Jake

As for the debate we had earlier about who I should start at flex (Vereen or Thompkins)....I started Vereen

LOL TAMPA BAY

We won this game with coaching.

At least we have the new coaching staff excuse.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Sep 8, 2013 -> 02:41 PM) Outside of that WTF pick, Cutler's been very good. This will be written on his gravestone

extend Trestman!

LOL!

Really dumb time to burn a TO

Fantastic drive. Very nice turn of events.

Green is the best player on the field today.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Sep 8, 2013 -> 01:19 PM) Our offense still sucks.

What a catch by Green. Really good coverage

MARTYSAURUS REX

Last year, Mitchell at 23 posted a 127 wRC+ in AA while playing great defense and stealing some bases. There was some hope there, of something. A fourth outfielder, perhaps. It's really confusing how he completely fell off the wagon

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 7, 2013 -> 10:44 PM) That is like when, in church? Meetings for work, class

Noooooooooooo

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Sep 6, 2013 -> 10:27 PM) OK, we have to stop thinking of war in terms of easy outcomes. Dropping $10m bombs out of $1b airplanes is always going to be expensive. I don't even know what it costs to empty the Sixth Fleet out of Naples into a holding pattern in the Med, much less start using it for war, but I cannot imagine it being cheap. I'm not taking cost into great consideration...it is clear that the US government can always afford military activity. It is also clear they hate spending money to help their own people, so I don't think that the money they spend on this conflict is coming out of needier people's pockets; they have no problem agreeing to spend defense money but rarely agree to spend it (ie, an increase over current spending) in ways to improve domestic matters. The cost of human life is the cost I'm more worried about. I need some argument that more lives are ultimately saved/improved by intervention...even if all of those lives are saved/improved by the stand against chemical weapons and not necessarily improving the body count in Syria itself in the near term. This is a hard argument to make, though, and I'll be skeptical of it.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Sep 6, 2013 -> 08:10 PM) Saddam did use chemical weapons against the Kurds. We know this as fact. He was however smart enough to not use them against Americans. Also, you are clearly taking a position when you advocate bombing them. That's the line in the sand here, pal. The only position I feel strongly about is that 1. I don't want to be part of a group that says "you cannot use chemical weapons" but fail to react when they are used and 2. I don't really want to get involved in this conflict on the military level, because it doesn't appear that there are many easy outcomes in doing so. Therefore, for me, I am totally conflicted. I wish I could be in these congressional hearings and glean as much info as possible. This is really complicated. As far as the Iraq situation, the last time we knew Hussein to be doing this was in 1988 after Ronald Christ Reagan sold him the materials for those weapons and then pretended those weapons weren't used. It turns out that we weren't all that far from being at war with them at that point anyway. I don't know how that is all that relevant to this situation many years later, though we're still trying to undo much of what Reagan and his cohort has done to this country as well as the Middle East.

I like having a watch when I know I'll be in a setting in which it is inappropriate to check my phone frequently

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Sep 6, 2013 -> 04:16 PM) I won't watch out of protest since Jeff Keppinger is actually batting 3rd in a major league baseball lineup. Then again I guess we should appreciate that at this point. Between this and activating Ramon, we are really going for it all. He often batted third for the Rays last year

Start Vereen or Thompkins as flex?

Might as well keep trying with Mitchell

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Sep 6, 2013 -> 07:10 PM) Going through the effort of destroying people to prevent the destruction of people doesn't make sense. Especially when there's a very high likelihood that the people you are destroying will probably be destroyed anyways whether you destroy them or not. Or you could have a moral problem with wiping these savages off the face of the earth, like oh I dunno IRAQ. The about-face from liberals who couldn't find enough ways to call George W Bush a war mongerer but now support unilateral military action because of the EXACT SAME REASONS WE WENT IRAQ. While I'm not eager to take a position on this conflict, they are totally different. 1. The proposed action is not an occupation and it has been explicitly stated that we aren't trying to take power from Assad 2. There actually are weapons and they actually have been used

I would like to do something that prevents the future use of chemical weapons. I'm not sure what that is - I have a feeling a certain amount of bombing would help accomplish that task, but I'd love if someone can come up with something else.