mtutiger

Come on. Again, I take the moral stance seriously. You don't have to agree with it, but it's totally valid. But there needs to be more answers about the situations that arise from taking that moral stance to the kinds of extremes that many states (such as the one where I live) are prepped to do. And despite what some may believe, I don't think there's really a lot of discussion about this among folks who wish to impose those extremes.

I'm sure the Mets will be firing Buck Showalter any day now so they can go out and steal Hinch from the Tigers. Seriously, I like Hinch, but his lineup card in last night's game is a great reminder that the guy doesn't walk on water.

This is fair. Having said that, when one takes the most absolutist position on the pro-life side, it only seems fair to ask what the punishment should be. Or to bring up the kinds of situations that are kinda grey, like ectopic pregnancies or what it means for certain forms of contraception. The lack of response or interest would suggest that the folks either don't have good responses or just don't care about any of that stuff. Because it's easier to stew in righteous anger than it is to deal with the dilemmas that the real world can throw at you.

The next time this team has a winning season, one imagines the Castros will be long gone lol

Looks like they brought Joe on to round out the bullpen peripherals

Yes

Nice outing for Brieske...

Who runs slower: Miggy or Maldy?

Good inning for Brieske. Started mixing in more offspeed

Detroit D rubbing off on the Astros lol

Astros announcers just roasting Willi Castro... going over expected BA and catch probabilities lol

Yep. Getting hit on the fastball tonight

Again, I know I quoted you, but it's not necessarily directed at you but rather a broader question for the group. Particularly those who are arguing from a more pro-life position.

Unless I'm following a different debate than you are, the baby has never been secondary to this debate in the real world. Or at least where I live. It is the beginning and the end. The hard questions, they grey area, how it effects the health of the mom, those questions all get ignored. They are secondary

At a minimum, it all seems kinda secondary to the debate. Which is pretty sad.

I would argue that people with his views would allow moms in some situations to die. Any consideration there at all?

If a mom has to undergo an ectopic pregnancy, where her life may be in danger, should she be forced to do it?

One thing I've been doing this year is trying to compare starting lineups with the ones from the year before on that day. One year ago, the Tigers featured Wilson Ramos and Jacoby Jones. It was 12-9 loss to the Red Sox in Boston. By any objective measures, even considering the results thus far, they are set up much better than a year ago. Whether they show up quickly or not is a fair question, but it will click at some point.

Every candidate in the fall (and earlier) should be asked hard questions about who should be held criminally liable, whether they are in favor of exceptions for rape or incest or life of mother, whether certain forms of contraceptions should be banned, etc. Those in favor of this decision more generally should be asked those questions as well. I genuinely respect the position on moral grouds, I get it, but for as long as I've been debating this issue, the most pro-life side of the debate generally just sidesteps or avoids these sorts of questions. Because they are hard and difficult questions that do not fit neatly into the absolutism of the stance they take. It's just easy to shoot first and ask questions later. It really isn't about politics or anything like that, the people simply deserve to know what these candidates wish to do and how it will impact their lives if Roe is reversed.

It's a different day and age, but stuff like this should give GOP consultants nightmares

Worth noting as well that the ARP provided funding to the police. In theory anyway, should diffuse that talking point, but will not.

Here's the actual video of a portion of the comments from one of the Houston beat writers.... make of it what you will, but it seems pretty innocuous to me.

That dude has been stirring the pot for as long as I've been a fan of this team.... you kinda have to take what he says with a grain of salt. Also doesn't help that, based on his Twitter feed, he seems to watch more MSNBC primetime than baseball these days.

Around this time last year (which is what I'm talking about), Manning had about an 8.00 ERA in Toledo, Mize was struggling until he stabilized in Mid May or so, Baddoo struggled after the first couple of weeks. I'll grant Turnbull was good during the 9-24 stretch, but I remember the mood being as ugly, if not worse, than it is right now. It wasn't until afterward that things turned around. I would add there's more hope with this team than people seem willing to admit.... particularly on the pitching side and with Tork being here and Greene getting back at some point as well. Mize and Manning are both throwing baseballs as well, which I don't think they'd be doing if the team expected them to need surgery. But expectations were set high by the organization and they aren't being met, which leaves people pissed off. It's understandable.

I get what you're saying, but it's too bad the old board is no longer around, because there weren't any glimmers of hope being shared during that stretch.