Balta1701

You people let me down for not posting this. Yes, it was after the buzzer.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 06:47 PM) Like all the jerkoffs running around with guns in cities where it's illegal to do so? Because that's awesome, too. What's your proposed solution to dealing with that? Searches for guns? Much more restrictive purchase requirements? I'm game. Might have to wait until a Republican justice retires for some of it to become constitutional though.

Are you in Toronto's front office, or is that something you quoted you should link to?

SI has an excerpt if you're up for more.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:30 PM) Balta, that sounds awesome. Patrick Stewart doing a Russian accent would either be the greatest or the worst thing ever.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 06:17 PM) When is this?! Every year before 2012.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 06:13 PM) Any reasonable person would understand that's not a gangsta hoodie. Only because (when healthy) he's moving so fast into the lane that you can't see what he's wearing. Usually he's just a red blur.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 06:11 PM) And this is not at all the first time that we've had a divided court based on party ideology. FDR wanted to amend the Constitution to add more justices because he was tired of the "Republican" justices on the Court striking down his laws. There really is something that seems off if the way this country is governed is grandfathered in based on which party's President was in power when 5 of the justices were appointed versus which party's president was in power when 4 of the justices were appointed. (Especially if that grandfathering decides the next president, but somehow I feel like that's digressing). IF that's the way it's going to be then there ought to be at least term limits on the court so that the court can shift as society shifts more readily.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 06:09 PM) But deeper philosophies form your political ideologies, and these same beliefs are going to impact your jurisprudence. that doesn't mean you're necessarily politically biased in your decisions, though. But the other side here is that a person who doesn't decide their jurisprudence (at least in the biggest cases) based on anything other than the prevailing political beliefs of their appointing party will not reach the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy was the last one like that you'll see.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 06:07 PM) It's not an easy subject to discuss, that's for sure. In law, I don't feel politics or political leanings belong in any regard...and I know it's impossible for people to not be "infected" by their political beliefs/ideologies...so what I'm wishing for is mostly impossible...but I think politics in our courts have reached a level never before seen...it's clearly a divided supreme court now...and I guarantee liberals are hoping one of the conservative justices dies or is forced to step down so a Democratic president can replace them, before another republican president comes around. And why? For the exact reasons I stated shouldn't belong in that court. Because they know they'd get a 5th liberal justice. And that's that. And similarly, if a Republican is elected and Justice Kennedy retires, that'll be the last of Roe V. Wade.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 06:02 PM) Better to rely on an outlier to prove that guns are dangerous. "Remember, guns don't kill people. Dangerous minorities do." (I've been waiting for the opportune moment to pull that one out. Thanks!)

Viciedo gets less than 400 at bats, either because of injury or because of being treated as a platoon player. Alex Rios has a good enough first half that he would be tradeable and people call about him, but the Sox elect to hold onto him and he has a poor 2nd half.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:40 PM) Sorry, but I don't want to live in the Soviet Union.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:35 PM) And given that he was tailing the guy and essentially starting a fight, and the call from the gf saying he was being followed - I don't buy that his story is 100% accurate. So I would have brought him in. Well they did bring him in and interview him. They then released him.

QUOTE (Elgin Slim @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:11 PM) I remember thinking during those starts that something was wrong because his velocity was down. When he started getting shelled at the beginning of the 2010 season I put the pieces together. Also, does anyone remember the thing about him going to video of his pitching in SD about end of May 2010? After that he was pitching well but then they had to shut him down with the "fluid in the shoulder" but they kept pitching him anyway until the lat tore off the bone. IMO, horrible mismanagement of his injury Problem is, relative to the rest of 2009, that just isn't true. His average fastball that whole season was 91.8, and it sat basically at ~92 in those games on average, getting up to 93-94. It wasn't the hardest he threw in 2009, but it wasn't the softest either.

QUOTE (Elgin Slim @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:58 PM) Peavy said in an interview w/Rongey last spring that he shouldn't have pitched in 2009 because his ankle wasn't ready yet. He further elaborated on it saying that he changed his mechanics to compensate for the ankle injury, and that the altered mechanics caused his detached lat. The Sox were out of the race by September 2009, they should have shut him down at that point let him heal. The Padres shut him down for the year after he hurt himself. The Sox tried to rush him back when he wasn't healthy enough to pitch. This is also a great 20/20 hindsight point. Peavy came out in those 3 2009 starts and absolutely dominated...and I think everyone wanted to see him pitch, Peavy included, to build confidence for the next season. Nobody would have guessed at the time that "Destroying people 3 straight starts" would be a terrible thing for his body.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:02 PM) If the case turns out the way it's looking, the better way to put it would be that Martin would be alive today but for his decision to use force against Zimmerman. Or Martin would be alive today but for his suspension from school, etc. So we should teach our kids to welcome being followed by strange men?

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:58 PM) Does a racial slur really change anything if Martin was still the first one to use force? Yeah, because then the shooting becomes legally a hate crime, and then he has to go up against the federal laws, which don't have this stand your ground provision in them.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:55 PM) but he has the duty to retreat! run faster!!! Pretty much exactly right. He ought to have been able to take one shot at the guy to get him away and then required by law to flee. But no, he has the right to stand his ground and confront his aggressor, and if his aggressor attempts to fight back he can use deadly force, including slamming his head into the ground.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:52 PM) Oh please, that it is a stretch. Not in the least. Try to put yourself in that situation. I'd be scared sh*tless having some random dude in a pickup truck following me around for more than a few blocks, accelerating if I tried to run. At that point I'd try to hide, and if the guy got out of his car while I was trying to hide and he approached me without loudly and blatantly identifying himself and what his goals are, I've got the choice between trying to hit him first or having him find me while hiding. In the middle of a strange neighborhood where I don't know anyone.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:46 PM) I think you completely missed the point, I said "insurance companies" not just limited to medical insurance. That being said, they are still making a profit, which is not that common in today's economy. Insurance companies for the most part dont lose money, that is the point. Its not about how much profit they make, its about the fact they almost always make profit. And of course, executive compensation is counted as an expense.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:47 PM) See this is my problem. There's been this crazy outrage before the facts are even clear. You said chase, which would lead people to think that he was literally running him down, which would make the Martin-self defense claim much more believable. But if he's just walking? If he's just seeing if the guy is going to cause trouble? Yeah, it might be racist to see a black kid and assume he's up to no good, but there's no law against that. So because he was curious about what the kid was up to, and a confrontation ensued (cause unknown) he loses any right to claim his actions were in self defense? I still think the guy should have been arrested and the investigation should have been more thorough. And there's enough circumstantial evidence (being reported anyway) that would lead me to believe the whole stand your ground exception doesn't apply here. I just don't get this outrage over a law that's not really that poorly written and that in 99% of other cases provided a more clear and concise method for determining if someone's self-defense killing was justifiable. He was following him in his car first, the kid then got away, then Zimmerman got out of his car and managed to find him again. This is agreed to by both sides. The kid has a guy suspiciously following him in his car, he thinks he loses him, then the guy finds him again and approaches him after getting out of his car. That's as good of a self defense case as any other you can make. Strike back kid, he's after you, either he's going to kidnap you or he's going to mug you.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:30 PM) And what happens if he's some crazy guy that goes off and tries to kill you, when all you were doing was trying to get him away from a kid? According to SS since you confronted him instead of running away, you don't have immunity, so you need to make the conscious choice of (1) being beaten/killed or (2) shooting him with the looming possibility of going to jail for murder. Well, first of all, it would be darn nice if that crazy guy couldn't get a gun. But we're pretty clear in this country that we want that guy armed too.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 04:16 PM) So if I see someone lurking around a local playground, I shouldn't be allowed to follow him around to see what he's up to? I should run away to avoid any possible confrontation? The right move, of course, is to either step between the adult and the child he's talking to (who presumably you actually would know otherwise you're just a stranger as well), or to call the police and allow them to handle the situation.