THEE NYG SWAG THREAD

[MattMeyerBud]

[quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="ny06"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="ny06"][quote user="Morehead State"][quote user="ny06"]


<font face="Arial">Morehead State</font> </p>


What are your thoughts on having to replace Theo Epstein and Terry Francona?</p>


[/quote]</p>


As long as we get another solid starter and a right handed hitting outfielder.</p>


[/quote]</p>


Is this you trying to be funny?</p>


[/quote]</p>


I don't get it. We really do need a starter and a right hand hitting outfielder. Oh and if we can somehow get back Handley Ramirez, I'm good with that too.</p>


[/quote]</p>


My initial question was about losing Theo and Terry Francona. </p>


And you give me you guys need a pitcher and a right handed outfielder? </p>


The Red Sox need more then a pitcher and a hitter. They need a pulse, cause that team flatlined in September. </p>


</p>


[/quote]</p>


Tito was a great manager. Will probably go down as the greatest in Sox history. But he didn't want to stay. Managers in baseball are not near as important as HC's in football or even basketball. There is no scheme to implement. Its more about managing personalities, lineups and pitching staffs.</p>


Most of that is baseball 101 stuff. Any new manager will probably be fine. And I'm not a huge believer in the "genius" of Theo. Give him half the payroll and see if he can win. He's had some questionable signings recently.</p>


In other words, the Sox will be fine because its the player who lost it. Especially Lester and Beckett.</p>[/quote]

like Crawford?

[MattMeyerBud]

[quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="Morehead State"]


I think she did it but I don't think there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It could have been accidental and then they covered that up.[/quote]
</p>I think this is a highly likely possibility...

so when matt does his stupid ultimatum questions.

"But If she WAS Convicted she woulda got the death penalty right?

which is what he asked me, I can't answer him, because if it was accidental and then she tried to cover it up...NO she wasn't, if it was premeditated and she decided she didn't want to have the kid anymore and decided to kill it...then yes..

but since none of that was proven...we can't know anyhow.
[/quote]

lol even if ithat was the case i'd still say that it was completely different than the Dr. K case.

[DavenIII]

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]now your flip flopping[/quote]

If you think I'm flip flopping explain to me how because my position hasn't changed since the first comments we made discussing this topic more then a month ago.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]This debate was over the death penalty. <font size="6" color="#0000FF">HAd they found evidence</font> that she committed the murder was the premis we were debating on. The whole debate is illogical. But agian YOU were the one that brought it up..[/quote]

No, you are, and you STILL don't understand what the debate is really over, so I'm highlighting it for you, WHAT WAS IT...because whether she gets Murder 1 2 manslaughter or nothing at all is explicitly dependent on WHAT the evidence they found was.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]Again all of the evidence they showed that we knew of would of got her murder 1. But they couldn't put the gun in her hand so to speak[/quote]

No all the evidence they showed would have got her an Innocent verdict...that's why that's what she got, now if there was something else...then YES maybe that combined with what was shown may have gotten her Murder 1...but we can't know without knowing what that evidence that wasn't provided was.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]You accuse me of having a rogue paragraphs in my debates but u just completely change what we are arguing mid-argument as soon as ur leverage slips. These were YOUR examples, my argument hasn't changed[/quote]


My argument has been...from the very begining...the issue I have with your comment bolded above...you simply do not see the fault in that logic so YOU are arguing about completely irreverent topics that surround my point...I entertain those other topics...because im bored at work at times :P


[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]You dont think there was enough supporting evidence to get it to murder 1, i do.[/quote]

No Matt, I don't "think" there wasn't enough supporting evidence, I know for a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt that there wasn't..because she was found Innocent, now if there was more evidence...a smoking gun so to speak...that showing specifically that she intended on killing her child and made a plan to do so...then yes, that would have been enough...but that didn't exist.


[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]But regardless this whole debate was over u calling me emotional for suggesting that anybody that gets murder 1 for killing a child should get the chair. How far you've fallen from that debate with all your mini points where u try and take this argument else where[/quote]

I'm not taking this argument anywhere...YOU are, I'm just following through, the main point from the beginning is that you are jumping to an emotional conclusion, you want to change how the entire criminal punishment system works based on the outcome of one case.

[DavenIII]

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]

lol even if ithat was the case i'd still say that it was completely different than the Dr. K case.
[/quote]

The reason the Dr. K case was brought up was the fact that it fits with the definition of Murder 1 (premeditated murder) the fact that he got murder 2 further proves my point that we can't know what CA would have gotten, even if this magical evidence appeared that got her convicted....it's possible that even if that evidence proved murder one she could still get murder 2 or less.

[DavenIII]

[quote user="lttaylor56"]True, If I were on the jury, it would be very difficult for me to separate the two. It would haunt me after the trial.
[/quote]

I certainly do not envy the jury of that case...I would literally be distraught, I would WANT to convict her...but my inability to deviate from what is required of you as a Jury would not have let me.

[MattMeyerBud]

[quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"]now your flip flopping[/quote]

If you think I'm flip flopping explain to me how because my position hasn't changed since the first comments we made discussing this topic more then a month ago.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]This debate was over the death penalty. <font color="#0000ff" size="6">HAd they found evidence</font> that she committed the murder was the premis we were debating on. The whole debate is illogical. But agian YOU were the one that brought it up..[/quote]

No, you are, and you STILL don't understand what the debate is really over, so I'm highlighting it for you, WHAT WAS IT...because whether she gets Murder 1 2 manslaughter or nothing at all is explicitly dependent on WHAT the evidence they found was.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]Again all of the evidence they showed that we knew of would of got her murder 1. But they couldn't put the gun in her hand so to speak[/quote]

No all the evidence they showed would have got her an Innocent verdict...that's why that's what she got, now if there was something else...then YES maybe that combined with what was shown may have gotten her Murder 1...but we can't know without knowing what that evidence that wasn't provided was.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]You accuse me of having a rogue paragraphs in my debates but u just completely change what we are arguing mid-argument as soon as ur leverage slips. These were YOUR examples, my argument hasn't changed[/quote]


My argument has been...from the very begining...the issue I have with your comment bolded above...you simply do not see the fault in that logic so YOU are arguing about completely irreverent topics that surround my point...I entertain those other topics...because im bored at work at times :P


[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]You dont think there was enough supporting evidence to get it to murder 1, i do.[/quote]

No Matt, I don't "think" there wasn't enough supporting evidence, I know for a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt that there wasn't..because she was found Innocent, now if there was more evidence...a smoking gun so to speak...that showing specifically that she intended on killing her child and made a plan to do so...then yes, that would have been enough...but that didn't exist.


[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]But regardless this whole debate was over u calling me emotional for suggesting that anybody that gets murder 1 for killing a child should get the chair. How far you've fallen from that debate with all your mini points where u try and take this argument else where[/quote]

I'm not taking this argument anywhere...YOU are, I'm just following through, the main point from the beginning is that you are jumping to an emotional conclusion, you want to change how the entire criminal punishment system works based on the outcome of one case.



[/quote]

daven had they put the gun in her hand - her plea was that she was innocent NOT that it was accidental. NO SHOT they would of got accidental after all of her lies, pleas, and the way she acted.

So HAD they found out she had did it, they would of had enough to not give her Murder 2 is the point im making. They would of went to the extent of the law.

[MattMeyerBud]

[quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"]now your flip flopping[/quote]

If you think I'm flip flopping explain to me how because my position hasn't changed since the first comments we made discussing this topic more then a month ago.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]This debate was over the death penalty. <font color="#0000ff" size="6">HAd they found evidence</font> that she committed the murder was the premis we were debating on. The whole debate is illogical. But agian YOU were the one that brought it up..[/quote]

No, you are, and you STILL don't understand what the debate is really over, so I'm highlighting it for you, WHAT WAS IT...because whether she gets Murder 1 2 manslaughter or nothing at all is explicitly dependent on WHAT the evidence they found was.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]Again all of the evidence they showed that we knew of would of got her murder 1. But they couldn't put the gun in her hand so to speak[/quote]

No all the evidence they showed would have got her an Innocent verdict...that's why that's what she got, now if there was something else...then YES maybe that combined with what was shown may have gotten her Murder 1...but we can't know without knowing what that evidence that wasn't provided was.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]You accuse me of having a rogue paragraphs in my debates but u just completely change what we are arguing mid-argument as soon as ur leverage slips. These were YOUR examples, my argument hasn't changed[/quote]


My argument has been...from the very begining...the issue I have with your comment bolded above...you simply do not see the fault in that logic so YOU are arguing about completely irreverent topics that surround my point...I entertain those other topics...because im bored at work at times :P


[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]You dont think there was enough supporting evidence to get it to murder 1, i do.[/quote]

No Matt, I don't "think" there wasn't enough supporting evidence, I know for a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt that there wasn't..because she was found Innocent, now if there was more evidence...a smoking gun so to speak...that showing specifically that she intended on killing her child and made a plan to do so...then yes, that would have been enough...but that didn't exist.


[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]But regardless this whole debate was over u calling me emotional for suggesting that anybody that gets murder 1 for killing a child should get the chair. How far you've fallen from that debate with all your mini points where u try and take this argument else where[/quote]

I'm not taking this argument anywhere...YOU are, I'm just following through, the main point from the beginning is that you are jumping to an emotional conclusion, you want to change how the entire criminal punishment system works based on the outcome of one case.



[/quote]

daven had they put the gun in her hand - her plea was that she was innocent NOT that it was accidental. NO SHOT they would of got accidental after all of her lies, pleas, and the way she acted.

So HAD they found out she had did it, they would of had enough to not give her Murder 2 is the point im making. They would of went to the extent of the law.

[MattMeyerBud]

[quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"]

lol even if ithat was the case i'd still say that it was completely different than the Dr. K case.
[/quote]

The reason the Dr. K case was brought up was the fact that it fits with the definition of Murder 1 (premeditated murder) the fact that he got murder 2 further proves my point that we can't know what CA would have gotten, even if this magical evidence appeared that got her convicted....it's possible that even if that evidence proved murder one she could still get murder 2 or less.
[/quote]

again no it wasn't - u obviously don't know the story of Dr. K

He actually didn't kill anybody

[MattMeyerBud]

[quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"]

lol even if ithat was the case i'd still say that it was completely different than the Dr. K case.
[/quote]

The reason the Dr. K case was brought up was the fact that it fits with the definition of Murder 1 (premeditated murder) the fact that he got murder 2 further proves my point that we can't know what CA would have gotten, even if this magical evidence appeared that got her convicted....it's possible that even if that evidence proved murder one she could still get murder 2 or less.
[/quote]

again no it wasn't - u obviously don't know the story of Dr. K

He actually didn't kill anybody

[MattMeyerBud]

[quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"]

lol even if ithat was the case i'd still say that it was completely different than the Dr. K case.
[/quote]

The reason the Dr. K case was brought up was the fact that it fits with the definition of Murder 1 (premeditated murder) the fact that he got murder 2 further proves my point that we can't know what CA would have gotten, even if this magical evidence appeared that got her convicted....it's possible that even if that evidence proved murder one she could still get murder 2 or less.
[/quote]

again no it wasn't - u obviously don't know the story of Dr. K

He actually didn't kill anybody