Ultima Ratio

If Revere could just pull one of those long fly outs, he'd get that elusive 1st home run.

Do you believe he still has some promise? I'm torn, but think he can still be a good option at second for us, especially given our current depth/options to replace him.

Are you ready to admit that the so-called admission of voter suppression video clip (all 13 seconds) you posted is completely misleading and you are foolish to use it, now that the context is provided that there is voter fraud -- to the effect of precincts reporting over 100% voting participation in large democrat voting areas in Philadelphia, and if this fraud is curtailed, Romney has a much better chance of winning the state?

Not entirely true in any version of ID verification that I've seen for any state. Each still requires documentation that would require payment to obtain, like a birth certificate. Nevermind that processing time on such requests even for those who do have the money can be months just to get a birth certificate or other such documentation (Social Security card) back to a person. I wanted to put that out there just to argue the merits of the law if that provision were included. Yes, some states are moving towards this provision while others will require that the voter is solely responsible for procuring her own ID. It's just interesting to me that people would still argue against the measure if the IDs were 'free' -- as if this amounted to carrying one's paper's around at all times for fear that the Gestapo were coming. Interesting world.

[video=youtube;BZf25pmgR4c] Just for fun since we're posting videos. The best part is that you can't even get into the Justice Department to petition the government for redress of grievances (a constitutional right) -- if, say, you feel your vote has been disenfranchised -- without first showing photo ID. Also to Hobbes' monster: if you say your going to destroy someone's argument, you had better follow through with it or you look impossibly foolish.

The courts have decided this, not me, not you. Missed the point on that. The point is that it's not like a poll tax as was suggested. No ID is full proof, but it certainly cuts down fraud, or are you suggesting driver ID, ID to buy a guy be done away with because they can be faked? In reply to the sound bite video. Here's the context from that opinion piece which cites.... facts: "The best example of why voter ID laws are necessary can be found in Pennsylvania, where Republicans are accused of trying to suppress the African-American vote by enacting legislation requiring proof of identity when voting. A statement by the GOP leader of the state House of Representatives, in which he claimed the voter ID law would guarantee that the state will go to Mitt Romney in November, is often cited as evidence of the law’s discriminatory or political intent. But the statement is often referenced without citing the context of the political reality in the state.As Gov. Tom Corbett repeatedly cited that context during the debate over the voter ID law, stating that a number of election precincts in Philadelphia that are reliably Democratic have produced results which showed that more than 100 percent of registered voters cast ballots in some years in districts where turnout is normally low. It is true that these areas are also largely African-American, but that does not make such results more explicable or less suspicious.Does anyone really believe Philadelphia is the only place in America where there is a reasonable suspicion of fraud? The Supreme Court doesn’t. In 2008, it upheld an Indiana law requiring voter ID saying that it posed no undue burden on voters. And in his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that “not only is the risk of voter fraud real but...it could affect the outcome of a close election.”" Self-righteous? Condescending? Since I've never engaged you, I would think we'd have a fresh start civilly. Brock flew off the handle and said some pretty insulting things before my rejoinder. Again, you miss that point. Of course that is ad populum (I've emboldened it so you know where I'm at). But you are wrong that I use that solely to make my case. Furthermore, the point you missed is that this is not -- cannot-- be a GOP only issue if 70% of the country agrees with it... Get it? . How do you know? Again, see the piece linked above and the portion I've copied above. Even with this, you will still believe that this is about racism with this video as the smoking gun. Why? Because you WANT to believe that the GOP is racist. If they weren't your head would explode.

Nice game boys!!!

Earlier you didn't include this as an/the affected group, why? Absurd comparison, but now you finally admit who you claim will be disenfranchised, thereby making an innocuous issue of voter integrity one of racism. This is the go-to line for anyone who wants to squelch debate. Nicely done. Do you have any proof of this motivation (to disenfranchise black would-be-voters)? Can you fail to be who your photo ID says you are? No Can you fail a literacy test? Yes Fallacy: false analogy The requirements of photo ID are the same for ALL voters. I don't share your thinking that some demographics, especially black Americans need special help to get an ID... This is insulting to black Americans. Oh my - it would be impossible! If government should be involved in one thing it should ensure the integrity of elections. That an national defense and a couple other things... I do share your vision of smaller government at least. (fallacy: appeal to emotion) Here you go again. How many car-less 80 year old women in the ghetto do you suppose there are. And how many of them can't get a ride from a friend or family member.... oh my goodness, how do they get to the doctor? I support cleaning up the voting rosters so that felons and other illegal would-be-voters are not registered. Once this is done, a felon may still try to use someone elses name and register in that persons name, so long as that person's name is on the registration role. A photo ID would prevent this from happening. This is really sad. As with most of your statements, you are long on the claims and short on the evidence. They are a joke? Why? Because you say so? You make it hard to present proof to refute your claims if all the proof is thrown out because you don't like the source. (Fallacy: Red herring -- it's a distraction, Fallacy: Poisoning the Well -- unfairly indicting all sources and views of Fox) Good for me, there are plenty of other sources... I'll just have to get them through the Brock clearinghouse of acceptable news sources. Someone who resorts to this kind of debate tactic is unworthy of further debate. I thought you made up rules against ad hominum (poisoning the well is a form of ad hominum, but I'm sure you knew that) Another take from a different source. Let me know if this is admissible or not judge: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0723/Voter-ID-laws-are-inherently-reasonable-not-racist-or-Republican That's why I'm asking you. You know a lot. Seriously, you have no idea how or why I hold this position other than what I've written. You think insulting your opponent has an effect on the argument? [fallacy: ad hominum] Condescending ad hominum. As has now been made clear three times, 70% of the country agrees with me. If I were republican I'd sure pat you on the head for the compliment that you think 70% of the country is GOP, but it's not -- though a conservative philosophy is the majority in the country. Ad hominum Following you logic, you must not have any black friends. How sad for you. This says more about the white guilt drizzled throughout this most current treatise on racial demagoguery. Let me leave you with a philosophical maxim: An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. With your permission, I'd like to use this post in my logic classes. It's, well, an interesting example. In the future I'd advise you that it's okay to be impassioned and hold strong opinions, but it's not okay to only have strong opinions; and don't try to come across as some sage who can note all the ills of society/politics and then abuse your opponent with ad hominum attacks. If it were a couple times only or in jest or just a good ribbing that would be one thing, but you sir should be banned if you were not a mod yourself. Grow up!

Are brock's posts invisible or is it your intent to avoid all directquestions/responses by posting shallow nonsense? Do go on.

Get a grip? Because I don't want the government requiring everyone to carry identification? Because I believe in minimizing the government's role in society? And what on Earth does traveling overseas have to do with this argument? I'm pretty sure the GOP goes out of its way to avoid being anything like Europe. Why the change of heart in this instance? I never said that felons voted illegally, I said that the proposed law you support doesn't stop felons from voting (which it doesn't). You're advocating the passage of a law that won't do a damned thing to stop this supposed voter fraud. So, the law doesn't do anything about absentee voting, it doesn't stop felons from voting, it adds to our tax burden by providing free IDs to those who need them, and it's creating a "solution" to a problem that has never been substantiated outside of right wing spin factories (the people who oversaw the Franken recount have stated multiple times that there was NO indication of voter fraud in that election). Can someone explain to me why this is considered a good idea again? I seem to be missing something. I look at the evidence and I see one reason for this bill's creation: the Republicans want to minimize the poor and elderly vote because they don't traditionally vote for the GOP. And that's disgusting. This is all anyone should have to see about voter ID to see that the motivations behind the law have absolutely nothing to do with "cleaning up" the voting process. It's a cockblock of the vote, nothing more. ] I don't think it's asking too much present photo ID when you cast a vote, and I don't think it's a burden to pay 10 bucks to get one either, this objection is invented BS. BUT -- Again, if you can't afford a photo ID the taxpayer will provide you with one. How does this affect the poor and elderly then? You said: "One of the great things about this country is that it's illegal to require the citizenry to carry around "papers" to identify themselves. It's one of the things we hold dear to avoid becoming a police state, something the Republicans bitch about the Democrats creating on a daily basis." Maybe you don't understand that the requirement is to have photo ID to vote doesn't mean you must have photo ID with you at all times, just once every two years for the most part. Since you apparently don't know this or intentionally throw it out there again, as if this is the requirement that 70% of Americans (not a GOP issue exclusively) are in favor of, I'd like point out that you apparently have an axe to grind by creating this straw man position to argue against. You make it sound as if American is Nazi Germany with the "having to carry papers" garbage. That's certainly the allusion. Nobody but the Nazi's ever asked for "your papers" -- so this is insulting in itself beside just being completely wrong and a scare tactic. GET A GRIP is correct. Do you know what other countries' policies are on these issues? I'll save you the time and let you know that most countries policies are much stricter. So yes, stop with the drama and over the top outrage. It's easy to resort to platitudes and indignant outrage at what the major parties are doing, in fact it's even fashionable.... in fact it's easy. Too easy. What's the point of minimizing government's role in our lives if the process by which government is elected and thereby elected to grow or recede is compromised? It bothers me that someone voting illegally has the ability to cancel my vote. Voting fraud is real and while Photo ID will not and cannot stop every kind of fraud, it sure is a non-intrusive start. Can you even name three adults you know who don't have photo ID already. Finally, If photo ID is required along with a background check in order to exercise one's second amendment right, surely it's not too much to ask for just the photo ID in order to make sure you are who you say you are when you vote. Throw another cheap shot video up, without context or analysis.

If Parmelle doesn't hit well in the majors this go round, will it be because he's playing out of position? I see this meme coming.

No quarrel with the jist of your message. But this kind of statement always bothers me; do we look forward to sending a roster of such guys into Yankee Stadium for Game 1 of a playoff series? Let's hope they learn to play loose and with confidence at all times. Easier said than done. Let's start with this and worry about step 97 (going into Yankees stadium) afterwards.

Insufficient citation. You need a footnote, endnote or works cited to accurately reference and attribute your quote. Parenthetical in-text citations won't do.

Gardy on last night's and recent offensive woes. http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24304345&topic_id=&c_id=min&tcid=vpp_copy_24304345&v=3 At 1:44 "they work their tails off" Kinda feel bad for the guy. Sounds defeated, is defeated. But is this a reflection of the team and the player's attitudes or affecting their attitude.... or both. It's a vicious cycle that needs to stop.

Do the Twins know something about Joe that we don't? <<<conspiracy theory>>>

7. Jeff Gray was outrighted

Well said... You are on my smart poster list. I agree with your last comment on the elite pitching contracts... However in the context of the current Twins... I think they have no choice but to go after one of them. Haren or Shields. The Twins have to take a big run... Overpay for one of them. And then pray for health and success. I'd overpay for one and build a church at the same time. I think they sign two FA SPs, two second tier guys. I also think they deny option/sign Baker. A total of ~20M on the three, perhaps Baker for 3M, the better FA at 10M, and the other FA at 7M/next year. My starting 5 look like this: 1) FA 2) FA 3) Diamond 4) Hendriks 5) Deduno/DeVries/Walters/Manship With Baker and Gibson arriving after demonstrating consistent success at AAA -- it may not happen for either.... gulp.

As some here have begun to point out, it's important to realize two things about this interview: What the intended purpose is and who the audience is. There's also a difference between telling the truth and the whole truth, which is evident in places where Ryan puts on his GM/marketing hat rather than exhaustive truth teller. Concerning non-player persons (coaches, front office), I think he's being completely honest and forthright. Concerning players, I think he trying to talk up signed players and maintain bridges with possible targets. -- This is 'not the whole truth part' but necessary in order to not show your hole card (true intentions that would kill any leverage) In order of importances, I'd say Ryan's audience (with purpose in parentheses) was 1) current players and staff (letting them know he values them and has their back -- hopefully relieving stress and pressure to perform which may be a hindrance to performance) 2) Other GMs (indicating that the team will not be dumping salary/players but will require value players in any trade) 3) Twins fans (who are desperate to know what the heck the plan is, if there is a plan et cetera). I also believe that the "thin" comment was about elite pitching only. It's not a surprise to me that they won't be signing anyone longer than 4-5 years, and at no more than ~13M/year. Even if 80M were coming off the books, the Twins just don't see those contracts as good investments and while I, like most of you, see the need for elite pitching, I don't believe these contracts are especially beneficial unless you were one pitcher away from a championship.

@ RP: So dramatic: "police state" "carrying papers" -- have you ever traveled over seas? Get a grip. First you say: "No serious study has found voter fraud to be even a glimmer of a problem in this country" Then you say that felons do indeed vote illegally, but there's nothing we can do about it. You are a problem solver. Here's another: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/21/officials-plead-guilty-in-new-york-voter-fraud-case/#ixzz1hE0jMR8E

If you cannot afford a photo ID, then the state would supply you with one free of charge. Why is this is problem?

I'll put them out one-by-one, but I don't think any amount of evidence could persuade those who'd rather naively believe that every election is free of any and all voter fraud. Let's begin with one case close to home for many on this board: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/07/20/Al-Franken-May-Have-Won-His-Senate-Seat-Through-Voter-Fraud

Which, and how do you know? Answer the question or don't quote me. Who is voting illegally, how are they doing it, and how does requiring a government issued ID prohibit them from doing so? Who is voting legally, how are they doing it, and how does a photo ID prohibit them from continuing to vote legally?

Which, and how do you know? Correct answers: Which? -- those people who are voting illegally. How do I know? -- I know this because this is what they and more the 70% of the country have said they want. Who is voting illegally, how are they doing it, and how does requiring a government issued ID prohibit them from doing so? Are you in favor of requiring each person in this country to obtain a government issued identification card? Seeing if someone is who they claim to be protects the one legal voter, one legal vote principle. Nah, I prefer every newborn get a biometric microchip in the spine. Seriously? Many forms of photo ID are acceptable.

Which, and how do you know? Correct answers: Which? -- those people who are voting illegally. How do I know? -- I know this because this is what they and more the 70% of the country have said they want.

I see you've dropped the "sticking to everything" portion.