bmags

Rabbit do you need to be asked? Rock? Rock I know your source dried up but what are your thought on asking.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 01:53 PM) Then I remain confused as to why you seem to have zero understanding and think pardoning a couple of ranchers who have broken the law repeatedly for over 20 years, threatened various federal employees, and endangered the lives of others would have a positive impact on local relations with the BLM. eta Nancy Langston, the author of the NYT piece I linked, is a professor of environmental science and published her first book in 1995. I am reasonably sure that she is not 24 years old. eta2: also I would appreciate if you would acknowledge that the Hammonds were made explicitly aware that the government was going to appeal the original sentence, that the government wase guaranteed to win that appeal, and that the sentence that would be imposed was the same deal that the Hammonds agreed to. It doesn't seem particularly "cruel" but absolutely routine. I have explained myself clearly. You have held two ideas in your head that a) there is a fringe population in the west that has acted out in illegal and damaging activities due to an ideology that they have been slighted by the fed regulation of the land. There is a fringier population among them who is currently holding land hostage by force. b) There is a larger population of people that do not support the first part of a and certainly second part of a, but do support policies in a range of exploitative grazing/mining or use of land for quads. Yet actually hold them all together as one group. My concerns are about group B, whom in all reports on your google searches on the matter, do not support the actions of A, but always caveat to sympathize with the handling of the lands under federal management. You continue to read that, and assume it's about group A. You remind me of discussions of Black Lives Matter, where no discussion of the actual grievances of human people matter because you really want to talk about the group that rioted. Nothing and no where have I stated anything that the group that stormed the federal land should receive leniency in punishment. In a similar way that you may pardon a protestor arrested for legitimate reasons but has sympathetic support may be a strategic consideration to show understanding, pardons could be applied to groups StrangeSox doesn't actually agree with. Also, the "years of government outreach" do not necessarily mean anything. Good governance is effective governance.

None of what I said is arguing against your second and third paragraphs, except that I disagree that pardoning does nothing. Please, for the love of god, stop posting a bunch of article put together by 24 year olds who googled this for 3 hours. I have already THEM and already read the articles that they GOOGLED.

Jenks, we get it, your entirety of bulls fandom is being pissed off that rose destroyed his knees and is not openly talking about how he's a terrible player. He should not be fined every time he shoots a 3. He has halved his 3PA this year. He's trying.

You assume any moves to understand the conflict where a significant group of people in interaction with the government service includes accommodating all demands. There has been long festering issues here, and when consistent destructive acts continue to be applied, that atmosphere creates the atmosphere of "they may have went too far, but I hate the BLM...so" That situation, if not resolved, creates a larger problem where if any major (and positive) action may need to be done on those lands with the help of local population, they will not have the trust and support of it. Your assertion here that "what they want" is the list of demands from disparate parties to have unlimited use of the lands. This reminds me of the Missouri protests where people looked at certain ridiculous demands and said "they want this but X, X, X!" What I see here is a situation where a large constituency who may have illegitimate demands, but the real issue is a a group who does not feel that they have a process to raise and legitimately address their concerns. When it comes to the federal government controlling local land all around you, yes I can see that being a huge concern. Pardoning some local participants with local support and addressing how a process can be created to create a more consistent and transparent process to the changing of rules that affect this people would help prevent a situation like now where people get lockstep behind the craziest demands just because they are so fed up. If you can't empathize with these people, I'd suggest looking at your own run-ins with local gov't and land use situations. I get frustrated often, and I have clear and transparent areas where I can address it.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 12:41 PM) Vox with an interesting piece on the conflicts between the BLM and certain people in the West. http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10718128/feder...-oregon-militia I live in close proximity to a lot of cool outdoors stuff here in Colorado and much of it is national forest. Letting that land go back to the states increases the likelihood that logging and mining will replace some of the recreational value of the places I spend a lot of my weekends in the summer. There's a delicate balance out west between the economic value of the land (and a lot of the rural communities in the west depend on those industries) and the environmental and recreational value of that land (the value of federal protection of national forests is one of the few times environmental groups and hunters see eye-to-eye in Colorado). It's a difficult issue, but I don't see how that equates to "something rotten in the BLM." Furthermore, why on Earth would you give in to these "protestors" and pardon these guys - even though they don't endorse the occupation of the federal building? There are plenty of people much more deserving of pardons and any pardon is a tacit endorsement of the illegal behavior of the protestors... I said something rotten between the BLM and the western states. BLM is not national park service. I'm also not pardoning the protestors, which, the assumption would be are in for criminal prosecution at the point their snacks run out and get cold. And you are allowed to use multiple pardons. Indeed, there is no limit.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 11:59 AM) Just my opinion but I think the Sox missed out on a big opportunity with Henderson Alvarez. This was my thing. It just seemed so obvious. I'm sure he ends up like never playing and that's why he wasn't mentioned, but that seems like a fantastic gamble. He was fantastic 2 years ago.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 11:57 AM) I would be stunned if Osweiller doesn't get a decent size offer from someone. Not saying mega money, but QB's get paid, and someone who has crappy QB play is going to have seen enough of Brock to think he could take steps forward and be their QB. Houston

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 09:31 AM) I disagree that Obama should pardon the two ranchers or that a five year sentence "looks ridiculous." Whether or not there was any mandatory minimum, I think five years sounds like a reasonable sentence for their crimes and history. Unless you think the President should pardon every person who receives a mandatory minimum sentence that is harsher than what the sentencing judge would have imposed, these guys shouldn't receive any special treatment and don't have a very sympathetic case anyway. As the law stands right now, yeah, I do support the circuit court enforcing the law instead of letting a district judge arbitrarily decide to ignore the law because it sets a pretty terrible precedent and not just for sentencing. I think appellate courts forcing lower courts to follow existing law is necessary for a fair justice system. Re-sentencing when trial judges don't follow the law is what happens routinely. I also support the abolition of mandatory minimums. This is not contradictory to also believing that judges need to adhere to the law as it currently stands. If there had been no mandatory minimum, there would not even be a mechanism for the government to appeal the initial sentence (which absolutely everyone was aware would happen when the initial sentence was handed down), and that would be fine. There's an argument. I'm not advocating that any law be imposed. By law, they should go back for the correct sentencing. Hence the pardon, a legal maneuver. The pardon is a political move. For one, there is clearly something rotten in the west right now between BLM and local population. Sending someone back for more time after time served seems more cruel than the correct sentencing applied already. If you want to send them back for child abuse, that's a different case entirely. While the environmental cases should be held strong, the general use of the land as park space seems to be a huge opportunity for good will there and should be looked at.

They at least franchise Miller.

Giving away a 1st round pick for fowler is just gross to me.

Gordon was basically worth 10 mill more than Zobrist, which seems like a very buyer friendly scale considering. Anxious to hear we are serious for cespedes.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jan 5, 2016 -> 10:59 PM) Considering he quietly asked for a trade earlier in the year and didn't have much to say with the media on his way out, I would as well. I commend him and Houston on transitioning in a 3-4 defense but they are not true 3-4 guys other than rushing the QB. Right. I wouldn't mind keeping him but I think it would never hurt you as an organization to accomodate things like that after a significant shift in strategy. He did his part, played his ass off and now will get us pretty equal value.

Except you are literally supporting the mandatory minimum overriding that judges decision in this case.

Caulfield, you don't need to write "From KC's standpoint", it is assumed.

Yeah I don't know what else to say except b****ing about how low a punishment a judge gave in a case and going to bat for the mandatory minimum is literally the argument that makes mandatory minimum.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 05:52 AM) That was a pretty terrible post bmags for essentially disagreeing on a 2 or 5 year sentence. You can't be against mandatory minimums and suddenly go to bat for them when its a constituency you don't like, that is literally why mandatory minimums exist and are so hard to get rid of. Looking at sentences for wild firefighters that set fires for work and caused significantly more damage their sentences were higher but time served appears to be marginal. Penalties were huge for damage.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jan 6, 2016 -> 06:40 AM) If you had a firefighter in your family that position might magically change. Oh, is that your justice standard? Should we allow family members to set all punishments now?

I have zero confidence now.

This made me look up Kenny Lofton's stats. Man, he was so good for so long.

I would trade Willie Young.

Prior to Munoz start was a classic Phil Rogers puff piece on his curveball.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 5, 2016 -> 01:21 PM) "Muñoz made his major league debut in 2004 for the Chicago White Sox in a start against the Montreal Expos. It was a disaster, as Muñoz allowed eleven runs in three innings (including nine in the second inning alone) tying for third all-time for most runs allowed in a major league debut. (Bill James' "Game Score" statistic, which measures pitcher starts — 50 is average, 90 is exceptional, below 20 is poor — scores Munoz' start at minus-7, the worst for a debut start since at least 1918.) Amazingly, Muñoz almost did not emerge as the losing pitcher, as the Sox mounted an incredible comeback, finally falling 17-14. Muñoz went back to the minors, then returned in September, pitching fairly well in relief." This was one of my favorite games ever. How many rbi's did Uribe have? 9?

If you have a 3 war player, you do not need to upgrade them. If you have three 1.5 WAR players...you have 3 players you'd be looking to upgrade to stars. You would have the worlds most deep 74 win team, though.

You are right, they should go to jail for life. Congratulations, you are now a tough on crime democrat that saved our cities.