User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6222 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Also, I hope he dies in a fire.
He'll win Colusa County in a landslide.
In California, the only qualifications are holding extremist views to one side of the spectrum or the other and refusing to compromise.
If he's running in a GOP primary, all he needs is plenty of money (check), a certain amount of name recognition (check) and the willingness to pander to the ODS crowd. From what Vlad says, it seems as if he's a mortal lock if he goes for it. Whether he wins in the general election depends on the demographics of the district and how much he can avoid sounding like a caveman around women. (EDIT: coke to Bhaakon)
What qualifications do most of those idiots actually have?
What qualifications do you need to be in Congress?
He breaths and he's a believer. For about half the country, everything else is in the noise.
So wait... there are two Jeff Suppans?
I would think this good one that I've apparently not heard of would be able to find a job...
The concept of running a state/country as a business strikes me as odd. What exactly is the state/country in the business of? I reckon the allure of having business experience b4 running for office comes from the assumption that running a business requires some sort of management skills that would translate over to the public arena, but still, the idea of a country existing to be profitable is just errrgh. Then again, at this juncture in time and space not much really surprises me anymore.
A country that was actually run like a business would relocate everybody in Montana and North and South Dakota to more populous states, because it's not worth it to try and support the infrastructure for such a small population base. It'd also surrender immediately if invaded by a major power like China or Russia, because the financial cost of resisting would be too high.
He didn't go to law school, so there is a possibility he's still a human being.
The article says he's considering running at the freshman Dem in the 26th district, which is well south of Colusa County.
It's expensive to be on the defensive, which is why the country run as a business would launch their hostile takeover first.
He'd do better if he carpetbagged-it to Colusa County, then.
You do realize that fetal stem cell research has turned out to be a complete dead-end, while adult stem cell research is producing great results?
Funding fetal stem cell research is a bad idea before you even touch any moral issues.
If science needs a steady supply of genetic material to work with, can't they just periodically scrape Derek Jeter's comforter?
Yeah... not so much. Not so much.
I always love it when a post that calls millions of people idiots contains a sixth grade level spelling mistake.
I always love it when a post that calls millions of people idiots contains a sixth grade level spelling mistake.
Oh no! I've misspelled something! This is going on my permanent record for sure!
Damn you Joey for pointing it out, I almost got away with it.
Yeah... not so much. Not so much.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-6735628.html
Adult stem cells are far ahead, and being tested in actual human treatments. And don't pose any moral questions, so win-win.
And, I'm not going to get into this b/c we'll just end up in the abortion quagmire.
He must've stashed it inside his red diaper.
So what? We should stop all research into embryonic stem cell research because the adult stem cells are pretty effective now? Is that your real stance?
At least he and Suppan are on the same page.
Without checking, I believe you need to be 25 years old (or is it 35 - or is that President/Senate?) and not have a felony on your record - naturally you can commit as many felonies as you want once you're elected, in fact you're encouraged to, particularly of the graft/war crimes variety. You don't have to be born in Amurica as I recall, that's only President, which obviously disavows Obama as he is a black commie fascist from Kenya/North Korea. I will now check wikipedia and see how well 7th grade government classes hold up.
If you are someone believe that believes human life begins at conception and that life is sufficient to be protected as a human, the belief that we should not be using embryonic stem cell lines in research is not just perfectly logical, but a moral imperative, and clearly very necessary.
I do not believe that protectable human life being at conception, so I'm perfectly in favor of embryonic stem cell research and anyone who suspects that I'm lying and am actually in the pro-life camp, a look at the child support thread should quickly disabuse you of that notion.
What kind of functional moral system could hold that it's more ethical to throw fetal stem cells in the garbage with the colostomy bags and dirty syringes than to use them for research to ease the suffering of the helpless and afflicted?
Remember, these aren't even actual embryos that we're talking about here. They have no ability to develop into a human being.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-6735628.html
Adult stem cells are far ahead, and being tested in actual human treatments. And don't pose any moral questions, so win-win.
And, I'm not going to get into this b/c we'll just end up in the abortion quagmire.
I'm not interested in the debate, either, but this isn't that. There isn't a moral question involving the science until people start aborting fetuses specifically to procure stem cells. That should happen right after we start beheading people to get their retinas for transplants. People once considered it absolutely and empirically immoral to dissect corpses. The available stem cells can either advance humane needs, or they can fill the garbage dumps.
There are many, many, many promising developments involving embryonic stem cells since the 2010 date of the CBS News article you linked. Never put all your eggs in one basket, not even the eggs that turn into you and me.
Of course there is. Just because you and I disagree with the stance of those doesn't make it not a valid moral reason on their part.
As an anti-abortion person myself, I don't get this either. I think the cells are taken from artificially fertilized embryos, which are surplus embryos in a IVF attempt. These embryos are typically not suitable for implantation into a womb supposedly, although I'm not sure exactly why not, but in any case they're deemed less "suitable" than the ones that are actually placed into the woman. Taking the cells from them causes their death, but if they were going to be discarded anyway, I'm not understanding the moral dilemma. Are we supposed to stop IVF too? I don't get it.
It's not necessary in my mind, because there is no argument that they should be implanted in the woman supposedly. What exactly is the correct procedure according to this "moral imperative"?
Yes, this seems like an obvious point. I don't get the objection at all, even as an anti-abortion person.
I wouldn't go that far. I'd say there's a moral question if the embryos would otherwise have been implanted into a womb.
So, you're saying Suppan is against stem cell research until someone he's close to develops Alzheimer's, or Parkinson's?
What is it with these guys?
This is what it is with these guys.
And all those who won't will be denounced as "anti-science".
Because thinking about the future, planning, and working through best and worse case scenarios are for suckers! Real men do, they don't think! Planning is for cowards! Yeah!
From 1999 to 2007, Suppan averaged 204 IP with a 105 ERA+. For a long while there he was a solid #3/#4 starter. We forget that because he's been crappy for a few years, and also because his peak coincided with the peak of the sillyball era. He played in Kansas City during the days in which the stadium was playing like Coors Field East, and so even though he was a pretty good pitcher there (105 ERA+) he had a 4.73 ERA in KC. So he always seemed worse than he was.
Obviously he was never a world beater, but Suppan had a nice little career there.
There are two primary factors - number of cells and the shape of the cells. Embryos develop at different rates, so after 3 days one embryo could be 8-cell and another could be 3-cell. That 8-cell could be all wonky though, so maybe a 6-cell with nice shapely curves is a better fit for implantation. Typically only 1 or 2 embryos will be implanted, but with IVF the goal is to get upwards of 20 eggs harvested from the mother-to-be. Of those not all will fertilize, and after the 1 or 2 are selected any other viable embryos can be frozen to be used at a later date. There can easily be 10 or so poorly developed embryos that will just be tossed out after one IVF procedure. No clue why someone would oppose research on those.
The Bush era stem-cell related funding cuts definitely put a hurting on research into embryo development and implantation techniques.
Remember, these aren't even actual embryos that we're talking about here. They have no ability to develop into a human being.
The same moral system that says we don't use dead humans as food for animals, b/c hey, they're dead, why waste the meat.
I'm not sure Bitter Mouse is "above" talking politics (isn't he one of the more prolific posters in politics threads?). I think he's just referencing the ongoing project the administrators have of creating separate venues to discuss politics and baseball, which seems like a sane policy.
Take it to the cat thread!
Wait is that what Morty was talking about? I totally misread his post then. I thought he was referencing the stem cell debate and worrying about where that was going.
Darn, I never know what that guy is talking about - even when I am sure he is wrong :). But if he is talking about going OT versus normal baseball talk, then well I would rewrite my scorn in a new direction, but I am too lazy. But yeah Greg is right on, so now I don't have to bother.
WHat ever happened to the site redesign? I am OK either way, I just have not heard anythign about it in a while.
I'm at a major neural research lab today interviewing for a position overseeing 2 separate FDA applications for embryonic-derived stem cell therapies.
Except the discarded embryos aren't disposed of with any great respect, and aren't past, present or future human beings.
Yeah, that's what you do--engage, or encourage--discussion about all possibilities.
Well, darn, gee whiz, jiminy gee willikers, that's because you want to retain your hymen--or insist you can and still be credited as an experienced serious thinker.
That's wrong.
and aren't past, present or future human beings.
That's a matter of debate.
I don't know why they can't just enact regulations so that they only fertilize as many eggs as they intend to implant.
Bully for you.
Every sperm is sacred?
Would you like me to pass along your expert opinion on the topic?
Morty - As for #57 I am often grateful your word salad is gibberish to me, I suspect this is one such case.
Yum?
I am going to take a random guess and assume you haven't gone through an IVF procedure. The reason regulations like that cannot be enacted is because every fertilized egg does not develop correctly, which is nothing on the fact that not every egg actually fertilizes. Trust me on this one - what you are suggesting is never, ever going to happen.
Nothing like getting a call saying of the 14 eggs harvested every single one failed to fertilize. Eggs which your wife just went through a very emotionally draining and hormonally ###### up 6 weeks or so to produce, after years of failing to become pregnant through other methods. Awesome feeling.
In a few decades, I'm not sure that implication is going to be accurate :)
or if you happened to be injected with the Super Soldier Serum.
I am excited for the next Cap movie. The first one was great for this fanboy.
Not that being dropped frozen into an active volcano would even put a crimp in Cap's day, of course.
Not a fan of superhero movies based on established characters (as opposed to things like Special, Super, The Specials, etc.), but I made an exception & rented the Cap flick based not only on my high regard for the character but also for the presence of the Howling Commandos (minus, alas, Sgt. Fury ... can't have everything, I guess). I liked it a lot.
In life-or-death situations, like this one, taboos about that sort of stuff go out the window. Here is a response by the late Father Stephen F. Torraco, a professor at Assumption College, to a question about the morality of cannibalism, in which he concluded that in "the extreme case of the danger of death" it was "a morally justified measure", so long as the individuals to be consumed "die of natural causes and are not murdered for the sake of consuming them". So why should it be different with people who face imminent death from Parkinson's or Huntington's Chorea, rather than starvation? Why would you oppose something like this and not, say, infant organ donation?
They're treated as medical waste. Which means that the majority of them are piled into boxes or bins with other typed of medical waste (amputated tissue, contaminated gauze and bandages, used syringes, etc.) and taken to an incinerator, where the melange of items is placed on a conveyor belt and burned. The energy from combustion is sometimes used to generate electricity. Anything that's left after that is considered to be sterile (though some places also apply chemical treatments), so it can be transported to a landfill and buried with normal garbage.
I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't consider that treatment to be particularly respectful, if we were talking about the corpse of an actual human being.
Major Captain America fan here (Have every Cap comic since 1985). The first one was OK, I just wish that the comic book companies would get away from origin stories, there is no more need for them than there is for origin stories for a Die Hard movie. If the origin story is particularly good, then I can see wasting 30 minutes of the film to get it out there, but for something as simple as Cap's origin, a 5 minute flashback in middle of the movie is good enough.
I am excited for the next movie also.
The Avengers showed that the Hulk could work in a movie, if they would just not waste their time with the plodding story and go and have fun with this creature. He's Jeckyll and Hyde, we get it... Now show him smashing stuff, and make sure it's an unambivalent badguy.
Once the movie got going, I was very happy with it. I was even happy with the origin story, I just thought that it cut into the ability of the movie to show Cap at his greatest.
All I know about respectful treatment, I learned from this.
My run starts with #216, so ...1977. Though I have the first 15 issues or so of the 2004 Brubaker series (which I found intriguingly overrated, & of course don't get me started on the Winter Soldier nonsense) in collected form only.
SPOILER ALERT!!
This. a 1000 times this. Why does anyone need to see a Batman or Spider-man origin story? Gak. Just have a great movie. Origin stories are mostly crap, and worse crap I already know.
Agreed on the Hulk bits also.
Purity Of Embryos.
Now I'm jealous. I have about 20 or so issues in between 170-295, and even have a tattered copy of a 100(along with a dvd with every issue of tales of suspense until Death of Captain america) but I would love to fill out as much of my collection as possible.
Placenta of precious bodily posters.
but that's just me
They aren't necessary though. You don't have an origin story for John McLane or James Bond or Indiana Jones. You don't have an origin story for any cop action movie out there. Heck Lord of the Rings origin story came out after the three movies. There is no reason to have an origin story for any action movie ever. Most genres get that. But because "people aren't fanboys" they see a need to create an origin story at the cost of a better movie. Why? If the franchise is successful, you can always create a prequel to go into the origin deeper, but for the most part it isn't necessary, it's a waste of an hour, it necessitates tangled plotlines (villain's origin almost has to be linked to the main character or else there isn't time to develop their character)
Darth Vader was a great character long before he ever had his origin story told. Han Solo still doesn't have an on screen origin story. Martin Riggs origin was told quickly (his wife died, he cracked and doesn't know if he wants to live) and the Lethal Weapon movies were pretty good. Science Fiction movies, action movies, historical action movies all understand that the origin story is not necessary for the characters. It's perfectly ok for them to be fully formed at the start of the movie and provide only enough of an origin as it takes to relate to the characters. Why does comic book movies have to be different?
Again, if the origin is good and the script can make it work well, go for it, if not, ignore it and start the story you want to tell, and assume the audience can keep up with necessary flashbacks. If you can't come up with a good origin story for Wonder Woman that you think will work, forget it. Start it out with her already being an established super hero, with an established group of villains and tell the story you want to tell.
We saw an origin story for Indiana Jones, but they did it the right way: In a quick five-minute sketch at the start of the third movie. Enough to get anyone who wasn't familiar with the franchise up to speed, but not long enough to bog down or overstay its welcome.
I enjoyed Captain America quite a bit when I took the family to see it. I had no idea what the origins of the story were, because the only comic I ever read was Archie. Though I can't say for sure, I suspect I would have enjoyed the film far less if it had just plopped down in the middle of some Cap'n adventure.
I had a passing familiarity with Captain America comics as a kid but think I would have been disappointed if the movie (which I enjoyed a great deal) had simply introduced him as a super-strong guy with a shield and taken it from there.
Unbreakable was a good super hero origin story.
Except, of course, that they get changed every few years, don't they?
I have no idea what Superman's origin is now. I know it's been tinkered with seemingly incessantly for quite awhile.
One thing that a good origin movie does do is redraw the lines for a franchise going forward. Daniel Craig's 007 would have seemed very out-of-place in Roger Moore's 007 universe. A new origin story allows the character to come in fresh, with newly defined boundaries, in a newly redrawn, up-to-date universe. Superman's origin story never needs to be retold again, but the 1978 origin movie was one of the great ones of all time, and set the stage for an even better sequel. Batman Begins didn't tell a new story, but it was still a damn good story, and set up that particular Batman team for a story arc specific to that Batman, that director, in that tone. The problem today isn't that there are origin movies, but that there are so many, and they're rebooting universes too soon.
Let the Three
MinutesHundred Posts of Hate begin!Not really.
Most iconic superheroes origins are always going to be the same. (it's the details that are different. an not really germane to the discussion)
Superman: Born on Krypton, planet dying, ejected to earth, raised by farmers in Smallville Kansas.
Batman: parents are killed going to the movies in which the hero witness their murders.
Spiderman: Granted superhuman abilities due to an altered spider bite. Uncle Ben Dies. "with great power comes great responsibility".
Captain America: 4F patriot who wants to join the fight no matter what subjected to experiment that grants him great power.
Wonder Woman: Amazonian princess from an unknown, secret island that is sent to the U.S. to facilitate relations between the two countries.
Flash: CSI agent who is caught in a fluke explosion in the lab granting superhuman speed.
Green Lantern: Test pilot who is summoned by a dying green lantern due to his ability to overcome great fear and given a power ring.
Thor: Asgardian god who has returned to earth.
(you can also use that for Hercules if you wanted to do a comic book version of him)
Green Arrow: Rich playboy trapped on a deserted island having to fight to survive, realizes that life is more than just money, when rescued decides to do more.
Ant Man: Scientist who discovers size shifting power.... that is it.
Mutants(all): born with superhuman powers decide to do good based upon upbringing...not really that difficult of a story.
Daredevil: Kid irridated with special sauce, gains superhuman abilities, decides to do good. (note: this works for a #### load of characters)
None of these origins require more than a flashback. If the writers/producers think more is necessary that is ok, but it's not a requirement. You can legitimately create a good movie for any successful comic book character without resorting to an origin movie.
Really? Imagine a Captain America movie in which it starts out with him in middle of battle in 1944 Germany. You immediately see his competence, his ability with the shield, his strength, his leadership etc... do you really need an origin? Then imagine that you get told the origin in flashback form, where the story takes 5-10 minutes telling you about how hard he tried to get into the military, was rejected, selected for the super soldier program, granted abilities, sabotaged, and his mentor killed... ten minutes top. That is all that is necessary for an origin in flashback, it's enough to get you on board, it's enough to tell you about the character, but it doesn't get bogged down in linear storytelling that slows the movie down.
Where is Gandalf's origin?
Heck, in Lethal Weapon, Mel Gibson characters does a shooting range thing that is, by all accounts impossible where he shoots a smiley face (ask Mark Twain) and we don't have an origin for his superhuman shooting ability. Why is the superhero universe expected to maintain a level of belief that is higher than in any typical cop universe?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main