Texsox

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Apr 12, 2012 -> 02:08 PM) #teenagegirlproblems

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 12, 2012 -> 02:12 PM) You'll do just fine. How much is it going to cost you? I haven't calculated it yet. UTPA is a heavily supported state university with low in-state tuition and three miles from my house. My guess is around $16k. This isn't an investment I expect a material reward from. I love being in a classroom both as a teacher and a student.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 12, 2012 -> 02:18 PM) Mandatory minimums are dumb Yes.

I'm in. Finally decided for English and against Psychology. (BA in both). I'm trying to decide between Comp and Rhetoric (better for what is left of my career) or Literature, where my interests push me. I am also trying to decide between thesis and not. One of my professors thinks it should be a slam dunk for me, thesis and comp, follow what I am good at and where I could carve our a 15-20 year career. (If I want to work that much longer). Another said lit for about the same reasons. Believing I could rise high enough in a more crowded field to build a career. I am also concerned about the course load and working lots of hours. Just how much harder are grad classes compared to undergrad? Thoughts?

ugh. But, now what I would like to see are clubs that add content for the fans at the game. Make it a part of the experience not keeping the fan apart from the game.

And I hope I was clear that I respect all you do as a pet owner.

In order of most to least likely IMHO Plea arrangement before trial Guilty of a lesser charge Guilty but the judge sets aside the verdict based on the fine points of Florida law. (not certain of the correct legal term) Not guilty and he continues to search for the real killer

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 11, 2012 -> 07:32 PM) So from one extreme to another. No charges by 1 prosecutor, basically the highest possible charge from another (I cant really imagine Murder 1 was even considered). Political brownie points for the prosecutor and room for a plea deal.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 11, 2012 -> 07:32 PM) Clearly this is an obvious case for a change of jurisdiction. If they can try the OJ case they can try this one. I agree it will need to be changed but to where? And that was the case I was trying to avoid bringing into the conversation.

Konerko

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.