southsider2k5

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 11:48 AM) Petricka and Putnam arent going anywhere If Gonzalez pitches well, it wouldn't shock me to see a DL trip for Putnam or Jennings. If Jennings has options left, he would be the one I would imagine would get sent down. They are currently using him as a long man and junk reliever.

QUOTE (Real @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 04:23 PM) Can somebody find which unpopulated stretch of woods Buehle is living in and see if he's looking for a job? Knowing Buehrle, he probably has already put on 30 pounds and lost his mitt.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:46 PM) Nate Silver just posted his most recent projections: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-mlb-predictions/ Sox are 49%, Indians at 50%, Royals at 47%.

Mike Berardino ‏@MikeBerardino 1h1 hour ago Buxton, Kepler optioned to ROC. Meyer recalled, Danny Santana returns from rehab stint. #MNTwins

https://twitter.com/ChiTribKane/status/724686616493756417 Line up

QUOTE (flavum @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:30 PM) Carrasco 4-6 weeks Brantley activated That could be huge for knocking Cleveland out of having a chance.

http://nypost.com/2016/04/25/the-15-day-dl...-how-to-fix-it/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdo...0425-story.html

QUOTE (chw42 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:24 PM) Who? Kevan Smith, former minor league catcher called up to replace Avila who went to the DL.

QUOTE (Alexeihyeess @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 01:57 PM) If the Sox keep up these winning ways Anderson is going to be shipped at the deadline. if they didn't trade him over the winter when all options were on the table, they aren't trading him at the deadline this year. The deadline markets tend to be limited in participants and potential return because certain teams aren't able to deal players because of being in contention.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:06 PM) That - by definition - is not true. Not really. You are try to feed me that changing your mind often on major policy positions somehow makes you smarter than everybody else. Hillary has to be the best candidate because she has changed her mind so many times. Every subsequent time she changes her mind just proves that again, thus confirming the bias of what you believed all along. For my two cents, I want to see a candidate that will stand up for what they believe. Even though I think Bernie Sanders is a loon, I can respect the guy for being who he is. I don't think it is any coincidence that he has been able to parlay that into a sizable level of support. Not only can people understand his convictions, they can trust the guy to stay there. They know who is he. A large part of the unlikability rating for Clinton is exactly because of that. People feel like they can't trust her, and for good reason.

QUOTE (Jake @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:44 PM) What people don't realize, because we've had Hawk nearby as a comparison, is that Steve Stone has an enormous ego. The silent treatment is Steve letting Jason off gently, because one thing Steve won't do is dare to say something he doesn't agree with. While you might think it would help the broadcast sometimes if Steve just agrees even when he thinks Jason said some minor thing that is incorrect, Steve will either go silent or correct him. Obviously, sometimes it's good to have a little disagreement, but Steve is obsessed with the being the smartest guy around. Of course, Hawk is off the handle a good portion of the time which is probably why we don't get the best of Steve with Hawk in the booth because Steve is terrified of the possibility that someone think he endorses whatever Hawk says or the way Hawk says it. That's actually what made Hawk and DJ such a nice pairing: DJ didn't have the need to be better than Hawk, he was happy to play off of him. It's also what is making Jason and Steve work together better, because again Jason Benetti doesn't need to defend his ego. Great post, I agree with every word. Being a bit older, I remember his having the fights with Harry Carry and the Cubs too. It wasn't that long ago that he wanted to be a GM or a team owner.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 03:01 PM) Only to you, because it fits your confirmation bias. And coincidentally not believing it fits your confirmation bias.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:37 PM) I played competitive sports on a torn ACL and meniscus for eight months - I didn't know it was torn for seven of those. So it's possible. I watched a guy tear his ACL/MCL on a slide at home plate. He tried playing more of the game. He could stand and run in a straight line OK. But he would literally collapse if he tried any kind of lateral motion.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:57 PM) The world is SO different now than it was decades ago! You REALLY want them to stick to all their views they held in 1992? Have YOU stuck to every single opinion you held when you were thirty years younger than you are now? come on dude you're really grasping here... On the scale that the Clintons and Trump have done it? No. I don't buy it for a second. Every single change has been in line, and timed with, majority opinion holding for their party. That is a gigantic red flag.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:53 PM) I want the candidate who can vote with conviction, and if it turns out to be a mistake, can own up to it and say she made a mistake. I'm looking for a candidate who can reevaluate positions when presented with new information. I like people who change. I like people who grow. You don't? Wouldn't you rather vote for the candidate who doesn't have the long history of making the mistakes, (some of them important ones that were repeated)?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:50 PM) It's a thin line, but there is a key difference between a candidate who has strong convictions but has shown they can make things work with others, versus someone with strong convictions but doesn't play well with others. That's political leadership in a nutshell, really. Clinton can compromise I have no doubt, but she's slushy on her own stances going in which won't serve her well. Sanders has very strong convictions, and goes in with a positive attitude, but I am not convinced he can compromise. Cruz is outright adamant in his views, and I have zero faith he can work with anyone else. Kasich I think may be the closest to being able to balance these things, which gives him some appeal. Trump is the worst case. There is no core there, AND he plays horribly with others. I think there is a clear line here. You can hold convictions, but be willing to compromise. I do not see Clinton as being in this camp. I don't see any of what I have seen the Clintons do over the past few decades as compromising. It is their positions that have changed, not their ability to compromise.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:45 PM) Glad you can answer the question. The ramifications of policy positions don't matter nearly as much when a candidate won't follow through on policy positions if popular opinion changes. I mean seriously. Do you want the candidate who was for civil rights all along, or do you want the candidate who was evetually for civil rights, after previously working against them? Do you want the candidate who was always against war, or the candidate who voted for it, changed her mind, but then supported getting into another war in Libya? If you are going to vote for someone because they hold your convictions, I would damned well want to know that those convictions are actually valuable to them. In no way, shape, or form, can you say that about Hillary Clinton. You also can't say that about Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump, just so you don't try to falsely equate that to sexism again.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:41 PM) Lol you call them excuses, I call it pragmatic understanding of how the world actually works, but potato potahto I understand how the world works. I also understand when a politician will quite literally say anything to get elected. I don't respected candidates who don't have deep convictions on major issues, especially on a repeated basis.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:39 PM) You said you'd vote for Gary Johnson, so you must have a grasp of his policies and the ramifications of said policies, yes? A grasp of his policies, lol. That is pretty ironic coming from someone who is voting for a person that doesn't hold convictions towards basically any policies. Johnson is very much a protest vote in an election that is very wing oriented.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:37 PM) Bernie Sanders is a white man from the most LIBERAL state in the f***ing union. Congrats on being progressive your whole career. Meanwhile Clinton was in AR and NY, both diverse in very different ways. Good lord. Context matters man. You can feel free to keep making excuses for the Clintons. If it were my two cents, I would be voting for the candidate who has exhibited the right tendancies all along, and not waiting to see if this candidate would still be holding the right convictions if polling numbers changed again. To me that goes to the central issue of trust in a candidate.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:34 PM) Still no public services answer in Libertarianism? Since when did I become the spokesperson for the Libertarians? This is like asking who is going to work if a Democrat is elected because the natural progression of progressiveism is communism.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:31 PM) Nope. But that's the reaction I was expecting. How does Bill fall into the same category? Are they not allowed to become more progressive over time, ya know, the way Obama has? And ALL democrats have? Come on. I don't buy that it is noble, not for a second. The policy changes have been cold and calculated based on majority polling. Guys like Bernie Sanders has always been "progressive". He didn't need time to figure it out. Does that mean in 20 years the Clintons will be where Sanders is today, since he is the most progressive of all? If that is the end game, why not just vote for Sanders now, and not wait for the years needed to evolve?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:27 PM) This is the part where I talk about systemic misogyny and not being allowed to have non-mainstream positions for fear of not being taken seriously back in the 90s and first half of the 2000s, but I assume that'll fall on deaf ears. She was called "too liberal" in the 90s, and now she's "a republican", even though her stances on policy have become more progressive. Nothing about the public's perception, and her actual record, jive in the least. Oh bulls***. Bill Clinton falls into the same category and he is not a female. This entire post is an attempt to excuse a pathological lack of convictions on TeamClinton.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 25, 2016 -> 02:22 PM) Can you back that up, even a tiny bit? Trump has literally SAID that he doesn't mean what he's saying. lol Hillary has quite literally changed her mind on some of her most important votes and policy positions over the years to follow the majority polling. She has no positions or intercompass of her own. Hillary would never be honest enough to tell us that she is lying to us.