User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets. |
We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy Giants tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule |
Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers |
Page rendered in 3.5868 seconds
81 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.
All he's really got is five years in a POW camp.
EDIT: turns out two of the other independents are a guy who heads the Michigan UU Social Justice Network and a woman who is part of a group that lobbies for socialized medicine.
That is pretty funny.
why is this a good point? liberal hypocrisy cracks me up. the woman has a job, and is not living off the government ###. Is that what upsets you? probably.
B. Anytime a judge that condones the kiddie Cuisinart, kicks the bucket, its a GREAT opportunity to overturn the moral injustices of this sick country.
what a reach! you are not condoning anything. You are saving a human life in both scenarios. the secretary could be sitting right by the door while the embryos are behind lock and key. There are 1,000's of variables here ..what a bunch of crap.
You are a effing coward.
I enjoy pushing your buttons a-hole.
just out of curiosity RR. are you required to work the phone banks for the Dems.
I have spoken to a number of teachers in the this district, and they routinely tell me the Union requires them to work the democratic phone banks, regardless of their political leanings.
Could you shed some light on this for us.
Well lets call it what it really is.
taking little babies, blending them up, and tossing them in the trash, all in the name of convenience = murder!
########. You are spreading lies.
so you were wrong. Imagine that
Look, I am not a religious person at all. I think if you believe in a "god", you are an idiot. Turn on the science channel for "gods" sake. Soak in what they are "preaching" for a bit ..
But, the chopping up of millions of babies every year, all in the name of convenience, is disgusting. Much in the way we look back at slave owners today with disgust, it is my sincere hope that 100 years from now, history treats us like the barbarians we truly are.
You have a couple of jackasses in here, like say Kevin, who has openly condoned cheating on his wife, and sleeping with children. These are the kinds of people Roe versus Wade is designed to protect. Not the rare rape or incest case, but conveniences. Hypocrits like him can't keep his dick in his pants, and when he "slips" up, he'll just send her off to the butcher with $100.00 bill in her pocket, all in the name of his convenience.
its sick.
sorry if you can't see that.
sorry if the truth offends you.
sorry that you need to make up some sad ass scenario about a passed out secretary, to help make you feel better about blending babies.
I was getting ready to switch my handle back to gambling rent, but i think i will keep it as red juice, just as a constant reminder to you all. Every time you see "Red Juice" you will not think of that democratic kool-aid you have been drinking, or the hypocrisy surrounding Barry Bonds, but think of that red syrup shooting through the vacuum hose, that apparently so many of you are in favor of.
blending babies is bad people. Bad.
spin it anyway you want, but it doesn't make you any less of a barbarian, for condoning it.
Nobody's demanding you to be here; Free Republic is just a few taps away. Life here's unfair? Then get the #### out.
And punishing women, what are you talking about? Is that something that Kevin condones and you all agree is "cool" .. punishing women.. wow.
look ..
pic 1
pic 2
pic 3
There was a great case several years ago, after one of the states passed a law that a fetus was a person with all rights appertaining thereto, etc. A pregnant woman in jail sued on the basis that her unborn child was being wrongfully imprisoned without having been found guilty of a crime. I never did hear how that one turned out.
More meds.
Oh boy, someone on the internets fell for those same old photoshopped pics. Those have been going around a while, it's a wonder anyone still falls for it. Here you can see the proof that it's all been tweaked and made up to look bad.
Are you suggesting Ed Wood wrote McCain's speech?
Besides, Nieporent happened back to the thread when the convention was being "live-blogged," if you will; that sort of thing tends to consist of snarky one-liners, regardless of who's doing it. See, e.g., any political blog.
Shame on you, nasby. This discussion is no place for commentary from anyone with any actual medical expertise. Less reason and more hysteria, please.
"Adoption" /= "foster care." I'd think someone who purports to be so concerned for the welfare of children would pick up on that distinction.
Even if I concede your point, you're saying people are justified in not improving a child's life through adoption because of...convenience?
Eraser-X and robinred try and escape the Democratic Phone Bank in which they've been imprisoned by the Teacher's Union Company. As their plan to escape comes to fruition, they trick Howard Dean by poisoning his regular meal of stewed babies with the abundance of marijuana and coke lying around the DNC. Their plot hits a snag, however, when Obama shows up. When they feed him the stew, they find his extensive coke-snorting has built up an immunity. Allah ain't going out like that! They wake up to find themselves imprisoned in Obama's secret Muslim work camp in the grain silos of southern Illinois.
THIS WEEK ON FOX
OK, fine, it's no "Cracked". But I had fun.
And that ain't the half of it, E-X. A search into the records of the Alabama State Sovereignty Commission unearthed this long forgotten phone call:
December 1964, Alabama State Capitol. The phone rings and Gov. George Wallace picks it up.
At that point the connection was lost, and there's no transcript of Wallace's reply. But as Casey Stengel said, you can look it up.
Can't wait to begin the second week of her candidacy.
To have gone off the deep end, one has to assume that at one time the person in question wasn't off the deep end. Such is not the case with Low Rent. He's always been a rightwingnut whackjob.
I can't say about Dukakis but, for all Bush' faults, he was a significantly more dynamic speaker than Kerry and Gore.
Meanwhile, Palin's going to do a disappearing act. They're too afraid to even let her go on Fox News, apparently.
Doubtful. Reagan was extremely popular at the time, and Bush was inheriting that mantle. The Democratic candidate would have had to have been as charismatic as Reagan, and there was nothing special about Michael Dukakis.
Besides, he completely dropped the ball on law-and-order questions, which was the biggest issue of the day.
You damn the man with faint praise.
By the way, an honest question; What faults are you speaking of with respect to Bush I? Aside from the (R) by his name, I'd have thought he'd be relatively well thought of by liberals. He was no bible beater, was a foreign policy realist, not a chickenhawk (or really all that much of a hawk at all), and actually raised taxes.
Not to say he didn't have his faults, but I'm curious what people on the left think about him.
I teach at the college level now, so I am not in the union anymore. I can find this out quite easily, however. But if someone said, "No thanks, I am voting for McCain" I don't see that the union could do anything even if it were a "requirement." I will get back to you after I ask a couple of friends.
This has coincided with a couple of slow days for me. This would be a great time for a teachers' union joke if I were still in the high schools.
We have covered this and will have to agree to disagree. It is not that "W is a dynamo" but more that "Kerry and Gore are stiffs." I caught the the end of Charlie Rose last night, and one of the talking heads said that in his exp, the candidate who "connects" with undecided voters late in the game will win. That is kind of simplistic, but in my exp charisma is huge. Reagan was quite conservative but was able to convince a lot of people who weren't that he was the guy to lead the country. I think if you put Reagan's platform with John Kerry's podium "presence" you get a guy who likely beats Carter and Mondale, but not by as much. Like I said upthread, I don't think many pople sit around really thinking about the federal government much except in election years, around April 15, and when we are at war. And how often do most people really see the president for more than a minute or so at a time once he is elected?
The other thing--which I think is mostly out of pres' control--is how the economy is seen to be doing at the time. That is huge, too ("peace and prosperity") but I think a lot of voters do look quite a bit at personality--more than they admit.
It seems to have backfired on them though. If anything, that ad made McCain look desperate and highlighted McCain's lack of appeal.
I confess, Dubya has given me a renewed appreciation for both Reagan and Bush I.
Sorry, I should have been clearer - I meant that Bush II was a more dynamic speaker than Gore or Kerry.
With respect to Bush I, I don't remember having any major problems with the way he generally did things, but it's not easy to remember many aspects of his policy from 20 years ago. I do appreciate, however, that he did recognize what a disaster a full-scale invasion of Iraq would be.
Keep in mind as well that this is the opinion of a non-American, so the decisions made by him (or any other American elected official) didn't impact me nearly as directly.
This is Wiki's summary of that defining moment:
A day or two after that debate, a black customer of mine (with a black sense of humor) and I were talking about what Dukakis should have said. Me, I just noted the obvious, which is that since Dukakis had a long record of being against the death penalty, there wasn't much he could have done other than choosing his words better.
But this customer was having none of that. He said it didn't matter what Dukakis had said before that, since Shaw had asked him about "his own f*ck*ng wife."
He said, "If it'd been me, I would've looked that goddam Bernard Shaw straight in the eye and said, 'I'd do just what you'd do, Bernie---I'd a taken that n*gg*r and strapped him to the electric chair my GODdam self!' I bet THAT would've won him the election right there."
Of course this was a bit easier for him to say than it would've been for Dukakis, but it was definitely food for thought.
I have spoken to a number of teachers in the this district, and they routinely tell me the Union requires them to work the democratic phone banks, regardless of their political leanings.
I have a strong suspicion you made this up, or perhaps those teachers are on the same hallucinogens as you. I confess, though, envisioning being trapped on a Democratic phone bank is not your typical acid flashback.
Then again, we have Walmart management flaks telling their employees their jobs'll get sucked up by the evil specter of unionization if they don't vote Republican, so I suppose turnabout is fair play.
I'm sure the media will back off because the campaign has decided to make her inaccessible.
Yeah, the "you should dislike my opponent because he's so popular" line of attack's a little odd.
zonk, your evident sarcasm (and your implication that Palin might try to dodge the press) merely outs you as the raging sexist that you are. Female voters (who were attuned to sexism during the Hillary Clinton campaign) will not tolerate your sexist attacks on Gov. Palin.
She'll have to be interviewed at some point. She just can't avoid that.
Campbell Brown is obviously off the table now. The Republicans are deathly afraid of her after the way she ############ Tucker Bounds. But they might agree to Katie Couric and Katie will mop the floor with her.
She's attempting to simulate the McCain POW experience so that she's better qualified to run the country.
Wait... what's this... John McCain was a POW?
Why hasn't he and his campaign told anyone about this? Seems like it would be a great way to change the subject from the economy, 3/4 of a trillion dollars pissed away in Iraq, and his (18)80s social views.
Why, he might even be able to use it as a shield to turn aside questions about owning a dozen homes or being able to afford basic health care.
That's prestige, man. Prestige.
And so's your mom.
And this is valuable because...?
JC's "inner wimp" emerges.
We'll notify JC when the next steroids thread begins, and he and Kevin are playing Bush and McCain with each other once again. (smile)
Mystery Solved!
What struck me was, first and foremost, that they weren't offering domestic policy. They attacked Obama on character, and characterized his policies as "big government" and "high taxes". They offered, as an alternative, school choice, oil drilling, oil drilling, tax cuts, drilling, and LOTS OF DRILLING. I guess that the campaign decided that running on positive policies was going to be impossible, and that running away from George W. Bush substantively was going to be impossible, and they would just go out there and hope no one noticed they didn't respond in any way to the critique offered during the Dem convention.
This might work. Or, better, given my general belief that structural factors determine presidential election outcomes, the situation of Americans might be such that on election day they don't need a strong differentiation between McCain's and Bush's republican party to vote McCain. I think it's unlikely that the underlying factors that basically determine outcomes will shift, but they could - the world is really complicated.
They gave a number of good speeches - Palin in particular can unload an attack effectively - but it's weird to see the Democrats devote their convention to (a) tying McCain to Bush and (b) offering domestic policy, and the Republicans a week later not differentiate themselves on domestic policy.
EDIT: I should add that both parties put forward substantive foreign policy outlooks, which differ in important ways, but were both put forward clearly to the American people. It's on domestic policy where there was a major asymmetry, I thought.
Link
Something the vetters should have caught, if there were any vetters?
My best guess is that there's nothing to this, but it's sort of interesting in that Barack Obama won his U.S. Senate seat on the basis of unsealed divorce papers (in both the primary and general election actually).
Did you see the one where he met his evil twin K.A.R.R?
catching up...Ryan Jones
The Canadian Backlasher. I bet he could sell that one to TNA wrestling.
... watching WWE...
In the spirit of this election season, i am tryin to reach the masses. If I start pulling out Nikki Roxx or Ring of Honor references, then only Szym and maybe two or three others would get it.
A little one-sided, don't you think? There are costs for requiring "some procedure" that you're not mentioning here. That process may make the product more expensive, more scarce, or entirely unavailable. The product may indeed be dangerous, but may provide some benefits that certain individuals feel is a worthwhile trade-off.
Which "costs" are you referring too? The majority of the price of medication is due to the fact that the manufacturers get govt. grants of patent and therefore a limited monopoly. The majority of the amount of supply of medication is due to the fact that the manufacturers get govt. grants of patent and therefore a limited monopoly.
If there is some other social cost you are referring too, you will need to state it more precisely. As for what you do state:
(1) Trade Off
As previously mentioned, the consumer can make that trade off. Its pretty rare, especially sinc 1989, that the FDA is going to affect a consumer from being able to access the drug. Its just going to require a procedure. If the consumer can't get the drug, then its usually because price and supply (as previously discussed). Sometimes the inability to obtain the drug is because the manufacturer knows its too dangerous and they are worried about liability.
But if you are talking about the risk tradeoff of: (1) obtaining a drug prone to abuse for a non-therapeutic, euphoric property v. (2) I'm happy to die at 35 if I can get ripped at 18; then that one isn't currently allowed. We can debate whether it should be allowed, but that is entirely independent of the function of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the regulatory agency that enforces it.
It's not so easy when the drug is AZT and it is withheld from terminal patients when there are no alternatives.
What are you basing this statement on? AZT is a highly toxic drug. It was invented in 1964 for cancer and shelved because its toxicity. When BW dug it out in 1985, it was available experimentally pretty quickly. If some patients didn't get it, it was mainly because BW was just keeping supply low and jacking costs. Moreover, AIDS is probably not the exempler becuase the AIDS epidemic did lead to the FDA fast tracking two drugs in 1989 because of need. One of the drugs was licensed for general marketing without any clinical pre-trial whatsoever.
Or when the same agency contributes to the ban on marijuana when it's more effective with fewer serious side-effects than alternatives for certain conditions.
As previously mentioned, the FDA does not schedule drugs. I'm not sure what you think you mean by "contribute"
Or when the drug is Vioxx and people are led to believe it is safe because of the agency's endorsement.
Endorsement? The FDA does not endorse anything. To my knowledge, in their history, they have only allowed an endorsement to appear once; that was on a food item when there was large consumer confusion over problems with the supply.
In many cases, to even imply an FDA endorsement is per se misbranding and actionable at administrative, federal and state law.
I'll take Adultery and Infidelity for 500, Alex.
And how long is it until Kos or MoveOn or somewhere go OMG MCCAIN DIDNT EVEN VET HIS POWERPOINT ART DIRECTOR! OMG! BLAAAAAAAAAARGGGGH!!!!
Curious scare quotes there. Today is "Friday," the "fifth" day of September.
School choice: Positive
Oil drilling: Positive
Tax cuts: Positive
Oil drilling: Positive
Tax cuts: Positive
MCoA's view is that "positive" means "something person with a 'D' next to their name proposes." Therefore, the Republicans would be completely unable to offer anything "positive" as they all have the letter 'R' next to their names.
Hanging curveball.
I don't know if I'd say "basis" -- despite Hull's primary issues, there was also Dan Hynes in that primary, and Obama still won a majority (not a plurality) in the primary final tally.
In the GE - no poll showed Ryan within 10 pts of Obama.
I'm not saying he wasn't helped by these external events -- but I find a lot of fault with chalking up either Obama's primary win or his GE lead against Ryan to external events.
Why, its much easier and scarier to point out that you don't want the old geezer to mistake Moscow, Idaho for Moscow, Russia when he decides to push the bright red button. In fact, the rel reason that Palin was added to the ticket was to help him be able to tell the difference between the two.
Breathe, Dan, breathe.
Seriously, what are you making fun/mocking here? Kos and MoveOn, or all of us in general? Who's vetting other than the possible leader of the free world have we been worried about?
I thought Jack Ryan went to BC, and he did become president after Durling was killed during the kamikaze attack on the Capitol building in Debt of Honor.
We all have our little issues. Mine is "BTF liberal bias." Dan's is "intense vitriol aimed at Bush" although Dan himself does not much like W.
What does Bush have to do with Walter Reed and McCain's powerpoint operator?
Mostly Kos and a few people here who have really gone off the deep end with the Palin nomination (although one or two were already off the deep end, I guess).
It drives me nuts that the people in the previous paragraph have actually led me to agree with something written by Jonah ####### Goldberg.
Maybe next time the video guy will use this clip.
You're right, zonk. I overstated the importance of both of these events (especially Ryan's). I was just struck by the fact that unsealed divorce papers are making an appearance in another Obama campaign.
Not like much is an understatement, I dislike Dubya with a passion. I just think his place in history in the worst quartile of presidents should be determined by the examination of his pros and cons, not kneejerk, black-helicopter stuff every time he farts.
Nothing, but it's the same idea--liberals are shrill and wacky and dumb and petty and over-the-top as shown by the ranting about W.
Ahh... I see we finally come to an agreement.
Have you read half the things Kevin and Alex have said in this thread? I'm not sure why dumbass chanting about Thomas Jefferson's illegitimate black children gives the people here, right now a free pass to act like complete schmucks.
They said a few days ago (Wednesday, maybe?) that all the potential issues they knew about had already come out. So if there is anything to the Enquirer story (I'm skeptical, but after Edwards I guess you never know), then it's something they didn't know about.
He was well-educated, well-groomed version of William H. Macy's Fargo character. They both had all these plans and schemes, and if everyone just did what the schemer wanted them to, it would work out fine. Problem: they never did.
My favorite memories of Ryan's brief campaign: he hired someone with a video camera to follow around Barak Obama all the time - even when he went to public bathrooms. Ryan caught flack for that and gained nothing (turns out Obama goes to the bathroom - that'll help the campaign!). Ryan initially defended it on the basis of saying any public figure should expect such scrutiny -- which makes his own efforts to seal his divorce a bit humorous.
Another good one -- Cheney was going to fly in for a fundraiser. Ryan had it all planned out - he'd meet Cheney at the airport runner with the brass band and the banners and all that jazz. Problem: Midway couldn't facilitate it. The airport was too small. Though it's the minor airport, it was closer to the downtown hotel Cheney was staying at. Meigs, for various other sundry reasons (makes a great anti-Daley story, but it's off topic) wasn't availble. That left O'Hare. However, Cheney's office nixed that one, for fears the story would be VP motorcade screws up traffic throughout much of Chicago area because he didn't go to the closer airport. Ryan was out of luck, but he wasn't going to take it lying down. He made up several wild claims, saying that free speech itself was at stake, the powers that be were out to get him . . . . The story didn't get much play, but it made him look like a fool.
Then there's the divorce papers themselves. The most interesting angle came from Eric Zorn. In an off-the-record talk he had with Ryan before the papers came out, Zorn and Ryan had an interesting exchanges. Zorn mentioned that he had a developmentally disabled child, and he heard Ryan's son was as well. Was that the reason Ryan wanted to keep the divorce record so tightly sealed? Ryan looked him in the eye and assured him that was it exactly. There's just something so fundamentally scuzzy about hiding behind a disabled child.
'course there's also how Ryan lied to the party bosses about how there were no skeletons hin his closet when they agreed to back him for the job . . .
At any rate, even without this, Obama would've won. He had a 15-point lead in the polls, it's Illinois. All he had to do was run a quality campaign. Say what you will about Obama, he can do that.
I think he was actually referring to Grover Cleveland and the "Ma, Ma, where's my PA?" thing. Not that it'd affect your point all that much either way.
Don't make me bring up Red Juice. There are problems on either side.
:-) Nice call, Vlad. And I didn't do the research, but I'm sure there have been others, and worse. Think of poor Taft and the fat jokes. Palin's getting off easy.
I believe the 1st Amendment does that....
well actually it doesn't, Furtado is well within his rights to shut this off at any time.
Bipartisanship is what I am all about.
All that stuff about blending babies made me think about this.
says Mr. RNC Talking Points himself.
Or is it just about keep taxes and social spending down?
Well-put. Put an "R" instead of a "D" and remember it and we can all have better discussions--and that includes the 2nd sentence of #3300.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main