THEE NYG SWAG THREAD

[dezzzR]

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="dezzzR"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="dezzzR"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="dezzzR"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="dezzzR"]a perfect example of this is the red sox. had the won. if they win at least 5 out of those 10 games they lost at the beginning of the season, they make the playoffs. to say ohh its april, oh its september, the game doesnt mean as much is ridiculous.
[/quote]

<u>again thats stupid.</u> They could of taken care of business and had it in their own hands when it was down the wire - they didn't

theres a million what ifs that could of happened in both scenerios. Bottom line they knowing had their destiny in their own hands, like the Giants did, and didn't capitalize
[/quote] how is it stupid? <u>if they win those games, and the season plays out the way it did, even with the huge meltdown at the end, THEY STILL MAKE THE PLAYOFFS. yes or no?</u> (dont you dare pull a mh and not answer!)thus proving all games are important.
i know what youre saying, a game late in the season to get in the playoffs is bigger than the titan game or any other game, BUT if the giants won any one of those games it doesnt have to be a "MUST" win. like you said we control our own destiny
[/quote]

its stupid because u assume the season would of went on the same exact way after that game...


[/quote] <font size="6"><u>YES OR NO?????</u></font>
[/quote]

u asked why i thought something was stupid and i answered

where is there a yes or no question that u want answered? lol
[/quote]do you read? or just read the first sentence and stop?
[/quote]

did u read my response? I said why its stupid so no. You assume that the year would of played out the exact same way. Its a butterfly effect. Whose to say after a comfortable start to the season that we don't have a let down game vs the Texans, Lions, or Cowboys in the upcoming weeks.


[/quote]lol i cant even respond to this... its such ****. good thing tc seems to agree with me

[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>

[DavenIII]

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]it started talking about the death penalty[/quote]

He started talking about who should and shouldn't get the death penalty...and that it should be based upon his whims...not a stringent system.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]He basically said all murder is the same.[/quote]

I didn't say anything remotely resembling this remark, I did however provide him the definitions of Murder 1 and Murder 2 to show HIM the difference...since he doesn't understand it.



[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]I then made the comment that they are obviously different because had the jury been able to convict Casey Anthony as the killer, with all of the other evidence they would of been able to get murder one. Dr. K was charged wtih murder two. Daven doesn't see the difference[/quote]

Doesn't see the difference? It was brought up for a distinct purpose, after I showed you that "premeditation" is the distinguishing feature between Murder 1 and Murder 2 I mentioned that Dr.K. really should have been considered a murder 1 case by the book because he clearly had premeditated his murders....you completely ignored my point and went on to talk about how he was charged with Murder 2.....that's irreverent though, my point was that his Murders "fit" the description of Murder 1 (which I provided for you) and by YOUR black and white idea for the system he would have to be sent to the chair (which I knew you didn't agree with) it was pretty much brought up to show you how bad your system was....but you ignored the whole point.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]Also Daven accuses me of being a emotional because I feel anybody guilty of killing a child should get the chair. [/quote]

You are an emotional thinker, you do not think things through completely and you take things one at a time and make snap judgements on them....that's just how you are..it's not always a bad thing.

[MattMeyerBud]

[quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"]Again with the way the body was disposed, the lies to the police, and the way she was acting when the baby was gone missing (which was used in court) they would of been able to get murder 1.

I didn't ask any questions, i made a statement which u questioned
[/quote]

but you statement is illogical, I'm not questioning it I'm letting you know that.

in order to fit the charge Murder 1 evidence must be provided, all the things you are mentioning were brought to light by the prosecution and not only was she not convicted of Murder 1...she was found Innocent!

so NO matt, they WOULD NOT have been able to get murder one, this much we already know..that's a fact, now if there was another piece of evidence that wasn't presented? well depending on what that other piece of evidence was then maybe they could have gotten Murder 1...but as it stands with what WAS provided no Matt...as much as you want to believe she could have gotten Murder 1 she could not have.
[/quote]

now your flip flopping

This debate was over the death penalty. HAd they found evidence 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..

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

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


You dont think there was enough supporting evidence to get it to murder 1, i do. 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

[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>

[lttaylor56]

[quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="lttaylor56"][quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"]

daven is just as guilty as me of going off on tangents that have nothing to do wtih the topics at hands.

For some reason my theory of thinking an able bodied adult that kills a child in cold blood is emotional? I just say its a guideline
[/quote]

There is no tangent and yes you are making an emotional leap in logic.

just because Casey Anthony's Case is particularly horrible in your (our) opinion doesn't mean it needs to be treated differently, you still need to meet all the same guidelines that anyone else would.

you are saying...if found guilty she would get the chair...but that's faulty logic...depending on what evidence is provided to prove she's guilty she could have gotten anywhere from manslaughter to Murder 1...we can't know without knowing what piece of evidence was missing...we just can't.

you asked extremely complicated questions, then ask for yes or no answers....it can't be done, when I try to explain why, you tell me I'm going off on a tangent.
[/quote]It's the extra stuff that get's to me with Casey. I know from a legal standpoint, they must remain impartial and look solely at the fact's, but I can't get past her getting tat's and entering a hot body contest soon after the incident. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt--maybe she was so stricken with sorrow and immature that this was the only way she knew how to deal with the tragic loss of her child?
[/quote]

I agree with you LT, but that's from a shooting the **** perspective with you, I obviously feel that, that is an unusual way to grieve if you can even call it that, BUT if I was on the jury you can't really take that into account....you need to stick to evidence and proof.
[/quote]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.

[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.

[MattMeyerBud]

[quote user="Morehead State"]

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"][quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="lttaylor56"][quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"]

daven is just as guilty as me of going off on tangents that have nothing to do wtih the topics at hands.

For some reason my theory of thinking an able bodied adult that kills a child in cold blood is emotional? I just say its a guideline
[/quote]

There is no tangent and yes you are making an emotional leap in logic.

just because Casey Anthony's Case is particularly horrible in your (our) opinion doesn't mean it needs to be treated differently, you still need to meet all the same guidelines that anyone else would.

you are saying...if found guilty she would get the chair...but that's faulty logic...depending on what evidence is provided to prove she's guilty she could have gotten anywhere from manslaughter to Murder 1...we can't know without knowing what piece of evidence was missing...we just can't.

you asked extremely complicated questions, then ask for yes or no answers....it can't be done, when I try to explain why, you tell me I'm going off on a tangent.
[/quote]It's the extra stuff that get's to me with Casey. I know from a legal standpoint, they must remain impartial and look solely at the fact's, but I can't get past her getting tat's and entering a hot body contest soon after the incident. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt--maybe she was so stricken with sorrow and immature that this was the only way she knew how to deal with the tragic loss of her child?
[/quote]

I agree with you LT, but that's from a shooting the **** perspective with you, I obviously feel that, that is an unusual way to grieve if you can even call it that, BUT if I was on the jury you can't really take that into account....you need to stick to evidence and proof.
[/quote]

i feel like if they had the evidence to convict her, there was enough supporting and circumstancial to get it to murder one from what we know. Had she got murder one and then add in the fact a baby was the victim - i think that person whould get the chair. WHOEVER it is. Again CA was just the example at hand
[/quote]</p>


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.</p>


The prosecution did not prove otherwise. Its not about what we think happened. Its about whether or not the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>[/quote]

We were talking about if she had been found guilty. THey tried to prove her guilty JUST because of her lies to the cops, the witnesses that smelled the body, the way they covered up the body, the way she acted - I think they would of had motive that she didn't want the responsibility. They almost convicted her alone on these facts.

I agree they didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but we were speaking hypothetically

Either way bottom line i stand behind the sole fact of what daven tries to argue: I am for the death penalty and any adult found guilty of murder in the 1st of killing a minor should be put to death

[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>

[MattMeyerBud]

[quote user="DavenIII"][quote user="MattMeyerBud"]it started talking about the death penalty[/quote]

He started talking about who should and shouldn't get the death penalty...and that it should be based upon his whims...not a stringent system.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]He basically said all murder is the same.[/quote]

I didn't say anything remotely resembling this remark, I did however provide him the definitions of Murder 1 and Murder 2 to show HIM the difference...since he doesn't understand it.



[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]I then made the comment that they are obviously different because had the jury been able to convict Casey Anthony as the killer, with all of the other evidence they would of been able to get murder one. Dr. K was charged wtih murder two. Daven doesn't see the difference[/quote]

Doesn't see the difference? It was brought up for a distinct purpose, after I showed you that "premeditation" is the distinguishing feature between Murder 1 and Murder 2 I mentioned that Dr.K. really should have been considered a murder 1 case by the book because he clearly had premeditated his murders....you completely ignored my point and went on to talk about how he was charged with Murder 2.....that's irreverent though, my point was that his Murders "fit" the description of Murder 1 (which I provided for you) and by YOUR black and white idea for the system he would have to be sent to the chair (which I knew you didn't agree with) it was pretty much brought up to show you how bad your system was....but you ignored the whole point.

[quote user="MattMeyerBud"]Also Daven accuses me of being a emotional because I feel anybody guilty of killing a child should get the chair. [/quote]

You are an emotional thinker, you do not think things through completely and you take things one at a time and make snap judgements on them....that's just how you are..it's not always a bad thing.
[/quote]

1) again that was u just jumping to conclusions and being an *******. Thats why I went back and bumped. AGAIN - ANYBODY FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER 1 OF A CHILD SHOULD GET THE CHAIR.

2) I already Bumped when u said all murder is the same. Hell your general comparison of Dr. K to CA basically proves that.

3) You brought up something that WASNT murder, but assisted suicide. He didn't do the murdering though. IF you take my care and kill yourself, should I be considered a murderer?

4) Again - if u disagree with anybody found guilty of Murder 1 of a child should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law well then thats your opinion. Go to jail being a rapist or doing something to a child, your the scumbags scumbag. I don't hink that illogical, i think its spot on. The difference here is u don't believe in the death penalty and i do.