legacyofCangelosi

The rotation didnt actually suck that bad with mitre there. In fact the rotation was ok and mitre was ok, if i recall most of the games we were losing ealry on were b/c the bullpen was blowign them

That's a pretty interesting piece of legislation. It actually seems to be something that democracy was intended to do from the getgo. I like it in general. They're whining about rich people getting a tax break, but the extra money could just as easily be put into the economy which would in turn lead to more jobs. I am not a huge fan of the federal minimum wage increase, but it's more or less cosmetic because it seems to me that most states have legislation in regards to their own minimum wage which is higher. Florida's is actually lower, but for the most part youre right. I find it interesting that these unions rather risk losing the minimum wage increase which is supposed to be what they fight for (workers rights) so that they can get rid of an estate tax cut, which is actually not related to labor laws. Looks like some of these unions leftist ideals are more important than their mission statements. And by the way of course the republicans are doing this as a political move, but who cares, the end result is a great compromise

guys i know that some of you might not like him but i think u gotta give him a chance. he has excellent stuff and i think that when he comes back he should start. all of his pitches have probably the best movement on the staff. six man rotation when mitre gets back? I dont know if he should start necessarily, but i do think he can help this team. A 6 man rotation isnt a bad idea either to give the young arms more time to recuperate after starts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6080201670.html Whats interesting about this story is that to me this bill seemed like a great mdoerate compromise. the reps get the estate tax cuts, the democrats get the raised minimum wage, and then some other popular research incentives and such are getting passed as well. Seems like good legislation

Its not about if olivo is comfortable catching the train its whether train is comfortable pitching to olivo. If train has a mental block when pitching to olivo, give hoover the nod. Either way I'd like to watch hoover play.

I feel the biggest problem is that baseball cards became too gimicky. I mean fun cards were always cool, but I liked the days when the best cards were just regualr rookie cards where a player later became a stud (My derrick lee rookie got damaged when hurricane irene flooded my house =() But anyway, now whats expensive are special 'inserts' that are rare bc the company intended to make them so. I realized this nonsense in 98 when some ken griffey insert was the most expensive card, moreso than any of the rookie cards i owned from back in the day. Thats when cards went down the shitter

I feel the first minority president ( i dont count women as a minority by the way since theres more women in this country than men last i checked the stats) will be a republican. simply as someone said earlier a black republican may actually get black votes that would previously have gone to a dem. My quesiton is whether the white southern reps would vote for a black or hispanic candidate

I hope Castro dies too, but what really bugs me is this feeling of a vendetta by Cuban-Americans and special favors, especially when it comes to wet-foot/dry-foot to the exclusion of perhaps more desperate refugees from Haiti (or is it b/c they're black and, for that matter, from the first modern black nation to emerge from colonialism? I know that was definitely the case for dislike against Haiti in the past). Then why do automatic asylum laws apply to people from Burundi in 2004, Rwanda in the mid 90s, liberia 2 years ago as well? Has nothing to do with desperation or skin color. Whats idiotic is wet foot/dry foot. Granting of asylum and residency within a year and a day is somehting that has applied to all POLITICAL refugees. Which is something that for the most part haiti hasnt been lately, although it was during Papa doc Duvalier's reign (in whcih haitians were granted asylum freely) What has happened wiht cuba is that althoguh the first cubans that came were indeed political refugees, that isnt so much the case anymore, so the political refugee classification shouldnt exist for cuba. Wet foot/ dry foot is a new phenomenon and is a hybrid done by congress and clinton in order to acknowledge cubans are no longer political refugees for the most part, but to not piss off a major voting block that has a lot of money and power.

It isnt real communism in Cuba but a totalitarian dictator more so with cuba. As everyone else the day Castro kicks it will be a good day to me as well because of what he has done to others in the past. But NE is much different then communists, it is the birthplace of our own revolution to become a republic The whole cuban communism isnt communism bit is a cop out. There has never been a 'communist society' as Marx wrote. However, Castro fits the mold perfectly of practical communism as a mold between leninism and maoism. Why 'liberals' are compared to communists is quite simple. Its much the same way 'conservatives' are compared to 'facists' by some. Communism is the ultimate leftist state. While american liberals believe in a strong federal govt that helps people in lower income brackets by taxing the rich and then distributing the money to others. Liberals also believe in more govt run organizations to help people or just in general such as more govt run hosptials. Communists go all the way and restrict private business all together, redistribute wealth completely so everyone then belongs to the same social class, thus eliminating the class system, and everything is socialized. The ONLY things that Castro has done that isnt in line with Marxism are that he hasnt stepped down after the transitional phase (although marx never specified how long that should be) and he practiced under the table capitalism by trading with other naitons and such.

The funny thing that the anti-christians always argue is that creationism shouldnt be taught bc it cant be proved by science bla bla bla. However, I've heard creationism and the existence of god being proven with the use of scientific formulas by usign the multiverse theory and the observation of light in different dimensions (which is just as ridiculous as evolution mind you and is attempted to be proven with numbers and scientific fact). So there you have it a scientific theory that proves the existence of God and the possibility of creationism. I read this is an article in a science magazine my high school used to subscribe to. I'm sure its somewhere on the net as well, because everything is. But either way, should this mean creationism should now be taught in science class? Since there is a scientific theory that attempts to prove it Perhaps you can tell me what percentage of scientists generally accept that theory as being just as viable as evolutionary theory. Id be willing to bet it is around 1% if that. We arent talking about any theory. Of course junk science exists. Of course some theories and principles are presented by some scientists. But they arent necessarily generally accepted by the scientific community. Evolutionary theory is. A lot of theories are not taught in psych classes. Same in other scientific classes. They arent taught because they didnt pass the rigorous testing. Unless you put that theory you read about through the rigorous testing and concluded that it is as viable or should be accepted as much as evolution is, your argument becomes extreme speculation. But hey, thats the crux of whats being said on this thread for creationism. I love how scientists are now on par with laymen. The next argument I expect to hear is either that: 1. Scientists are biased because they want funding or 2. Scientists are part of the liberal conspiracy against God. And how is this anti-Christian? Are Christians being fed to the lions? Are they being arrested for practicing their religion? Typically labeling to reframe an issue. It's anti-christian b/c a lot of the ppl that are vehemently against teaching creaitonism are simply against it b/c they dont like chrisitianity or religon. Either way the multiverse theory is definitely not junk science, as I've said before, the use of it to prove the existence of God is a newer phenomenon, but the multiverse theory on its own has undergone some pretty rigorous testing and is fairly accepted

It seems to me to be akin to studying about Gabriel the angel in history class. Is there any definitive proof angels never existed? Of course not. Is there any way to reasonably demonstrate or test whether they do/did? Not really, other than "well look, an awful lot of people believe in angels...." And Legacy I'd say if someone could round up more than a couple of fringe scientists to defend it, published the research, etc, etc, then sure go to the schoolboard and make your case. See its that I dont believe in creationism myself, but some people on the board are way too quick to dismiss things bc of an anti-christian or anti-religion bias, rather than analyzing the situaiton much more carefully. Have you heard of the multiverse theory hotcorner? It's pretty prminenet, more than just a few fringe scientists. Using it to prove the existence of God of course is whats more 'fringe'

To the 'liberals' on the board. I understand many of you feel there is no left wing media bias. So does that mean you feel media coverage is fair and balanced? Do you feel it has a right wing slant? Or what?

The funny thing that the anti-christians always argue is that creationism shouldnt be taught bc it cant be proved by science bla bla bla. However, I've heard creationism and the existence of god being proven with the use of scientific formulas by usign the multiverse theory and the observation of light in different dimensions (which is just as ridiculous as evolution mind you and is attempted to be proven with numbers and scientific fact). So there you have it a scientific theory that proves the existence of God and the possibility of creationism. I read this is an article in a science magazine my high school used to subscribe to. I'm sure its somewhere on the net as well, because everything is. But either way, should this mean creationism should now be taught in science class? Since there is a scientific theory that attempts to prove it

Obama is quite simply an amazing speaker. If he ever runs, he is going to make a big time run at the highest office in the land. I wouldnt put it past him to actually win it also if he ever ran, which I think it will happen at some point. We shall see. I dont think an African American named Barack Obama will win the presidency. Is he Muslim by the way? B/c that will hurt his chances further. His father was Muslim but he converted to Christianity a while back. It says something about our country that this is even an issue. People said his name would hold him back in Illinois(too close to Osama). But he won handily and even did well in downstate super conservative Illinois. Yea but obama's opponent dropped out and then alan keyes came into the race late, with really no shot at winning in illinois. So really that victory is not indicative of how he would really do. Curious to see how he does in his next election

Obama is quite simply an amazing speaker. If he ever runs, he is going to make a big time run at the highest office in the land. I wouldnt put it past him to actually win it also if he ever ran, which I think it will happen at some point. We shall see. I dont think an African American named Barack Obama will win the presidency. Is he Muslim by the way? B/c that will hurt his chances further.

I think Shock the World Part III is a mediocre slogan only b/c it should be Shock the World Part II. 97 wasnt that much of a shock considering the types of players we had and our payroll.

Thought Id extend this from Fritz's thread of family members. I have a friend who is so conservative that we call him the Patriot Act. He loves dating liberal women for some reason. I think it has something to do with how passionate things can get. Personally Im not sure I could avoid letting it get personal. My gf is liberal, but she isnt as into politics as I am, so although we clash at times on views, for the most part we dont talk much politics. A good example is The ragin cajun and his wife mary matalin, different political views yet theyre married

Sad to see barkley say these things bc he was always from the Cosby school of recognizing the problem with a lot of poor blacks in america is who the role models are, the lack of importance given by many parents to education and the such. Now hes going into the ignorant statements of saying conservative means racist and discriminatory.

Plus I've always felt aguila is the kind of guy who can play several years in the majors as a 5th Of'er

sh*t gotta go on limewire and start stockpiling before they become scabs too

Also, yeah Lefty, thanks for reminding me. Another reason I love this; Retsko and Pinto, while having talent, are hardly elite prospects and have a long way to go to simply make this team in any capacity. Plus, it looks as if teams aren't exactly falling all over themselves to grab this young crop of pitching we've hoarded, so getting a center-fielder back who represents a 3 year peak service plan makes sense. Either way you slice it, Beinfest still won't have parted with his big bargaining chips (West, Petit, Sinkbeil, Tucker, Volstad, Hernandez) or his mid level ones (Harvey, Delgado, G. Sanchez) to fill a big position of organizational weakness, and fill it to the best of our budgetary ability. But for what good? Why trade a player who can help us in the future (or atleast has a decent shot of it) for a 2-month rental and expensive free agent re-signing who projects to be one of our poorest offensive performers and a below-league-average defender over those next 3 years? If it's a 2-month rental, then, why are we renting him? To make the playoffs? Why not rent someone who assures us a better chance or no one at all? To get a head-start in negotiating a future contract? We can offer him a contract just as easily in the offseason when there would be no arbitration offering or signing deadline in mid-January for the team he ended the season with. I'm getting the impression the reasons this potential acquisition is getting so much play are A) he is a former Marlin, a known (or dreamed) quality, someone who makes certain fans feel warm and toasty inside, that everything is secure and right with Marlins baseball, you know all the reasons why a team shouldn't make a decision that effects its on-field talent; and/or B) he is a small risk, a sign that we want to compete, but not so much for it have any effect but to offer a small glimmer of hope, a do-nothing deal, a sort of consolation prize or something. You;re exactly right, itll be a move for the fans, but that isnt necessarily a bad thing. As marlins fans i'm sure we're all tired of the ppl on the street who havent been following who say stupidty like 'the marlins suck this year' Which as we know isnt totally true

I love it because the people who are against this deal are the ones who will be bitchin and moanin if the FO does no moves at the deadline....HOW COULD THEY STAND PAT?!?!?.....JP represents a better option then Cody Ross and Reggie..... How is he a better option than Ross right now? Ross has been carrying the offense the last few games. 1. He's not a former Marlin 2. He doesn't prove critics of the 'fire sale' right 3. He doesn't have the intangibles which somehow can be quantified as all-encompassing good, the 'magic intangibles' if you will. 4. His game is productive to winning rather than productive to fan experience 5. He doesn't pack the park and produce revenue for Huizenga True but JP whos having an offyear, can possibly improve, provides veteran leadership, provides greater range in CF than Ross, should only be acquired for a low price, gives fans false hope that this team is actually dedicated to winning, and is good friends with our ace dontrelle willis.

For anyone who doesnt know, MLB.com is letting fans vote for one player on each club whose the best player all time for that club. The winners will be unveiled in late september. Here are my problems: First of all the nominees for the marlins are skewed and important pieces are missing. Second, no write in is going to win so if not nominated that player isnt going to win. Third, it lets fans vote as many times as they want, so it cheapens this whole thing the same way that the allstart game is cheapened by the unlimited voting. So this whole thing for me really just sucks. I'd love to see who the real winners were, if you can only vote once

Sept.17

Actually this is a very cool article. Obviously i wouldnt want to lose cabrera, but its kind of a cool thoguh tto think of a-rod playing for us