Squirrel
-
Posts
34,841 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
167
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Squirrel
-
The bars all along Clark St in Wrigleyville were charging a $60/person cover charge last night. I guess since they don't get to capitalize on the Cubs in the WS too often, they really had to make it worth their while.
-
Oh
-
Outside factors? Such as ... ?
-
I love pumpkin spice stuff, although ... I never order the pumpkin spiced lattes or other beverages. But hey, pumpkin everything else is fine by me. I wish Dunkin Donuts had their pumpkin donuts year round. But other than the occasional pumpkin donut, and even though I say 'bring it on' when it comes to anything pumpkin spiced/flavored, I haven't partaken of anything else this season.
-
Amazing Ervin Santana Youtube Video
Squirrel replied to Brandon Warne's topic in Minnesota Twins Talk
Heh, the swear word is no biggie. But the bloody wad up his nose is icky. -
Well?
-
Well, does he really have a policy for anything so far?
-
Okay, you already said it.
-
Well, I meant between now and the election, not just tonight. And foreign policy ... I expect Trump to just say 'Benghazi' every chance he gets.
-
Or one more misstep by Clinton, and well ... It ain't over 'til it's over.
-
I didn't watch the others. Thought I should watch one of them. But I can't.
-
I don't think I'll be able to bring myself to watch.
-
Cubs' fan are despondent and panicking.
-
Depends on the chocolate cupcake. Some I like, some I don't. The no beard thing is also not a problem for me. However, as I age, I do worry about hints of stache developing. I keep a close eye on that with tweezers handy just in case. BBC ... what's not to like?
-
I have friends and relatives from elsewhere ... I get the same questions.
-
Okay, my day is good now. Lol!
-
Okay, now you are putting words into my mouth that I didn't say, or even imply. I am not reserving hope nor faith that Molitor is a different person off the field. All I'm saying that is your very small snippets of observation are far from any kind of tangible anything from which to make definitive judgements about anything. Fine, you think he should go based solely on what you've seen while watching a game on the telly. I think that's far from the whole story and not something to base any decisions on, good or bad. I think decisions should be made based on ALL interactions and on results and think he should go based on that ... not just 7 seconds here or there of observation through the boob tube. And, fwiw, I wasn't even in favor of hiring Molitor to begin with.
-
You don't????
-
Not definitively about how the managers and coaching staff are interacting with the team, no. Do I think there should be changes there? Absolutely, but on tangible information, not on what you think you see on the tellie.
-
Because the cameras are on the dugout 100% of the time you are able to make this determination? I'm sorry, but no way you can tell this. I also have the MLB package and the cameras aren't even focused on the the dugout 25% of the time let alone any significant amount of time to determine anything. I'm with sconnie on this. I don't disagree with the manager and coaching staff needing to be changed, but no way you can tell this from watching television. He's right ... you see seconds here and there during a game. No way to tell anything from that. From the results of the season, absolutely, but not from watching the games on TV.
-
Okay, wasn't sure what you were saying. But again, I don't think any of us is in disagreement with the issues of why we vote as we do, or should. I'm just not sure where this is coming from all of a sudden. It just sounds as if there is some 'complaining' or questioning women voting for Hillary. Most are voting for her because she's simply the best choice. It just seems that there is a skepticism being raised unequally. But perhaps I've just misinterpreted.
-
We celebrate candidates when they win. Period. Should we not do that? I think it's hugely more problematic when we don't or can't celebrate the first woman president because what ... it looks improper or biased?
-
AMEN! I <3 this!
-
I don't think anyone is arguing that, Chief. Not one. But the original statement seemed to imply that more were voting for her simply because she's a woman and not because they have good reasons to do so. I think many who are celebrating that Clinton is a she and would be the first female president aren't voting for her for that reason alone or even firstly or even at all. They are voting for her because she's the best qualified; that she also happens to be a woman is icing on the cake for some, me included, and considering history, I see nothing wrong with celebrating that. I really don't think you can truly appreciate how and why that is something that many of my gender do find significant and historical. No, it's not how and why I will cast my vote for Clinton, or how I think anyone should or shouldn't cast their vote, but it will be a very happy and proud vote for me to cast. I don't happen to think she's as awful as some on here do who will be holding their noses to vote for her. Do I question some of that? Yes, I do. I've listened to the reasoning and some is justified and some I agree with. Some I find no better than excuses for things below the surface not faced. And I do question the original comment and find it a bit insulting. Seriously, no one questions the people who will vote for Trump because he's a man. It's always phrased the other way.
-
Again, I'll ask, since you avoided the question, who here is saying otherwise? No one. Yes, I know ONE PERSON who has said that they don't want to ever vote for another white male if she can help it. IF. Meaning, and as I said, if there is another equally qualified, viable candidate, they would choose thusly. What I find more incredulous, is those of us who could claim to be so objective. No one is. Not one person. None of us is completely unbiased towards gender, sexual preference, race, religion ... not one person. Edit: And I'm not calling anyone here a racist, sexist, etc. But on some level, to varying degrees, we all are. Until we face that, as a country, these problems will continue to exist.
