iamshack

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 10:23 AM) I haven't staked an opinion on this issue, because honestly, it has always been one that I didn't know where I stand. I can honestly say I have felt the same as people on both sides, at various times. Here are the only things I feel I can say with confidence... 1. The key to the issue, really, is whether or not you think an early-stage fetus is a "human life". That is the only true delineator here. 2. If you think human life begins at conception or at some point after, but before the limits of legal abortion, than I can completely understand how angry you would feel to know that abortions beyond that limit are occurring. To that person, it is murder. 3. If you think human life requires the ability to live outside the womb, than I completely understand your strong belief to protect the rights of women to control they bodies. Makes perfect sense from that perspective. 4. I will say this... if you truly believe that life begins at conception... then you cannot possibly be OK with rape exemptions, and probably not incest either. Because in either case, it has become life. If you believe life begins at conception, then the only exception you can possible accept from a moral standpoint is danger to the life of the mother (because then you have two lives in danger and must choose). I know #4 will piss off some people, but, it is the way I see it. This is really an example of what I meant in my post...I really think many of those drawing these kind of lines in the sand (in this thread) are pulling the wool over their own eyes.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 10:22 AM) I don't consider a fetus prior to say 23 weeks to be a human life with the same rights as the woman it's inside of. SS, I have an extraordinary amount of respect for your intellect and your debating prowess. You usually seem to have a very good handle on most issues, and this one is no different. That being said, I just find this scientific/moralistic approach to be a bit grotesque. Look, we all know what nature's course is when a woman becomes impregnated. To attach some sort of timeline to the process in an attempt to make oneself feel better about when it is morally acceptable to artificially end that process seems to be sort of a cop out to me. I've always thought the more authentic approach is to be honest with ourselves about what is really at stake here and admit that creating a life brings an incredible responsibility to those (and many times not those) responsible. It is a tremendously complex decision as to whether or not the parent(s) and/or others have the resources, the ability, the education and maturity to handle such an awesome responsibility. Now I understand that many will say the life of the baby trumps all the other considerations, which is why we have gone down this path of making some sort of psuedo scientific/moralistic judgment as to when life actually begins - because these judgments have the ability to alleviate that conundrum. But that seems to me to really just be pulling the wool over one's eyes in an effort to displace or offset guilt. Why don't we just admit that as human beings we have some pretty awesome responsibilities that we have to become better stewards of? This isn't to say we should all go out and get snipped, but honestly, this situation is what it is, and what it isn't, is one where science should be able to make us feel better about looking the other way.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 10:19 AM) Kinda like how 93% of one minority voted for the same minority. Imagine if 93% of white people voted for Romney. Everyone's a racist! I think if Romney was the first white candidate to win the Presidency, ever, they probably would have.

Is this guy a decent source?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2012 -> 09:32 AM) But I don't consider it a human being. So I see people wanting to take away an actual woman's right to decide over her own body in a similar light to how you see people wanting to allow abortion. This almost seems as though the woman participated in no act to create the baby...as if she woke up one day and, just by chance, she had been chosen to have a baby...

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 05:09 PM) That's what I was saying from the beginning. Bay wins out big in this deal. He gets MORE money for being EXTRA terrible. Not necessarily, but certainly possible. It depends on whether the deferral causes him to lose more money than the contract he ultimately signs this year.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 04:53 PM) haha happens to the best of us. I read it because my gut told me that I was right, but when I saw the article title part of me was like "Well s*** I guess I was wrong". I knew it didn't reach to things like drinking or prescriptions, but I was too lazy to check whether it included situations where there was clear abuse or harm done intentionally by the mother. Law Review Article

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 04:29 PM) The only thing the Players Union would fight is if he gave up any dollars over all. If he gets them now, or in the future, they can't stop. Yeah, I understand that...where I raised an eyebrow is that the League will allow him to essentially be drawing two full salaries in a given season simultaneously...but I suppose the deferral makes that technically untrue.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 03:18 PM) This is the part that was up for debate I believe the only current value he loses is the current value of the money, as opposed to the deferred value of the money. To offset that, he can sign a deal for probably $1-2 million in 2013 in addition to what he will already be getting paid by the Mets. I am surprised that is even within the bounds of the CBA.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 04:15 PM) OK, I'm not sure that the law can actually make you stop drinking, but they can take your kids away from you if you don't. Yes, they can and will take children with addictions to various substances at birth, do they not? However, I do not believe they can force the mother to actually stop taking substances due to her being pregnant.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 03:05 PM) It's fair to say that, but we all know that a good chunk of the general population is never going to get that and thus we need some kind of definition via legislation. I understand...but it's always going to be extremely difficult and controversial to legislate the result or effects of a behavior that is considered to be an inalienable right.

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 01:36 PM) http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...lb&c_id=mlb So everyone clearly expected that he would not be claimed and this option allowed them Mets to defer some of the money rather than pay it all this year when inevitably, someone would take a chance on him for the minimum salary. Makes sense.

Is it fair to say that human beings are very easily capable of partaking in reproductive processes and that it is necessary that we all take this capability extremely seriously, and leave it at that?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 8, 2012 -> 11:12 AM) Jeffery not likely back for the Texans. Bummer That is a bummer...I really think once Jay and him get on the same page our offense will take off...

Obama's data crunchers Good read

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:29 PM) Yeah, so basically what we have now, except that it's one majority of basically the same people with different letters next to their names, that govern for themselves and rig the system for their friends. And I'm not sure Reddy is making the point clear enough, and given he's a liberal i'm not sure he even realized he's arguing to protect conservatives, but getting rid of the EC would shift the political spectrum in this country. Presidential candidates will devote the vast majority of their time to urban problems and ignore the rural. That would be their focus, so the "rural" candidate that would normally look to protect small town america would go extinct. And yes, it's easy to say that Congress should be the ones looking out for the rural people, but Presidents promote policy in today's system, not Congress. Without a President as their voice, the little guy would get screwed in just about every policy argument. I think everyone understands the premise...more campaign time in urban areas = exposure to more people = more votes. I fail to see how this would be the obvious equation in a popular vote scenario when it isn't the case in the electoral scenario, when the same basic principles hold true. What we are seeing now, and I don't know why this would not continue, is the following equation....more campaign time in "swing" populations = exposure to swing voters = more swing votes. Where the resources will be expended is where the votes come at a premium. The votes that come at a premium are the votes that are truly up for grabs. Thus the resources seemingly would continue to be spent on the votes that are truly up for grabs, not the ones that were already in the bag. I'm not sure why this would not continue...

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 04:07 PM) Without seeing the language of the contract and subsequent buyout, it's pretty much going to be impossible to know. It seems like the usual course of action is just to DFA the guy, in which what happens, I believe, is if he is claimed on waivers, the team that claims him picks up the remainder of the salary owed. If he is not claimed, I believe the team that signs him can pay him the League minimum with the rest of the salary being paid by the original team he contracted with. The fact that he was not DFA'd leads me to believe there is a different structure involved here.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:04 PM) Well, I think a basic premise is that candidates will spend the most time in front of the most people they can get together in one area, yes. Since every vote counts as 1 the more people you convince to vote for you the liklier you will win. Pretty basic premise there. If they can get a million people on a webcast they will do that too. The point NSS is making is that this simply may not be true. Put it into another perspective...say I am picking an NFL confidence pool with no point spreads. There are a number of games that are pretty clear decisions, which I make quickly and assign a large number of points to. However, ultimately, the pool will most likely be decided by a smaller number of games which are a toss up. The more of those games that I can pick correctly, the better my chances of winning the pool. Correct choices in those games come at a premium over the easy games of which the outcomes are much more certain and almost all participants will have similar choices for. So while I may assign 14 points this week to San Francisco vs. St Louis, 13 points to New England vs. Buffalo, 12 to Pittsburgh vs. KC, and 11 to Baltimore vs. Oakland, I will probably spend a lot less time analyzing those games than I will analyzing Detroit vs. Minnesota and Dallas vs. Philly and Chicago vs. Houston, because those are the games that will come at a premium when compared against the rest of the field.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:58 PM) Please look at this. Under a NPV plan, check out the states that would lose power, vs. the states that would GAIN power. What's a common factor? Most of the "gainers" are blue states and most of the losers? Red. PS this comes from a GOP publication that is anti NPV for these very reasons This assumes that voting habits would stay the same, and I am not sure that I can buy that. I think voting habits would change under a popular vote, as many results in the electoral system are basically a foregone conclusion. Maybe we would see larger turnouts by the current losing parties in these areas? Maybe we would see larger turnouts overall? I honestly have no idea.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:54 PM) you're just wrong man. C'mon....this is something where reasonable minds can absolutely disagree...I don't think any of us can anticipate the outcome with any level of absolute certainty here. As Y2H alluded to earlier, you are a likable guy Reddy, but sometimes you have a tendency to assume a bit more expertise on a topic than I think is appropriate.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:46 PM) And I vehemently disagree with that point. Small states vs large states should be irrelevant in this case, first of all. Second, the voters in North Dakota or other small states will matter MORE, not less, with a popular vote, for the reasons I have laid out. lol wut? This is fundamental stuff. You win by getting your base out, and by winning swing voters. The only reason some people feel the latter is a falacy is because they conflate independents with moderates. They are not nearly the same thing. I think the point BMags brought up earlier is significant...all those republicans in major metro areas would have a voice in a popular vote, whereas now, they are drowned out by the democratic majority now. I am not sure how the numbers line up, but the 65-35% democratic margins that result in what, a good 150-200 electoral votes to zero would now be more like 6.5 to 3.5 (out of every 10) in those areas...that would produce some interesting effects on campaigning in my opinion. I'm really not sure what the strategy would be...your point about swing votes coming at a premium is not lost, but entering in millions of republican votes into the equation in the metro areas that are not counted for anything in the electoral system would change the equation significantly in my mind.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 03:08 PM) MLB ‏@MLB BREAKING: @Padres C Yasmani Grandal suspended 50 games without pay for testing positive for Testosterone, a performance-enhancing substance. No s***? wow...ouch

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:58 PM) While that's the easy synopsis, it was much, much deeper than that. That was what the teacher said to the class in Dazed and Confused when they were getting out of school for the summer... Cue Alice Cooper...

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:51 PM) Gotta start somewhere. I have no problem redefining the role of govt so that it makes sense for a modern era. This isnt the 18th century anymore, it makes no sense that we are bound by that logic. Okay guys, one more thing, this summer when you're being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth Of July brouhaha, don't forget what you're celebrating, and that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 7, 2012 -> 02:37 PM) Peanut may miss Sunday's game vs. Houston. His wife is due to have their fourth child any day now, if she goes into labor on Sunday, he won't play to be with her. Jeesh...induce her labor, Dr....don't you know what is at stake here?