TheLeviathan

Quite frankly, it's hard for we libertarians to get much traction when we're being morally demonized by both sides.

So why can't we criticize legislation that is not correcting the problem but is, in many cases, exacerbating it? Part of the problem is we can't have a meaningful discussion about fixing legislation when one side wants it gone altogether and the other wants to demonize anyone who dares suggest there is a problem. You happen to fall into the second group.

First - you can't insert your own interpretation of a remark and then lambast someone for it. His decision here was dumb enough without you committing that fallacy. Again, "people dependent on government" ARE, by definition, not responsible for themselves. If they were, they wouldn't be "dependent". Debating the dictionary is not wise. As someone who has worked in social services for a long time, I can tell you that many people "dependent" on government services are, indeed, NOT poor. Unfortunately our system has long ago stopped focusing on true need and instead opened blank checks across dozens of programs that are far easier to manipulate and take advantage of than most think. I can't think of a more offensive moral mantra than the idea that anyone who believes there is a difference between "need" and want" is somehow inconsiderate towards people. Hell, my beliefs are driven by true "need" and how often I see it shunned in favor of this liberal, left-wing driven concoction of what "need" is. Yeah, the rich need to be paying more. Company tax loopholes need to be closed. No disagreement here - now let's see if you're as fair in your thinking when the reality of left-wing social programs is on the table. College loans, welfare, and just about any other federal aid you can think of is saturated with abuse by people claiming "need" who would really just rather milk the system. Or the system itself, as in college loans, actually makes everyone worse off. So we flush billions down the toilet every year that could go to skills training, better subsidized housing, early education services, etc. That's the reality you're blindly supporting. To me, if someone is making me choose, I'd say defending that under the guise of moral superiority is a far worse crime.

I'm sorry, did you "let it slide" with Obama's remark? Hell, you rushed to BYTO to down-play it! His number is innaccurate, his framing of the issue is playing to the lowest common denominator of the base, and he picked a terrible time to do it. But just like Obama's stupid remark, there is a point to it that isn't entirely untrue. The two situtations aren't that much different. Why is your schtick on this so different? Or should we just assume your pretended fairness is just that - pretended? I agree insofar as there is about 20% of the population he isn't going to change the minds of. Nor is Obama going to change another 20%. Again, reality doesn't have to be fun to swallow, but the truth is the truth. Politically he chose a stupid way to phrase it, but that doesn't make it untrue. No one is agreeing with his number - it's inflated intentionally. But I don't see you getting hot and bothered by the same game on the other side. It happens all the time in politics - am I the only non-naive person here? It doesn't make it right, but it happens. I don't get hot and bothered by either side doing it - I'd prefer to criticize the deeper issues than these stupid superficial ones.

Agreed, we need to shut that BS down too.

I love this logic. Where does the idea that "well....he's only got X impact" end? The starting 9? The tenth guy on the bench? How many relievers deep? How about, instead, we don't hand away any of our 25 spots and shoot for competent players at all of them? Why is that an idea that anyone would disagree with?

Offer Baker what Lewis got and run screaming for joy if he takes it.

I wouldn't call that not getting a fair shot - I'd call that rushing him. Which I wouldn't disagree with. Hell, I think he got TOO MUCH of a shot.

We can quibble about 47% until the cows come home, of course the number is invented. Just like the Democrats have invented a "rich" group that is milking the economy. Neither is true, but they play to the bases. All Romney said is what Reg. repeated - there is a group of Americans dependent on the government that are hooked to a party that won't vote for him. Likewise, there is a group of people hooked to the Republicans that won't vote for Obama. If this (or the fact that what he says on and off camera are different) is shocking to you - you are really, really naive. He didn't say "poor people" - he said those dependent on government which, by definition, makes them irresponsible for themselves. What you're doing is not unlike what he did - just from a left-wing slant. And note - this is coming from someone that is most likely going to vote independent.

Florimon has not been very impressive defensively - the tools are there but the execution has not been. That said....on what is this insanity about Dozier not getting a fair shot based on? Hell, the guy basically had a scholarship for about a month and a half before he was finally demoted.

I fail to see what is so damning. His 47 percent is probably too high, but it's not that different than saying the Republicans cater to the wealthy. Neither side has much room to grandstand on that front - it's just politicians being politicians.

Well I wouldn't say the military is the most "obviously bloated" part of our budget, that mantra is way overstated by the left. The military budget can and should be cut back, but it's not crippling the country. But I would agree - McCain didn't lose because he was a moderate, he lost because of how painfully obvious it was he compromised his own values to appeal to the GOP base.

This is such flawed, aggravating thinking. No one is claiming Drew Butera sank the 2012 season, let's get off that. It's disingenuous and distracting to the real point. Of course he isn't the main reason we're a bad team. But just because you're bad doesn't excuse bad decisions. In part, some of the very same thinking behind the bad decision to scholarship Butera into a roster spot is why this team is as bad as they are. Is he single-handedly or even directly responsible for that? No, but that doesn't excuse the bad decision, which is what is being criticized. If your manager is going to insist on a third catcher and your highest paid player needs to be a part-time catcher - then you better have one that can be a regular contributor to the team in that role. Especially if you also have a penchant for playing a thin bench. This represents some scarily lowered expectations for the team. No matter how bad you are it doesn't excuse you poorly constructing your roster.

Exactly. Especially with the same team having a penchant for not DLing players. I know most backup catchers are bad, but Butera is bad even for that threshold.

Well, other than preventing the team from having someone who could contribute on the team instead.

I don't think anyone was claiming anything about the role of managers other than that, in this one moment, Maddon showed how a smart manager can make a difference. I think, given how putrid that Tampa offense is talent-wise, he's been doing a helluva job piecing together a contender.

Watching Doumit play LF really makes me question those september call-ups again. If you're willing to sacrifice that much defensively by putting him out there, why is it such an offense to play Mastro at second when your lineup is minus Mauer?

One thing I haven't seen noted is that while the Orioles "plan" may appear to be luck, they were building around a set of prospects. It's just many of their pitching specs have underwhelmed so far. I still think this team's best bet is to build around it's largest collection of controlled talent and not to chase phantoms. Baltimore was doing exactly that and it has worked out, but for different reasons.

Selling high is selling high. Players follow money - you can still lure free agents. Trading Hammer wasn't exactly going to shutter the windows in the offseason. And a 33 year old on a career year is a threat to plummet in value at any point. Hell, look how much you could argue Span's value plummeted in just the last year.

If I were Willingham I'd be hoping to sucker the Twins for a few more million too after this season. So of course he's willing.

Can we still pay Liriano three years and thirty million just out of dedication to his "ace"ness?

So you blame AJ? All this and here is where we are? No offense to Parker, but it is ridiculous to believe a blogger is more thorough about pitching mechanics than a big league coach. Even more ridiculous when you're pulling such a claim out of your rear end with no evidence yourself. I'm done, this is hopeless. Point - obfuscation. Well done.

So you think every bullpen session is this? This is about one bullpen session, not the course of their entire work together. Jesus. Again, they are working towards him with that goal. He can't strike people out if he can't throw strikes! That's step one! As the last poster said, it's ridiculous to suggest they have completely ignored mechanics and that the Twins did as well. What Cooper is saying here is that before they even focus on mechanics in this instance they want to address his mental approach which they believe is causing the issue. (Again....JUST LIKE THE TWINS) Why is this so difficult for you?

One "mental trick" is to keep telling him to throw strikes. You have no idea whether the other things are or are not being done, but we do know that they are telling him the same thing we did. Which means, from their interactions, they also worry that he's trying to be too fine rather than trust his stuff and throw strikes. Which, again, the point of this thread was to point out how overblown the "pitch to contact" criticisms were.

Going out on a limb there snepp.....I'm scared to venture out that far.