TheLeviathan

Arcia should be playing every day in RF. The only reason he's not is the insistence of this general manager (and there were many here who backed this move) to keep Trevor Plouffe. Maybe Arcia would've continued to struggle, but we should've found out. Not turned him into a bench player.

I hope he is dealt, this isn't a guy I want to rely on going forward. But I bet that contract all but assures he does stick. And then Polanco is the odd-man out and I can only imagine the ways we'll screw that up.

He's right. He just forgot to include himself.

Yes it was, we believed the mirage and now look at us.

Citing your data would be helpful Dave.

Contending in 2017 is an absurd goal. It's just not going to happen, sorry. This team should look to clean up the 25 and 40 man rosters and audition players the rest of this year and next year. Hopefully those auditions reveal enough talent to build around after that.

You mean like entertaining everyone's theory of the apocalypse in every discussion? Sorry, if that's your basis for your belief, you're not bringing a valid argument to the table. That disqualifies your opinion and I don't have a problem saying that. Though maybe I'm wrong about that to a degree, tying to "talk to" (rather than past) that mentality is worse than "bupkis": It indulges nonsense and treats it like a valid argument instead of what it is. Just like I won't listen to someone who tells me women are lesser than men because some obscure line in the bible, I'm not taking anyone's bunker theory on how the world ends in consideration on gun laws. Sorry, get a valid argument or don't expect to be taken seriously.

Where's that titanic deck chair image when you need it.....

I don't take fears of a dystopian government invasion any more seriously than Independence Day 2 or The Walking Dead as a case for making gun laws. So, no, we're not talking past each other. I'm just refusing to acknowledge tin-foil hat fears as a valid argument.

I would suggest we allow more data to accrue before we declare that a definitive victory. Not to mention it seems like your stats are all over the place. A 14% drop in shootings relative to a 6% drop in crimes across the board indicates there is some change, but you appear to be overstating the case. And statistically speaking, probably overstating it before it's reliable. Not that it might not be working, just that the question isn't necessarily a fair one.

And speeders will always speed, the point remains the same - you just made it for me again. We can't control criminal intentions, but that doesn't mean we abandon laws to try and control them and punish offenders. I'm asking the same thing here - just like you slow down out of the best intentions for everyone - I'm asking you to give up your military weapons - for the best intentions of everyone. You still get to own your gun (drive your car) we just regulate it (laws). And we regulate it knowing full well it isn't a fix-all. So let me get this right....you say the plan to regulate guns won't work....we should just fix human nature? I mean....are you trolling me here? As north says, other first world countries simply don't have this happen because the tools to execute the ugly side of ourselves aren't there. They are highly controlled and difficult to access. When a 17 year old can just walk into their house, open a safe, and walk out the freaking Punisher - you are throwing gas on the fire. You're giving hate and people with nothing to lose the tools to go out in a blaze of death. What gun regulations do, over time, is reduce proliferation and access. I'm not going to sit here, like some, and argue gun laws fix the problem. They won't. Nothing, in and of itself, will. We have to defeat the idea that you need guns to survive and live your life. You'll be fine. We have to defeat the idea that they give power to someone. They don't. That battle is going to take a long time to win, but reducing the kinds of military tech that people have access to will, over time, reduce these instances. It's one step, along with many others, we have to take.

Don't we decide how the defensive matchups happen in basketball? Short of substitions by the other team, but the PF spot is becoming too athletic for someone like Love to hide from. That said, I'd rather have Noah and one of hte guards in the draft anyway, just was thinking about a young player that could bring an interesting dimension.

No, you made an absolutist argument. Look, the last time this broke out I also argued that most gun reforms (short of taking away forms of guns) is not going to stop these attacks for some time. They just won't because of the existing proliferation. I made that argument because I wanted to be a realist about why we're changing the laws. The reason isn't to make a crime "impossible". That is an absurd line to draw. The sign telling me to drive 15 mph in a school zone doesn't stop the next idiot from going 100. That's not the point. Sometimes the point is to remind those so called "law abiding citizens" what the law is. And the law should be pretty simple - you don't need (to quote O'Reilly) a mortar, a bazooka, a tank, or any large magazine forms of assault rifle. And the sooner we stop allowing those guns to go into circulation among the citizenry, the sooner we can talk about proliferation. We can't buy back all the guns like Australia did, but we sure as hell can start the clock on when those guns stop going in circulation. Will it be next month? No. Next year? No. But maybe in 10 years these weapons are only in the hands of police (shouldn't even be there, but whatever), the army, and some criminals. Not in the hands of some security guard who beats his wife. Or a disgruntled teenager. We pass these laws to start the clock on reducing their proliferation over time. Plain and simple. There is no one-size-catches-all fix to this. There can't be. Gun reforms won't, in some sweeping motion, fix this. Nor will any other single law we pass. They won't "fix" these crimes. Or make them "impossible". But what do they actually fix? They start fixing our social contract. The laws and accepted way in which we live. Where we decide we don't need body armor, military weapons, and a Punisher cache in our basement to feel like 'Mericans. Or even to feel safe. The proper regulation of guns goes a long way to fixing the soul of the country. One step back towards sanity. It'll take more, but it's a damn nice start. We have to win the culture war against guns, it's sad that it's taking more of these mass shootings to win people over, but that's what has to happen. The laws themselves need not be super efficient (they probably won't be), but their successful passing is, in and of itself, a victory in changing the culture of this country about guns.

If your logic for the existence of laws is that they must make the crime "impossible" to commit, you're advocating anarchy. No laws work that way. Can you join us back in reality for the rest of the discussion?

Maybe, but Libertarian is the closest to it that exists. It damn sure isn't the Republicans and the naivete of liberalism still clouds any plans most Democrats have. So, yeah, I'm stuck. And, if you look around, you'll find a majority of Americans can fall along those same lines. What we need to do is on one hand reject the partisanship while also accepting a compromise of some beliefs. If we do that and go with "Smart Government, More Freedom" as a basic platform for ideas - we COULD oust these two parties. But, sadly, too many get scared into voting the same ol' way.

Why wouldn't Okafor be guarding the 5 and Towns the 4? I mean, Okafor-Towns can't possibly be any worse defensively than Love-Towns.

Libertarian is a wide net, the actual party isn't one I support necessarily. What I support is simple: personal liberty and smart, responsible government. I want a party that will cut the military spending. I want a party that will allow gays to marry, drugs to be decriminalized, and abortion laws to stay flexible for women who need them. I want a party that says "college is getting hard for some to afford" and crafts good policy. Not just throws money at it. I want a party that will roll back or presence around the world. I want a party that will simplify taxes and make it more equitable for all. Basically, I want a party that doesn't make me slap my forehead constantly.

I think those states and places like Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. are also good places. Basically, the "purple" states.

No libertarian stands a chance in Chicago. Hell, most people who aren't beholden to labor unions are a lost cause.

I'm not sure, given they were expecting a month after the offseason started, that there was a "good" time to call.

Chi....the two parties basically have a vice grip on the smaller elections. Without their endorsement or backing, you don't go anywhere. I agree with you in principle, but our system has basically made inroads impossible at all levels. Look what it took in Minnesota to get a third party involved and even then Jesse had to basically go full pro-wrestling to get there.

Step one for that is just getting their real message out there instead of guys like Cruz co-opting the name. This is their chance to do that.

I generally like Johnson in terms of what he believes, but they need someone to grab attention and build on it. I'm not sure he's the guy for that.

Let's count the number of guys currently on the 25 man roster that have less potential to help this team going forward than Arcia: Mauer Abad Boshers Dean Jepsen Kintzler Nolasco Ramirez Centeno Suzuki Escobar Dozier Plouffe Those are the "for sures" - you could add a "might be less useful" group that would include: Park, Santana, Nunez, Tonkin, Duffey, Gibson, and Santana. So, just 20 out of 25 that are either for sure less valuable to a team in this position or arguably so. Yeah. Do you think the Cubs would be mad if I hopped the ol' bandwagon?

I'd like their chances better if they had a charismatic candidate. Johnson just isn't it.