Balta1701

QUOTE (zenryan @ Mar 31, 2012 -> 12:02 AM) So what is the take on Dooley's future? I was reading an ESPN chat wrap and the "expert" said a 7-5 would probably mean the end for Dooley. Is that the general consensus around Tennessee? I wouldn't be surprised at all if that was the case, but I'll also add that I hate seeing a guy hired in college football, brought into a mess, and not get at least 5 or 6 full seasons, where he has 2-3 recruiting classes of seniors, to go through. But I haven't gotten the impression he's got a ton of strong support higher-up. This will be his 3rd season, and his first 2 seasons he's had incredibly young teams because Lane Kiffin wiped out the upperclassmen and recruiting class in 2009. They still got people, but the 2009 recruiting class was comparatively quite poor when they were looking at a strong class coming in before the coaching change, and that group will be ~Juniors this year. They also were really hammered by 2 injuries last year, their QB and best WR.

QUOTE (MAX @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:54 PM) Does that rule even apply to people going from reliever to starter? Probably even more so, because you've now completely messed around with people's makeup. Joba Chamberlain says hi, for example.

Morel replaced by the elf with back stiffness...Danks's last start before the season.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:41 PM) Not Balta's planned-for outcome this offseason, but we still have a lot more insurance than recent years with Axelrod, Simon Castro, Doyle and Molina, along with Hector Santiago. If we're putting Stewart and Axelrod in the bullpen...then we better hope Castro or Molina are ready to take a rotation spot next year.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 10:42 PM) In one thread you predict 175 IP for Sale, in another you precidt TJS. Which side are you on? This was not what I'm "Predicting", it's what I'm "Wishing will happen" in this thread. 175 innings and no injuries would be great! I want that kid to be healthy, I'm just terrified. He threw 71 innings last year. 71. A short season of barely 150 innings would be double what he threw last year, and the Verducci effect rule is "dont' add more than 30". For a guy whose mechanics were questioned before the draft, and whose stuff reminds me of Liriano so much it's scary...eek.

Some actually interesting bee-killing updates.

Keith Olbermann bitterly divorces yet another network, with the lawsuits already going, replaced by Eliot Spitzer

QUOTE (flavum @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 10:13 PM) I think Stewart is making the team. It sounds like Bruney vs Jones for the last spot. Personally, I like Bruney for a couple innings at a time in blowout games. Jones will probably get the call up at some point this season. Scott Merkin thinks Jones is making the team out of spring training, but I don't buy that yet. Of course now Bruney is in there now and went 3-0 on the first hitter before giving up a hit, and then walked the second batter. And now a double. Nate Jones, your table is ready. I got the impression that Bruney already made the team, and the last spot was down to Stewart vs. Jones, although I'd still prefer Axelrod there he just hasn't eanred it.. Reed Thornton Santiago Ohman Crain Bruney

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 10:05 PM) Agreed. And then if we want to go back through it, there's "Which witness do we believe, should we actually believe the statement of the shooter only (no), should we only believe the statement of the person who was on the phone (no)", etc. "He was slamming my head into the ground!" is what the shooter is always going to say. The problem is that the other witness is dead.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 10:01 PM) No, not the same. They did not look at a bill and literally replace text with their own interpretation of what the bill was intended to be. Not sure how many times this point has to be repeated. It rewrote pretty much every campaign finance law on the books.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 09:51 PM) And I'm guessing that when you're head is being repeatedly slammed into something, you're not totally aware of what it is at the time and justifiably assume that it won't end well if you allow it to continue. You're right, and if that were the case, then force would be justified...but that's exactly why an untrained person with no backup and no non-lethal means of defense should not go trailing "suspicious" people down the street, and then damn well shouldn't go after them on foot, which would never have happened if he wasn't armed and trying to be a vigilante. And honestly, if that kid was on top of me, I could have picked him up and thrown him off of me given his reported weight of about 150 lbs. He was a twig. And Zimmerman's quite a bit bigger than me. But then we're now both back into logical hypotheticals.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 08:04 PM) In my best Seth Meyers/Amy Pohler voice: really, Balta, really? Deciding that corporations have 1st Amendment protections is the same as completely ignoring the text of a law and supplanting the Court's own interpretation of what the bill was REALLY meant to be? REALLY? That's the same? Balta, you're a smart guy from what I can tell, but your knowledge of the law and the operation of law is just...terrible. They literally overturned a century of precedent, something like half a dozen decisions, including the decision on the McCain/Feingold bill only a couple years beforehand. So yeah, they did exactly what you said they did, completely flipped over the constitution and an enormous number of case precedents. Exactly waht you said. In a 5-4 decision, which was only possible because O'Connor was replaced by Alito.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 07:57 PM) Fox is reporting that the witness may have been pressured to give details he didn't have. He also claims that the entirety of what he saw took place on grass, which could invalidate Zimmermans claims of having his head bashed onto concrete. This makes Zimmerman's claims indeed look exegerrated. He clearly hit his head on something, he was actually at least scratched/hurt somehow.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:38 PM) According to Balta and SS, the SC can do whatever the hell it wants. Forget precedent, forget the Constitution - 9 people could address every political issue at stake in the country by simply rewriting the text of statutes. This is the short definition of the Citizens United decision.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 06:07 PM) The racial issues aren't relevant to the legal issues directly but are relevant socially. The racial issues could be very relevant to the legal issues. It's the only thing that could allow federal charges in the case.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 06:12 PM) They may be relevant socially, its unclear at the moment. Its not like Zimmerman was a member of the Nazi party or a member of the KKK. For all we know this truly was a terrible terrible tragedy. Was race involved in the arrest? At first it seemed possible, but now as the facts come out, it appears the police wanted Zimmeran charged with manslaughter. Was race involved in the DA's decision not to prosecute? This may be possible, but not because the DA is racist, but instead because the DA perceives that the jury may be racist. Conviction percentages are the most important thing to prosecutors, many of them have a ridiculous rate of 90% or higher. They for the most part do not want to take risky cases because it generally is a lose lose situation. Furthermore, in this case, had the DA prosecuted and Zimmerman was found to be within his rights, the City/Municipality may have been liable to Zimmerman. So at the end of the day, I now believe the most likely thing that happened was that the DA didnt prosecute, because he didnt want to risk his job. Nothing sinister, just the sad state of criminal prosecution. I'd say that the most likely reason the DA didn't want to prosecute is because of that stupid Florida law which requires effectively overwhelming evidence before a case can be brought to prove that a shooting wasn't self defense. In this case, overwhelming evidence will never be possible. The case will never meet the standard established in the law. That doesn't mean that race wasn't involved in this case. We've got a guy who sees a black kid in a hoodie, decides he's "Suspicious", follows him around the neighborhood, mutters "These a**holes always get away" to a 911 operator, then gets out of his car to pursue him further, at which point there is a confrontation and he shoots. The reason why this set of events resonates strongly with African Americans is that they're used to being singled out. They're used to being looked at as suspicious. They're taught as kids that any time they buy something they need to put it in a bag so that the store doesn't think they stole it. They darn well better keep their hands on the wheel in a traffic stop until the officer tells them to move their hands, otherwise the officer will think they're being aggressive. This is a community of people that get treatment that the rest of us don't, and in this case, a 17 year old skinny kid got that same treatment and then wound up dead. And they have every right to be tired of it. Having a kid get gunned down for no reason other than some guy thought he looked "Suspicious" is right in with everything that community has gone through.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 06:18 PM) I know it's quite uncool of me to take this wait and see approach rather than jumping on board the Zimmerman is a guilty racist and Martin is an innocent young angel of a man train, but that's not my style. I'd rather let the truth emerge and go from there. Either you haven't paid much attention to this thread or you're just trying to get on everyone's nerves by insulting them. Pretty much everyone here has taken a nuanced, supported position in some fashion here. The people who think that the police are letting a guy off for shooting a kid have been very clear about what they think went wrong in the system and how they got to those conclusions.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:27 PM) But they are right. If it was a tax, why not call it a tax. If you dont call it a tax, then it seemingly is something new, and therefore may not be allowed. Its a disingenuous argument, but it is an argument nonetheless. In fact it derives straight from contract law, penalty versus liquidated damages. If I write the exact same provision in a contract and call it a "penalty" as opposed to a "liquidated damage" it is unenforceable. So this really isnt that far fetched. Because changing that wording would have lost them votes and thus they couldn't have passed the bill. That's the filibuster for you. That's the Senate for you. The Senate is that dumb.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:26 PM) And do you walk around in broad daylight, not raining, with it over your head? Is it between 40 and 60 degrees? Yeah, pretty often.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:23 PM) Well that is just silly. I admittedly dont follow this type of stuff, but when the bill was passed I would have bet tonights mega millions on the fact that it was going to be in front of the Supreme Court. Which is why I would have tailored the bill in such a way that if the Conservative Judges were to deny it, it would severely change United States law (ie it is a privilege and if the Supreme Court struck it down, it would be saying that the govt cant make restrictions on privileges.) I understand the game of the Senate, but ultimately the Supreme Court was going to be deciding this law, and you needed to write it in a way that would force the Conservative Judges to agree or have to hurt other areas they care about. Like I said, it might well be the wild west of challenging tax credits if they overturn this, because that's all it is, and "You didn't use the word tax" is simply not the basis of a legitimate supreme court decision.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:21 PM) How many people do you see walking around with a hoodie over their head in good weather? GMAB. It's not proof of someone being a criminal or someone about to commit a crime, but its more suspicious than someone who is not wearing one. I wear one almost any day that the temperature starts or finishes between 40 and 60. I also have some I wear in the winter. Love em. Have a Sox one also. (Not this one)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:20 PM) And no one at the time thought there was a constitutional issue over the issue. Correction. Everyone thought there would be a constitutional challenge. No one wagered on the 5 Court republicans totally throwing out any precedents and decisions they don't like, including their own (Raich).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:14 PM) Once again, back to my point, why not draft it in a way that there is the least path of resistance? This. Was. Everything and the farm was given up. And I mean everything. The original House version of the Bill was a better bill by a factor of 100. But the Senate wanted to hit arbitrary spending goals, make Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman happy, and let that terrible budget committee process go forward. The reason that the mandate text doesn't use the word "Tax" is that one of those guys, and we don't know who but probably one of those two, wouldn't vote for it if that word appeared in the structure of it. The Senate is that petty. My personal favorite moment of the whole debate was when Joe Lieberman though he'd do something great and centrist and totally undercut the bill by offering to get rid of the whole thing and just expand medicare eligibility down to 55. After all, that'd still leave people uninsured, so it'd have to be a centrist bill...And then the liberals loved it, so he immediately dropped his own proposal and disavowed it.

Wait, does that mean Livan is going to block one of the Braves young starters and one of them didn't make the team? Jurrjens Hanson Beachy Minor Delgado Teheran That's 6 deep right there unless Hanson is hurt, and then they get Hudson back in a month or so.

QUOTE (Cali @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:39 PM) Either use the half of the lot McCourt doesn't own or find a new site, but the Dodgers need a new stadium badly. Dodger Stadium is a freaking dump in an iffy part of LA that families are afraid to go to now since the incident last season. New ownership combined with a nice new modern stadium would do wonders for that franchise... That's an "Iffy" part of L.A. close to downtown with great freeway access. The money they could get for building high-end housing in that area would be ridiculous.