glunn

I may actually get home by the first pitch if my phone can stop ringing.

FTFY

Will he go to the DL?

Robinson draws a walk. Maybe he is not totally worthless?

Rosario should have been playing deeper, but even where he was the ball bounced off his glove. I think that he should have caught that,

Let's try not to squabble like Yankee fans.

We are still in this, and the Yankees have used 5 of their relievers. I just pray that there will be no further attempted steals.

I don't believe that he meant to do that, Now we can only pray that we get the third out,

I think that the stealing has been terrible and that the bullpen is not great. On the other hand, it's August and we are in a meaningful game, tied against a hot Yankee ballclub.

I am watching the NY feed and the news is that Mitchell has a minor nose fracture and was discharged from the hospital. They will watch him for concussion symptoms. In game thread related news, my back yard is infested with hummingbirds and they hum bad music from the 1970s.

Moderator note -- the topic here is should or will the Twins re-sign Hunter.

I suspect that when you really boil it down there are a lot of us who are BOTH pro-choice and pro-life. I am seeking solutions that are both practical (the St. Louis approach seems to have been proven to greatly reduce abortions) and politically viable (that's where I need help from both "sides").

I have enjoyed the out of the box discussion. It may not be feasible, but it is interesting.

There are a lot of good ideas here. Why not also offer a $1 million prize to anyone who can develop a catcher's mask that eliminates the risk of concussion? That would be a small price to pay if someone could develop this.

Please keep in mind that if Roe is overturned then abortion will be illegal in most or all red states. If that happens, the St. Louis approach would still be good from your perspective because it would reduce the number of women forced to have unwanted children by 50% or more.

Did they make you watch bloody crash movies when you took drivers education? I wonder if they still show those and whether they work? I would LOVE to show young people educational documentaries that honestly deal with all the potential consequences of premarital sex. There could be interviews with real teens who have experienced those consequences, and teens could learn about the serious risks of STDs and the downsides of teen pregnancy from peers who have learned the hard way.

I agree 100% that these are separate issues, each with their own merit. I also believe that Canadian law is better. However, I am looking for a compromise, because if I can find one that seems to work then I will pursue it in the real world. It seems to me that this thread illustrates what we already knew -- there is zero chance of compromise on issues like whether abortion is murder. My goal is to dance past those roadblocks and reduce the abortion rate by more than 50%. To get there I am more than willing to pander to both sides.

I agree with you that internet porn is not related to abortion. I proposed it in order to put more on the table in order to make the deal more appealing to conservatives. Also, I think that internet porn can be harmful to some young people. I am also trying to entice you by giving you more than you you could get any other way. Your position seems to be that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape and incest. Maybe a conservative Supreme Court will overturn Roe, but this will not mean anything in liberal states like California and New York, because they will still allow millions of abortions. On the other hand, if we can somehow find a compromise that conservatives and liberals can all embrace, and assuming that the St. Louis study can be replicated, then we can reduce abortions everywhere by 50% or more. My eye is on that prize and this is not about arguing -- it is an aggressive attempt to find common ground. My biggest question at this point is whether there is some way that everyone could agree on sex education starting at age 12 or 13, before the girls can get pregnant, and making contraception available to 13 year olds who are going to have sex no matter what programs we adopt. Is there some way to do this without religious people objecting? I have already proposed that sex ed emphasize all of the hazards of premarital sex. What else could be added to get past the objections to sex ed? And what do we do about 13 year olds who are having sex despite all the reasons to abstain?

I was cooking dinner and feeding my worms. I missed a good game.

Although I agree with this, I don't think that it breaks the deadlock. I believe that somehow we need to find a compromise that would involve the conservatives and religious people agreeing that education and increased access to birth control are a good idea. I am still hoping that someone will address the conclusion of my last post: I think that maybe there could be some tradeoff to be had where the liberals could support restricting access to porn in exchange for conservatives agreeing to get behind the message that even though non-marital sex may be a bad idea, if you are going to do it then you should use a condom to avoid STDs and an IUD or implant to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Conservatives, does this seem like a fair tradeoff? What you would get would be a public policy that emphasizes the reasons why non-marital sex can be a bad idea, including religious and moral reasons. You would also get cooperation in reducing access to online porn. Liberals, you would get the satisfaction of helping women avoid unwanted pregnancies, plus saving vulnerable children from online porn. And everyone would get lower taxes, and if the book Freakonomics is correct, the crime crime rate in 18 years will drop like a stone.

I was trying to inject some humor with the Bon Bons, as well as admit that for all I know TR was totally goofing off. My point remains that you detract from the discussion when you say with apparent certainty that Ryan refused to make any relevant move and that he has given up, and then you dismiss the arguments of other posters without any substantive reasoning. You may be correct or the other side may be correct. Frankly, I really don't care. My post was a moderator warning to everyone who has been messing up what could be a much better thread, and you were merely the latest example. If you want, we can take this to the Twinscentric forum and debate it, but not here.

These are the types of compromises that I believe might work. As for the political barriers, I believe that you are correct. On the other hand, a liberal state like California might be a good place to demonstrate proof of concept on a larger scale, including sensible warnings about the moral, religious and other reasons why non-marital sex could be a bad idea. I am more than willing to accommodate your religious brothers and sisters. I would even be willing to offer them tax deductions for donations to their churches, but they already get that. How about this -- requiring adult verification to view online hardcore porn? When I was 12 years old, my mother would not let me go see a Clint Eastwood movie that now shows on TV. When I was 14 I had to work hard just to get access to Playboy Magazine. Nowadays, really hardcore porn can be found with a single google search and I think that this can be very harmful and has been very harmful to a lot of kids. I think that maybe there could be some tradeoff to be had where the liberals could support restricting access to porn in exchange for conservatives agreeing to get behind the message that even though non-marital sex may be a bad idea, if you are going to do it then you should use a condom to avoid STDs and an IUD or implant to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Conservatives, does this seem like a fair tradeoff? What you would get would be a public policy that emphasizes the reasons why non-marital sex can be a bad idea, including religious and moral reasons. You would also get cooperation in reducing access to online porn. Liberals, you would get the satisfaction of helping women avoid unwanted pregnancies, plus saving vulnerable children from online porn. And everyone would get lower taxes, and if the book Freakonomics is correct, the crime crime rate in 18 years will drop like a stone. I invite everyone to challenge my assumptions and conclusions. Through dialog and debate we might be able to find something that could work.

Dave, with all due respect, you don't know for a fact that Ryan "refused to make any relevant move at the deadline" or that he has given up on 2015. For all we know, Ryan spent major time and effort trying to get Tulo or a catcher, and maybe he even came close. You may be correct and maybe TR was eating bon-bons and binge watching "Orange is the New Black", but neither you nor I will ever know with any meaningful level of certainty. Also, other posters have given lots of reasons why the current move might make sense. You may not agree with those reasons, but it's not productive to merely say "zero reason why Buxton shouldn't be at the very least taking the at bats in the 2-3 games a week..." You are free to debate the reasons that have been given, because TD is about debate. However, TD is not about ranting or shouting down others who disagree. Dave is far from the only poster who is testing the limits of TD policy in this thread and the prior thread. He just happened to do this in the wrong place at the wrong time. We can all do better. Important takeaway -- we want vigorous debate and intelligent analysis. We don't want unsupported pontification, trolling, bickering or disrespect for other posters. I was very disappointed by some of the posts in the prior thread and will be fairly quick to start issuing infraction points if people don't make more of a effort to be civil and respectful.

Moderator note -- towards the end of the Buxton demotion thread I saw some posts that went over the line in terms of trolling and bickering. I am asking people not to repeat that behavior here.

Moderator note -- please refrain from personally attacking other posters -- personal squabbles detract from the debate.