Balta1701

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 15, 2009 -> 02:34 PM) Anderson's better than Rowand or Hunter, but neither Rowand nor Anderson are/were better than Hunter in his prime on turf. If Anderson could bring a ball back over the fence, I might start disagreeing with you. Anderson covers as much ground as any CF I've seen and he plays people perfectly in advance. He just isn't a HR robber.

If it takes a week or two for the appeal to go through that's a huge benefit to the team. Play JD every day, make those his 2 rest days.

QUOTE (BearSox @ May 15, 2009 -> 11:04 AM) Also, what about the first amendment? This is certainly a free exercise type issue. Here's the question in response...we still limit the right to free speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater because people will get hurt. In this case...people are likely to get hurt. 1 person in particular...and it's a person that the law judges to not have the ability to fully make a decision on his or her own because he or she is a minor. Does that override the free exercise clause in the same way that you can't use free speech to cause someone harm?

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 15, 2009 -> 10:52 AM) As far as al-Qaida operatives go, we can, and were, collecting information from them through other means (there are probably dozens of methods, I don't even know them all off the top of my head), but the Cheney crowd f***ed up the whole process. Depends on your goal. If your goal was to get them to give information, then yes, the torture f***ed up the whole process. If your goal was to get them to say that they were working with the Iraqis...then the torture did its job very well.

QUOTE (Soxy @ May 15, 2009 -> 11:01 AM) Yeah, I think this is a murky area only because it is a child. With Terri Schiavo, I was so disgusted with the court's intervention. But here, I'm uncomfortable--but I think it was the right judgment. Which part, the court intervening to say that the husband hadn't lost his rights or the Congress trying to intervene to take those rights away?

QUOTE (BearSox @ May 15, 2009 -> 10:55 AM) So after the mother pops out the baby, the baby doesn't need the mother anymore? In the sense that the child can survive, yes. You could give the child to another person and it would be totally able to survive. Or hell, you could even give it to a robot. You can't exactly do that before birth.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 15, 2009 -> 10:50 AM) No, it is a choice of two treatments. If the child still dies, can the parents sue the government for making the wrong decision? If they refuse treatment and the child dies, can the government put them in jail?

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ May 15, 2009 -> 10:47 AM) Abortion is a little different because there is actually a debate as to whether a fetus is life. There is no debate as to whether a child is life. And there's another key point...the difference with an abortion is that the fetus is relying on the mother's body for life. After birth, the child is no longer doing so. That's key to the entire court decision...its always different, I know, but in this case it's important.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 15, 2009 -> 10:47 AM) And your point isn't relevant either, unless I'm missing it. If you really want to get down to it, spending 3 months waterboarding 2 guys after you've spent months interrogating them doesn't exactly argue that we were facing the ticking time bomb scenario either.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 15, 2009 -> 10:41 AM) What gives you (or anyone) the right to determine what's best for the family? (I'm playing devil's advocate here...) What gives them the right to choose to end their child's life in that manner?

QUOTE (Palehosefan @ May 15, 2009 -> 10:14 AM) Every other season he manages to be healthy. 09: ?? 08: 6 games 07: 15 games 06: 4 games 05: 14 games 04: 6 games LOL, there's some solid logic.

QUOTE (Texsox @ May 15, 2009 -> 09:51 AM) exactly. Is there much of an indirect cost to a revolving door at any position? Depends on what you're doing at the other positions. If you're strong in lots of places, one or two revolving doors can be tolerated.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 15, 2009 -> 09:30 AM) If Roxana Saberi had been waterboarded (tortured, whatever) by the Iranians to have her "admit" to being an American spy, would we have so many right-wing bloggers and windbags talking about how this stuff works? You don't understand, ticking time bomb and all.

QUOTE (Palehosefan @ May 15, 2009 -> 09:36 AM) I think the Colts are a pretty safe bet to be a 10-6/11-5 type team next year. I really, really like Donald Brown and having Bob Sanders for a full season will be huge for the defense. How are they going to do that?

QUOTE (BearSox @ May 14, 2009 -> 08:47 PM) Hudson will likely cash in and we don't need a 2B, Damon will likely also cash in again and he's a Boras client. Figgins makes the most sense. He's someone who's been on KW's radar for a while now and likely would not be too expensive to sign. He could play either 3B, LF, or CF for us. Why do people keep assuming the market next offseason will be better than this one and not worse? Baseball was hardly touched by the economic collapse last year because it happened quite a ways after most of the tickets had been sold, esp. season tickets. This is going to be the year where it starts hurting teams.

Give it to em Danksy.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 15, 2009 -> 08:33 AM) Denver over Seattle and it isn't even close. This LA team is a 2 man team with a bunch of role players. They're highly overrated and I'm a Lakers fan. There is nothing at all wrong with the concept of a 2 man team with a bunch of role players if the 2 men are quite good at what they do and the role players cover their roles. I don't think the problem in L.A. has anything to do with talent. It has everything to do with attitude. Just like it did last year.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 14, 2009 -> 08:27 PM) Who would he block and who is out there? Orlando Hudson is on a 1 year deal. Chone Figgins will be out there, Johnny Damon also. Coco Crisp has an $8 million option, Freddy Sanchez has an $8 million option. Polonco will be out there, then you get down to the Xavier Nady level and you're really stretching. Probably someone out there I missed, here's a version of the list from a few months ago.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 14, 2009 -> 08:25 PM) Talk about a perfect guy for Don Cooper... Plus arm who can't find the strike zone. He sounds a lot like Matt Thornton was when he got here. Um...also sounds like our entire 2007 bullpen. Mike MacDougal, David Aardsma...

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 14, 2009 -> 07:58 PM) In that first link you posted it said Obama was going to put restrictions on hearsay evidence. Depends on how they define "Restrictions". Keep in mind...they may simply not be able to convict some of these guys based on anything else since 95% of the evidence against them is stuff they confessed to under duress. All they have may be hearsay. There is going to be a large motivation to push as much through the gaps as possible, given the shoddy legal work done by the predecessors.

QUOTE (fathom @ May 14, 2009 -> 08:09 PM) I love the Angels for swooping in and getting Hunter and saving us 18 million dollars, which could easily be 25% of our payroll next year. I can't imagine how badly this team would be selling people off if we had signed that deal.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 14, 2009 -> 07:29 PM) Then we need to try and get Congress to authorize a tribunal system. I really don't see why they wouldn't, and it's not something that would be filibustered. Without that, it's either hold them indefinitely and do nothing, or try them in the US court system which could potentially be a horrible idea. The ACLU is saying that the proposed tribunals will still allow evidence that would break the rules in other trials, hearsay evidence, for example. If that's the case, then the ACLU will win when they challenge the tribunals before the Supreme Court again.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 14, 2009 -> 07:41 PM) And all I'm saying is that is a ballclub that will be pretty poor. In the rookie year for all those guys or after they've had some time to develop?

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ May 14, 2009 -> 07:09 PM) How exactly again is the constitution applied to non-US citizens that were captured in a foreign land. I thought military tribunals are part of the geneva convention. I am sure that we can get an impartial jury of their peers with students from Berkeley. Article 3, section 1: The Simple fact is, this only works if you get Congress to authorize the commission. Otherwise, it's not going to wind up working. If this country's legal system in any fashion is going to try someone, it has to be in a court inferior to the Supreme Court and authorized by Congress. When FDR and Lincoln used military tribunals, they were both authorized by Congress. It's just how this is going to end up. If you wanted to run a military commission outside of this country, you probably could pull it off without legal challenge if it followed the Geneva convention rules, which would require us taking a number of steps like acknowledging war crimes actually exist, possibly declaring war, and figuring out a way to deal with the accused in their home country. If we want them imprisoned in American jails, we're going to have to follow the basics of the establishment of the American court system.

Obama to ignore constitution, restore altered version if illegal military tribunals. Here's how this is going to go...it's going to be slightly better than the Bush version, but in the end, the court system itself is still unconstitutional; the President can not create his own court system without approval from the Congress. In the end, a few years down the road, anything these tribunals do is going to be struck down. There's really no way around it.