Texsox

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 11, 2012 -> 05:49 PM) Here's to hoping the trial is fair and just. Good luck with that. I honestly feel this may be the most difficult jury to fill in a long, long, time. There has been so much publicity, speculation, press coverage . . .

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2012 -> 01:06 PM) So for the 2nd game of a series we'll get things like Beckham leading off, instead of the 3rd game? All things being equal and if we are assuming that this will result in a loss and the get away game will be a win, Robin believes a Saturday loss and a Sunday win is better than a Saturday win and Sunday loss because of the winning attitude and atmosphere. Seems like a decent idea. Don't put the crap lineup out on get away day.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2012 -> 02:02 PM) I agree. Previous examples (John Rocker) support this statement. Now change it from simply a vile statement to it being an expression of political feeling. Doesn't that make it much, much harder? It certainly does. But "someone has to take the hard seat". (McMurtry Lonesome Dove 33)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 11, 2012 -> 02:01 PM) The real persecuted minority in today's society are whites! Tex, why did you choose 1830? Why not 1860, when blacks were still slaves? Or 1960, when segregation was still legal? Or the 90's and the 2000's, when banks still discriminated against minorities over loan terms and conditions and blacks were routinely targeted by police in much higher percentages? Or the 2010's, when blacks still faced seriously disproportionate sentencing terms? I wanted to make as clear and example as possible about public speech. I am talking about public comments. By the 1970s those public comments were not tolerated. (Jimmy the Greek, Howard Cosell, etc) Today even more so. Please remember I am talking about public comments that would be cut from the same cloth as what is being said now against whites.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2012 -> 01:55 PM) And if 300 9/11 families showed up to protest that manager? I believe that a member of MLB could make a statement so vile that the league should suspend the person. Do you agree or disagree?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 11, 2012 -> 01:11 PM) santorum seems to legitimately hate Romney. I can't see him being part of his team. The Clinton Family fued with Obama was pretty heated as well. What is the saying, politics makes strange bedfellows?

In terms of black - white relations the US was pretty once sided place in the 1830s. Whites could say anything about blacks and it was accepted. Today, the pendulum has swung so far to the other side that blacks can say just about anything about whites and it is tolerated or accepted. At some point the pendulum will swing back to some sane place in the middle. I hope for all of our sakes, it is sooner rather than later. There should be no tolerance for these comments. We need to hold everyone to the same standard.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 11, 2012 -> 01:37 PM) I'd bet money that Selig was involved, but wanted it to come from the team. And I think that is almost always the best approach. QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Apr 11, 2012 -> 01:39 PM) What if said manager said he believes 9/11 was an inside job? I'd let it go. I'd probably let everything within reason go from a league point of view and expect the team to take some action. I'm just leaving open the once in a lifetime comment that would cause the league to take action.

Just a quick google check. Seriously, you have to agree that a political comment could be bad enough to warrant suspension? You are probably thinking the Ozzie kind of stuff, I'm thinking theoretically there could be one that bad and should be allowed for.

Do you really want to play the what if game? You are really bored today. OK Clearly someone who comes to the ballpark each day and says, I really hope no one comes today, tickets to baseball games are too expensive and only benefit rich owners, you are an idiot if you pay, but if they do, I hope a terrorist will blow up the ball park, should not be suspended. Bottom line I believe there are political comments that could be so vile to warrant a MLB suspension. Don't they suspend for arguing with an umpire if it gets bad enough? Are you really saying that no statement could ever be bad enough to warrant a suspension?

Nope, not clearly at all.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2012 -> 12:46 PM) So how do you respond to me stating that this statement in support of Fidel is not over the line for any team that doesn't have to market to Cuban Expats? See above.

But I believe we would know it when someone steps over the line. I do not believe any of the examples you just gave would be worthy a suspension. Now wouldn't you want to suspend a manager who on 9/11 expressed regret that more people were not killed? Who on 12/7/41 cheered Japanese planes? Perhaps someone who believes that Hitler wasn't all wrong or who believes that handicapped infants should be euthenized? I can handle that slippery slope.

I love his reasoning.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 11, 2012 -> 10:29 AM) This an entirely different argument, Tex...you're trying to equate behavioral/environmental changes to feeding them a substandard diet based on their biological equipment. It's simply not a good analogy. If you want to get into whether the domestication of dogs was good or bad for the species, you can look at the plight of the wolf and other wild animals in North America...I think the dog is probably a pretty lucky animal to have been domesticated and incorporated into our lifestyle, rather than trying to compete with us for resources to maintain their own. And even if we were to concede that domesticating dogs was bad for the species in general, how would that somehow justify feeding them a s***ty diet? What I am trying to equate is on one hand we are saying they are wild animals, then we lock them up. You want to split apart their digestive tract from the rest of the animal. Let's put the animal back together and make it whole. The best food is for the dog to hunt, as a pack,and catch prey and eat the whole thing. Anything humans do to remove them from that social and digestive process is not ultimate for the animal. You pay a lot of attention to the dog's digestive tract and psyche. But even as careful as you are, you are many steps away from the wild ideal. How large of a territory would a Great Dane roam during the course of a day? How often would they be confined? I agreed a very long time ago that the very worst of human produced food is bad for them. But I believe the very best isn't any further away from the ideal diet than locking a dog up is from their social and physical ideal.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 11, 2012 -> 08:15 AM) All of the above. After all he is a rich Republican and has no morals. Actually doesn't this happen in both parties? Hillary comes to mind. Cutting a deal do pave the way for the Presidency has been around since at least the Corrupt Bargainm, and I'd guess long before that.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2012 -> 12:21 PM) Not directly, but the victim's family has repeatedly suggested that they believed he was a flight risk, and usually that makes things like "don't leave the state" orders happen. Who wouuld issue such an order?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2012 -> 07:45 AM) Yeah, but do you really want to go off and start judging "Inappropriate/ill-informed political beliefs" to be detrimental to the league? Yes.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 11, 2012 -> 08:18 AM) No, see, this is what you're not seeing! That roadkill IS a better meal for the dog than a bowl of food you might get at your local grocery store! The reason is because dogs have evolved to digest a meal such as roadkill over tens of thousands of years, most likely more. Regardless of how disgusting it is to you and I, a dog's stomach is equipped to break down that roadkill in its stomach and then its very short intestinal system. The bacteria that would put you and I in the hospital for weeks wouldn't so much as phase our dogs. The dog's gastrointestinal system would much more efficiently process that meat and bones of a dead squirrel roasting in the sun than a bag of Purina you got from Sam's Club. Again, for an analogy, it would be like saying I shouldn't eat leftover salmon from yesterday at the restaurant because it isn't super fresh, so I should eat a 2 pound bag of skittles instead. OK, then how is locking them inside crates and homes better for them? If they are better off as wild animals, what are we doing by keeping them as pets?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 07:42 PM) Get rid of the gun. One of the oddities of the gun debate that I have never gotten around comes to mind. The anti-gun people generally do not own guns, nor have they ever owned guns. This is normal and expected because they would be a bit of a hypocrit to own guns and advocate for them being illegal. At the same time owning a gun and being a responsible owner adds some insight to the argument that I believe is important. Everyday people use things incorrectly and harm comes to people. From cars to cheeseburgers, cigarettes to scissors, stuff happens. Responsible gun owners see the differences and the similarities. Non gun owners see a gun as an evil weapon with no value.

Copyright © 2012 Dan Lewis, All rights reserved. You opted in, at http://eepurl.com/Eavp -- or you wouldn't get this email. Our mailing address is: Dan Lewis P.O. Box 320179 Fairfield, Connecticut 06825-0179

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 10:14 PM) Ok...but none of those diets includes grains and carbs heat pressed into pellets... It's like you suggesting it's alright to eat pop tarts instead of fresh fish because fresh fish may not be ideal for a high jumper... Yes, some protein sources are better than others. Some people think some vegetables have important nutrients or form combinations with nutrients in meat that deliver better results than without...but 99% of all dry kibble isn't even in the same stratosphere as even the worst raw protein sources. If you want me to agree that there are terrible man made foods, I already did that a long time ago. But it really means about as much as if I mention feeding a dog a raw diet of road kill that has been sitting in the sun for 24 hours.

Complete this Romney quote: Drop out of the race and I will offer you . . . VP? Cabinet? Hookers? Stocks?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 9, 2012 -> 09:52 AM) I can't see how you could suspend him for that. You could have management fire him for hurting their specific business, but I don't see that it's the league's business to regulate this type of speech. If some team hires a coach and then he comes out as a communist, is that a suspension-worthy offense? Don't most of these guys have clauses in their contracts about actions detrimental to the league?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 09:29 PM) You're not talking about caloric needs, Tex. you're talking about feeding an animal something it is not biologically equipped to digest well. That would be like me feeding you old shoes or something because you're not participating in the decathalon. Dogs simply do not process grains well. They also do not process carbohydrates well. This is what a large portion of cheap kibble is comprised of. Then they eat more and more trying to reach the proper levels of nutrition, and get obese and develop allergies. What you're trying to argue is that their caloric needs might vary. I can buy that. But whether or not they will need proper nourishment will not vary. I am talking about fuels for a long, slow exertion compared to fuels for a short burst of energy or for no exertion of all. It's your position that the same food is correct in each of those cases, I'm not so certain. And from what I've read from trainers of greyhounds and sled dogs they each have special diets they place their dogs that they have found to work best. And again I will quickly and easily concede that there are some very poor dog foods out there that are not very good for dogs.