Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
metrojoe

Anyone see the game last night?

10 posts in this topic

I think the Twins were losing 8 to 3 when I turned on the game and they scored 5 runs in the 9th to tie it up and send it into extra innings. Then on the first pitch Morneau knocks one out of the park and the Twins win 9 to 8. It was a great come from behind win.

Why don't these games make news highlight reels? I couldn't find anything on ESPN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twins and KC dont make highlight reels! Only east coast teams!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The streak will end today. The Twins haven't won on a Thursday this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What, its not a day game today, I was hoping to catch the game today cry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus Guillen had a meltdown in the Royals locker room and I didn't hear anything about that until I read it on the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Royal's must be [PoorWordUsage] off at letting that one slip away. Their starting pitcher threw a great game and their bullpen blew it (of course their closer threw 2 innings the night before so he wasn't available). My wife and I were watching the game periodically and were going to switch back to basketball when Kubel and Lamb got things going in the 9th. Monroe's HR was a hoot - hollywood couldn't have scripted it any better (3-2, 2 out, 9th inning).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone watch Baseball Tonight? I tuned in halfway through the show, and I heard nothing about the Twins. Pretty bad when the best game of the day doesn't even make highlights. Money means everything to these people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya Slowey pitched great. Only 6 hits given up and the final was 5 to 1 Twins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im just glad that young wasnt in. all we need him to do is miss 2 very easy pop up fly balls. That really hurt us yesterday, but thankfully we were able to come back in the 9th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then i guess it didn't really hurt us? did it?

The twins won despite a couple blunders in the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Dave, if this many folks are not understanding the question, than maybe the question is unclear.  So rather then rant about it perhaps try rephrasing it.
    •     I believe you said it was "libertarian" drivel, actually, so you dismissed it out of hand...          
    •   You posted about neither.     But if you would read the article, my commentary and TJ's commentary you would know that's not really what the article is about.     You have to be kidding, right? Just about everyone who has an opinion on politics at all is this sort of person. Do you look at social media at all?
    •     Ok, now getting back to whether Trump will win the War on Drugs, do you think he will take any steps at all to decriminalize drugs, such as reclassifying marijuana, and recognizing state laws and programs designed to move towards the decriminalization of drugs?   Or do you think he will take steps to protect vested interests, such as prisons and the pharmaceutical. industry?   Just going off his rhetoric and his choice for a drug czar, I'm guessing he much prefers the latter, and will end up spending a bunch of taxpayer's money, and actually lose ground by continuing on with the brute force/criminalization approach.        
    • Because at the time, I don't have anything better to do.   I posted about the article, and you wanted to talk about the topic.  I posted about the topic and you want to discuss the article.    Which is it?     I support a particular candidate because their positions, taken as a whole, are preferable to me as compared to the other candidate(s).   In a few years I get to do it over.     I don't think there are really that many ardent "rah rah for my party" type folks out there, in spite of what we see on TV, or the occasional people we meet.     So the article is basically drivel, as I said before, based on a false premise.   
    • Borch I just signed up Ryan, Morgan, and me but I only see my name listed in the summary. Do my kids not show up because they don't have hso usernames?  Or did I not enter it right?     Please let me know how to fix it and I'll do so.  Thanks!
    •   Because I think self reflection is good for all of us from time to time.   If you don't wan't to discuss this article, why do you persist in posting here?           No one is disputing that at all. The premise of the author's article is in regards to the hypocrisy of then justifying everything your chosen candidate or party does blindly while vilifying the other candidates or party. It's the "all in" sports like mentality that is being discussed here.  
    • There is a really excellent book called "The Righteous Mind" that approaches this tribalist mindset from an evolutionary psychology standpoint. The author, Jonathan Haidt, does a remarkable job of unpacking why people persist in truly irrational defense of the indefensible - when it's their team doing the stupid stuff. I highly highly highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in lessening the hyperpartisan idiocy we have today.

      The trouble is that the closed-off mindset that lends itself to reflexive support for Obama/Hillary/Trump/whomever also tends to preclude any serious engagement in self-examination that the book is designed to provoke. Really good read, though.
    •   I get what your saying here but I think what Dave is talking about is the willingness of some to blindly follow, without question, their party or candidate. I saw this first hand during the primary with some of my own relatives, for example. I had a SIL who was a huge Bernie backer. The things she said about Hillary were worse than anything said here. As far as she was concerned, Hillary should be tarred and feathered and ran out on a rail. Then Bernie loses the nomination. She then became Hillary's biggest defender. Everything she said about her during the primary was instantly washed away. Even her own husband called her out. She wasn't simply voting for her because she found Trump worse. That's understandable. She defended or at least tried to deflect the issues with Hillary when just a few months prior, she said things that would make even Cooter or Bill say, "man you're harsh on her."   I don't think this is a new phenomenon. I also don't think it's widespread. Like everything else, access to more and diverse information just makes it possible to hear more about it than before. I think human nature causes people to internalize candidates and/.or elected officials. It's a "if you're critical of my candidate, you're critical of me," kind of thinking.   I don't fault anyone for voting for a candidate that one feels best represents their line of thinking. Or even defending their candidate from detractors. I don't think that is what Dave is talking about here. It's also the flipping of political opinions just because the candidate you voted for or support is supporting certain positions. For example, many conservatives opposed BHO's stimulus, including myself. It didn't work  as promised and we just added more on to the debt. So on the campaign trail, Trump also spoke of a stimulus plan that was even more expensive than BHO's and  those same people not only supported it but are justifying it. In summary, one can vote for a candidate without defending everything that person does        
  • Our Sponsors