in Pakistan, at minimum, are victims of honor killings. We could talk about acid, women's education, gay rights, and more. These are things I can demonstrate as facts. How can you prove your claim? 3. I don't mean by "change" that we get white out for the Quran, what we need is a reformation of practice. You can be right that the practice is being warped from the top down, but change will need to come bottom up. And that change has to come from within believers of Islam. Perhaps we agree on both?

I never compared them to ISIS other than what is central to both as a tool and justification - Islam. Hence the larger point. A reformation of the religion would go a long way to solving both.

The politically correct liberal argument was the first one made in this thread. The notion that this regressive, oppressive practice of Islam is a tiny fraction problem is false. It is widespread in several large regions. (Namely the middle east and south asia) Do you agree or no?

Of course they are estimated exteapolations...is there some other way to ballpark such figures? I don't think we will get a survey out to everyone. Turning percentages into hard numbers makes denial arguments a lot more absurd. No one is arguing there is overwhelming support for ISIS, that has been made abundantly clear and done so repeatedly. What is being argued is there is widespread support, in several large regional areas, for oppression of women, free speech, gays, non Mudlims, and other marginal groups. No more strawman please. I agree our info is imperfect, but rarely is it any other way on any subject.

Look, what you just said sounds good, but I'm not buying it. It sound like another argument about what "Islam really is". If that's the route you're going down I'd stop you. That exercise is no more useful or helpful than a conversation about a rorshach drawing. I'm not here to say what Islam is really about. Or Christianity. Or Kim Kardashian. Or the true purpose of guns. All of those are dead ends. I'm talking about the actual practice of the religion in the real world right now. There is much, much more than the Pew study to indicate that the practice, in large regions of the world, is very violent and oppressive. So, I'd be very much interested in reading some counter-evidence to that practice, if indeed you have some to provide. If this is going to be some meta-theological debate, I'd say it's totally missing the point.

I also wanted to strongly strongly disagree with this. Mike, Dave, and you Psuedo - all started making demonstrably false argument about what segment of the population in Muslim countries supports oppressive policies/violence. You repeatedly, falsely, painted the picture as being about some tiny fraction of the populace. I cited a study that makes that clear by region and by percentage. It makes it abundantly clear that while there is not widespread acceptance of terrorist tactics (though, even then, literally millions that do support it), there is widespread acceptance about just about every other form of oppression going on. Again - millions of people are oppressors. Millions do endorse forms of terror. Millions are active and complicit in oppression and/or violence. Myself, Smerf, and Bark have tried (repeatedly!) to frame the argument in data and facts and the replies were all emotional. Replies consistently avoiding that acknowledgement so we could instead talk about some nebulous web of reasons why, as if we can even identify them in some meaningful way. (I doubt we can) And, when all else fails, rather than accept the facts we start attacking the messenger. So, no, I didn't come out and hold up moderate Muslims, I don't really think I should've had to. No one was attempting any commentary on them. They aren't part of the problem that is being cited in the data. We're not talking about the very nature of Islam or those practicing their faith in peace and love, we're talking about the widespread practice of Islam to oppress. So I've already put them aside because they're wonderful people who aren't part of the problem. The conversation has already been narrowed. It was you that expanded it out to them, not me. (This argument should feel familiar to another one going on right now) Think of how many times the same argument you are using is used falsely, maliciously, and unfairly. When you say "we have a problem with cops and how they handle black people" - how do you feel when some schmuck says "hey, it's not all cops - you better say that!" My guess, is that you feel that should be able to go unsaid. That of course you don't feel that. That the whole effort to force you to say that is really just a backhand to smear you personally. So I have to ask: Haven't you had this same bull **** charge to caveat your argument thrust upon you enough to drop it from your own use?

I find consistency extremely important on this, because it does reflect your values on this issue. If you insist on not alienating Christians either and are just as careful tip-toeing the issue than kudos to you. I can agree with at least part of your stance, if I still disagree somewhat. But wouldn't you agree that, in general, this isn't true? You (and me for that matter, but I'm well aware of that) are not the norm? If the left just held your position we'd be debating how galvanized we should or shouldn't be to help the voiceless and that's a tough conversation. But, as evidenced by people far more accomplished than me on this topic, there is real push back from the left on anyone that does hold Islam to the same standards. Anyone with the gall to talk about the role Islam plays is shouted down as a bigot. That, for me, is a huge problem. One that I just can't accept continuing. That's where my frustrations come from. As for your analogy it's hard for me to answer, but I'd try this way: moderate Muslims are not people I'm as worried about alienating. That may sound weird, but I have confidence those people will understand this is not an endeavor to hate Islam, but to reform it to reflect their own beliefs. Because, and let's be honest, the West Baptist schmucks are not equivalents to radical Islam. On the Christian side there probably isn't an equivalent in today's world. The West Baptists are probably more like the lieutenants out in the Muslim world that are preaching a gospel of less outwardly violent oppression that is far more common there, but still very dangerous and conducive to the problem. You're criticism that my posts on page 5/6 or whatever should've been what I lead with are fair, but my concern for this topic isn't born out of bigotry. In fact, it's a visceral cry against it in all forms by any perpetrators without qualification. So when people try to look past the pivotal, central role Islam plays as the glue to all these problems, it sounds like qualifications. Or justifications. Or just plain denial. I don't accept that in my stance here, or in my support of BLM, or any other important social issue. I don't think most liberals do either, but there is a weird blind spot on this issue I find incredibly frustrating.