mtutiger

The thing about the Riley Greene injury, unfortunate as it is, is that I dont know that their record is any different if he wasnt injured. Just as I dont know their record is any different if they sign Correa over Baez, etc.

Definitely the 'glass half full' view of where the team finds itself atm

Kenny C is terrible, but he's also not necessarily indicative of all of Christianity in the US

Same is true of a number of American Catholic bishops, who always seem to be angry with Francis because he tends to emphasize issues more in line with the Jesuit traditions. It's not that he doesn't believe the same things they do on any number of hot button issues, but they seem to dislike that he balances it with more of an aim toward social justice.

L

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