TheLeviathan

Yeah, Parmalee needs to be on this team. My guess is, though, it will be in RF next year with Span on his way out the door. It's really a shame they don't have somewhere for him right now.

It's worth dangling - but it's not going to happen.

Wow....pleasant surprise!

Yeah, she's bat-dung crazy.

I generally thought no one took Dave seriously?

A huge future liability - no doubt. Here's the problem DPJ, it was hard to completely rule out his comeback until he at least had some regular ABs for awhile. Maybe this hotstreak ends and it was just a flash in the pan - but doesn't he look a lot like the old Morneau lately? Hard not to see it - using the whole field, driving the ball, hitting righties and lefties. Some of this simply could be rebuilding his approach after two years off. The problem is, you're right that expecting this continue much into the future is a huge problem. Handing him away at his lowest value would've been a mistake we've made far too often lately. The real issue is going to be if he regains anything close to his MVP value - then do you sell high or keep around a cornerstone that is a huge liability? I know what you'd argue (not sure I'd disagree either FWIW) but now isn't the time to be selling this guy.

We should just buy a buffet for the Indian's clubhouse tonight and hope Capps finds his way there. Then get the hell out of town. I'm pretty sure that would qualify as an official waiver claim.

What is this board's obsession with this approach to things?

Then pick a different age. Try 11. Or many 91 year olds. The point was we discriminate all the time.

I only want him up if he'll play. And right now he won't.

Yup, especially when I thought ball three was going to ring him up.

Psued, all you have to do is look at this thread to see that it is being talked about constantly on this issue. Discrimination happens all the time in the law, the key is that it can pass the Equal Protection Clause. Frankly, homosexual couples were rightly discriminated against from marriage licenses for a long time - they weren't positive environments (or environments at all) for raising children or stable relationships. That wasn't always their doing of course, but it was the truth. But those reasons have change and THAT is the grounds you fight this issue on because it completely diffuses all of the nonsensical attacks from the right. When you do that it concentrates the argument on the EP Clause. So now you focus on the arguments that used to be opposed to gay marriage which have changed. All of the arguments for why homosexual couples would be unfit for marriage recognition (stable partnerships, economic partnership, child rearing) are extinct. Studies show homosexual partners are just as good as hetero couples on all of these fronts. I completely agree that we should be making the moral appeal as well, but not in terms of "rights". More in terms of what is "right" to do in how to treat another human being. But that is a separate and lesser campaign then this. People forget that many of the major steps forward in civil rights were by judges and the system of law recognizing the injustice. That forced the conversation to moral grounds but with the force of law behind the right cause. And since we are talking about a legal privilege - battling it in court makes SO much more sense than on the ground the religious whackos decide.

Yeah, when's the last time we had a guy this aggressive? Gladden?

How is being accurate disingenuous? Marriage isn't a right. Nothing that we have a "right" to is licensed by the friggin county we live in. (Except for more extreme versions of fundamental rights, like conceal and carry. But even then no one is licensing you to have a rifle in your home) The rest of this paragraph doesn't make much sense. The value of recognizing a license for what it is (read: NOT A RIGHT) is that it shifts the conversation to practical questions rather than religious nonsense. Then we ask - do gay couples meet the qualifications for a license as much as hetero couples? The answer to those questions, in virtually every fair and meaningful study done, is yes. Licenses aren't meant to inhibit the rights of others, they are meant to enforce the function of the license. There is a reason not everyone is licensed to drive, teach, practice psychology, drive a semi, or anything else you want to list. Licenses "give permission". Rights are, by their very nature, ours without permission. The issue gets confused (understandably, but no less wrongly) here - you have a right to socialize with whom you choose. The license is another level of this socialization that requires permission - and rightfully so. Society has a vested interest in only encouraging positive social relationships for economic and child rearing purposes. Gay couples meet those interests now and if we focus the conversation there (rather than playing in the ballfield that favors the wackos, see: non-empirical) than we have a chance to change this. But good god lefties - not everything is a damn right, get off of that nonsense.

Very true, didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Though I would argue that fairweather support has a good deal to do with why so little progress has been made. There isn't much courage coming from that side of the aisle, though clearly far less bigotry. The "defense of marriage" stuff is motivated by hate and bigotry, so you're right that the other side of coin has been far worse.

We don't give equal rights to all groups when it comes to licenses because a license is only intended to go to some, not all. From a legal/government point of view we aren't discriminating against 14 year olds because we don't let them drive. Or against the illiterate because we don't license them to teach. Or against the blind to drive school buses. I do agree that the people opposed to gay marriage are doing it out of bigotry, it just irks me to hear that we are denying people "rights". A license is not something you have a "right" to.

Now that's how you eff up a bunt right there.

They're soccer fans snepp - reason and good taste aren't calling cards for that demographic.

News to me too snepp

We discriminate all the time when we grant licenses. Discrimination isn't the problem - it's that it's groundless, stupid reasons for it that are the problem.

Well said.

I believe they're pandering to it because many of them don't actually want gay marriage allowed. And, again I'll say this, no one has a right to be married. Straight, gay, or otherwise. We could make some serious progress allowing gay marriage if we'd stop talking about it in such obnoxiously stupid terms (traditional vs. rights).

A we weak "moderates" how dare we not go blindly one way or the other! You know, despite what the blubbering walrus might say - you can have a strong opinion that falls between right and left-wing extremism. Shocking, I know. That said, it is true that the Democrats are just vote pandering with gay marriage. It just bothers me that they are wielding the government's powers against people who have differing opinions on gay marriage. I don't think there has been adequate criticism of that abhorrent move.

This. PA isn't awful because he is a blatant homer - he's awful because he sounds like one of the radio guys on The Simpsons. Annoying sounders, obnoxious (borderline creepy at times) jokes, over-the-top catchphrases, and non-stop shallow opinions. The only time his show is tolerable is when Charch is adding expertise and normalcy to his otherwise streaming mass of stupidity. The Power Trip couldn't name half the teams in baseball. All of Morris' takes boil down to "You know....that player....could be really good....if he, um.....plays good." Sadly, he's the most insightful, talented, and entertaining of the bunch. Their ratings are more a product of limited competition than actual entertainment value. I like Bump, but Barreiro is better when he talks politics and social issues than sports. Personally, I like that. If it's all sports all the time you get 47 consecutive days of "will Dwight Howard" be traded. Eventually even sports can become nauseatingly repetitive if it isn't balanced out.

I heard a DeDoumit.