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 0.9311 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.
Well, this one was pretty bad. Andrew Jackson was accused of adultery and murder, as well as suborning his second wife into a bigamous marriage with him, and some claimed that his mother had been a prostitute brought to America for the purpose of entertaining British sailors. Jackson's supporters, in turn, accused John Quincy Adams of purchasing a little American girl and then pimping her out to the Czar of Russia.
Look, if Obama is going to run on bumper sticker slogans like "change," then McCain is going to run on, "We can change too, but without all that Democratic stuff that you reject every four years that Obama's not mentioning."
It resonates with me. Problem is that I have no reason (and not to speak for DMN, but he probably doesn't have any) to think that the Democrats are any better at these things.
I'll concede spending but the D's will be a big improvement in the civil liberties department.
I believe the 1st Amendment does that....
Which is why I'm using my 1st amendment rights to criticize the speech of others. There's no freedom from criticism.
However, Red Juice has already been beaten down immensely by the general readership, so there's no reason to pile on there.
Sure. But you don't flack for McCain/Palin and mock Obama and liberals for pages at a time--that's the difference.
That's actually a pretty incredible mental image, if you think about it. Try to imagine this guy all tarted up...
You mean the party in favor of the government having authority over what political speech is allowed or not allowed, where, when, and how much? The party in favor of forced bipartisanship for places that disagree with them? The party that doesn't want people who live in the cities they run to be able to defend themselves? The party that feels my property is only my property as long as the government doesn't want it?
The Republicans are terrible for civil liberties. The Democrats are terrible for civil liberties. If I thought the Democrats had the slightest shred of civil libertarianism, they'd probably have my vote for Obama in November. Since their complaint is that they simply want to be authoritarian in slightly different ways than Republicans, I have no reason to take them seriously on social issues.
sorry....
Dave's really gone overbroad in his Repub flacking on this thread- I'm just about convinced now that he's never REALLY been a libertarian, he's merely pretended to be.
Remember when Joe Klein decided to become "anonymous"? essentially he'd noticed that people had tired of hearing what he wanted to say, so he figured that if he changed the messenger people would listen to him again.
With DMN I suspect that in Law School he was either a Young Repub or Federalists Society member(or both)- but people tired after awhile of listening to him regurgitate the party line- so he adopted an, "I'm not a Republican I'm a Libertarian persona".
This thread has made it pretty clear that he's a Republican who *might* have some liberarianish leanings, ratehr than an actual libertarian.
He is a GOOD flack though, better than some of the schmoes that the RNC and DNC are paying $ to.
That is him all tarted up. Now try and imagine him without the thousands of dollars worth of cosmetics.
I wouldn't even concede spending, not when World Net Daily and Richard Viguerie can acknowledge that Bush is five times worse than Clinton was on that front.
Amen. Hell, it was Szym himself who suggested that "prominent campaigners" (i.e. Michelle Obama) should be vetted.
If you've read usenet, it's exactly the opposite. DMN's going to hate me for this, but here's DMN from 1992.
Unlike your example, kevin? ;-)
I said they should have their political beliefs examined. Michelle Obama's thesis was on a relevant topic. Sarah Palin's flip-flopping on the bridge is a relevant topic. Sarah Palin's husband having a DUI two decades ago isn't.
R's spending has been a disaster, just saying that I don't see current D's improving that record.
Clinton's not running, a guy who's already spent in his head the money we're spending on Iraq that we don't really have in the first place is.
I call strawman; nobody was talking about "Sarah Palin's husband having a DUI." As I recall the conversation, Todd Palin's political beliefs (as represented in his membership in the AIP) were EXACTLY what was being discussed.
And has Todd Palin been holding campaign events and giving political speeches as part of Sarah Palin's campaign? Unless I'm mistaken, nope. When he starts doing that, his political views become relevant.
No.
An energy policy based on more drilling does not attempt to address the current problem with energy prices, nor does it address our need to begin to move away from fossil fuels and onto a path of clean renewables our country needs to sustain growth, reduce the trade deficit and address the ecological problems burning massive amounts of fossil fuels creates.
It might, if we're lucky, delay the day of reckoning by a couple of years. Better to get on a correct path now than to keep doing what is no longer working.
If you had a shred of evidence that McCain/Palin's platform is drill only, then you'd have a leg to stand on. Since there isn't, you don't, but then again, you're used to being a torso.
If that's what he wrote n 1992 wow has he changed.
But then again I do know some people who were NLG members in 1990 in Law School who are now Republicans.
(In case anyone wonders or cares I was a registered Republican back then... now I'm an independant)
No, but there are the words "for public use" in there, not any damn thing the government wants to do. Or do you consider any damn thing the government wants to do to be the same thing as "for public use?"
Well, they haven't provided any significant details of non-drilling parts of their policy, and McCain has spoken and voted against alternative energy bills a bunch of times in the Senate. I don't think it's that hard to connect the dots, there.
I've been a libertarian since long before law school, and was never a Republican. Before libertarian I was a Democrat.
Given that Obama hasn't provided any significant details of his energy policy that doesn't result in us having significantly fewer energy resources, then by the same token, I could call him the "Old People Starve to Death in the Winter" candidate. The best games are the ones both sides can play, eh?
The correct answer, by the way, is that in a free society, there ought not to be a government "energy policy" at all. Central planning is for Cuba.
But the illiterate answer is to complain about "the problem with energy prices" and then complain about "ecological problems with burning fossil fuels." The former is the solution to the latter, as it is to "moving away from fossil fuels onto a path of clean renewables."
What does one have to do with the other? We don't need "alternative energy bills" to have alternative energy. We simply need the technology to be cost-competitive. Why you think that Washington DC is the place to turn if you want the technology to become cost-competitive is beyond me.
Well tax cuts and school choice are. So he is right on 2/3 there, that's a pretty good batting average.
Without school choice, I have two choices, no three choices-
1: Move before my toddler turns 5 to a location with a better public school.
2: Send him to my local Parish School and pay for the tuition even though I am already paying for his schooling through my tax dollars.
3: Be a cheapskate, send him to the local public school ... and pray.
I have no problem with "free" compulsory education- I don't even have a problem with the idea that my tax money is going to subsidze the education of the children of taxpayers who make less/pay less taxes than me.
What I want is:
The public school system spends $X per child- I want the right to take that $X dollar - and send my child to another school (let's call this the "school voucher system".
Still, I don't know what makes you think Democrats just lurve the Kelo decision. I don't recall seeing "take everyone's property and give it to business interests" in the Democratic platform. In fact, it seems to me that the guy currently sitting in the White House (not a Democrat, if I'm not mistaken) got quite a sweet deal on a little eminent domain action down there in very conservative Texas. But yeah, I'm sure the Republicans would never take anyone's land to help out their big donors.
Didn't miss it at all, I just happen to know what the term "well-regulated" meant in 18th-century grammar. You don't also believe that the use of gay in literature of the time meant homosexuality, do you?
And even if well-regulated did mean what you think it does, Democratic policies in cities are tending towards no private guns, which is hardly simply regulation by any sense of the word.
That Warren G was one of the writers of the Constitution.
Competent, in the sense of well-trained. The term is used again in one of the Federalist Papers (somewhere in the 20s?) and the common usage is expressed more clearly.
I really hate bunk like this...
You'd be hard-pressed to find ANY technological and/or industrial advance that doesn't owe some degree of homage to that awful, awful, awful "government spending".
Virtually the entirety of our modern technology - owes its existence to the initial research and production funded directly by the government because it wasn't "cost-competitive" in private industry. I suppose you can dance around it and say a good portion of that was military spending - but a damn large portion of it also went into the space program.
The same is true for medical research... sure - plenty of pharma, genetic, etc research is funded by privates sources and philanthropic endeavors. However - plenty also comes from Uncle Sam... It's also generally the critical foundational research -- that which doesn't lead 5 years later to a miracle drug or vaccine, but rather, the non-immediately profitable baseline research that private industry can then run with to profit from.
So, your characterize your own view of one of the amendments of the constitution as throw away? OK, I'll attest to that.
Be patient, Shredder. First, he's going to answer my standing query as to why Michelle Obama's "giving political speeches" means her political beliefs are more worthy of scrutiny than Todd Palin's are, although neither is running for office (and though Mr. Palin's frankly appear to be a good bit more radical than Mrs. Obama's).
Or, perhaps not.
If you believe that public schools are a government responsibility and that they must be improved (as expressed by Republicans and Democrats alike), school choice is, at best, a very small part of that improvement process. If you believe that American government ought to act to change the sources we get our energy from (as expressed by Republicans and Democrats alike), new drilling is a small part of that process of change. These are side issues.
Tax cuts, of course, are a huge policy item. Basically, then, the Republican positive policies offered were:
-Making Bush's tax cuts permanent
-Adding more tax cuts for corporations
-extending certain other tax cuts as well
Obama, on the other hand, offered a plan for universal health care coverage, huge investment in new forms of energy production and conservation, investments in schools balanced by new standards and firing guidelines, and the legislation of equal pay for women. You may see that as "big government" and you may not like it, but I think you can see a huge difference in the scale of issues addressed.
Also, my point was twofold. First was that the issues addressed were mostly small bore, and second was that the domestic issues addressed were not chosen to make any sort of differentiation between Bush and McCain. After Obama made very clear that "Change versus more of the same" will be his message until the election, they made no attempt to differentiate Bush and McCain in domestic policy. What few policies they chose are areas where McCain is 100% behind the president.Scare quotes? I was quoting something someone else said!
Also, given that Obama's plan gives a tax break to 95% of people earning a paycheck, whether he offers "high taxes" is a definitional question. And god only knows what qualifies as "big government".
Fluornoy's one of the more thin-skinned republicans on this site. I recall his having a shitfit when I expressed surprise that Fred Phelps was a Democrat.
A big part of Obama's plan calls for reduced consumption (by increasing CAFE standards, incentivizing hybrids, making improvements to the national electrical grid, etc.), so that's a feature, not a bug.
Obama's plan isn't perfect. I think that dipping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower current prices is just cynical political hackery, and I'd like more specifics on the role that nuclear plants would play in America's energy future under his administration, since that's the one area that's still pretty fuzzy (by design, since he's trying to thread the needle on where he'd put the waste). Still, it's light years ahead of McCain's plan, which is just manifestly unserious in a bunch of different ways (no details on how he'd support low-carbon energy sources like wind/hydro/solar, the laughable gas tax holiday, the belief that a comparatively small financial incentive will have a significant effect on the development of new battery technologies, his confusion on carbon credits, etc.) The only things I like in McCain's plan are the SmartMeters and the serious investment in nuclear plants (which may not be logistically feasible - I was talking to a guy in Westinghouse's nuke division at a ballgame a few months ago, and he says that they're already pretty much booked solid for construction during the timeframe when McCain is talking about building his plants).
If you suck out the right area of the brain first, you could probably put the babies into a vegetative state. So it might be both.
And three posts in, you're still ignoring the question. I want you to tell me about the big bad Democrats who want to take your house away and give it to those liberals that run Wal-Mart.
You're going to need to be more specific.
Which post is the record-setter? Just curious, since none are jumping out at me.
By the way, why do most of Sowell's paragraphs have only one sentence in them?
What should the award be called? We could name it after Henry Aaron (class), Pete Rose (lack of class), Barry Bonds, Bobby Cox (for getting thrown out of games)
The Bobby Cox award for most insulting post.
To make them easier for rightwingers to cut and paste? Because he wants to emulate Plaschke?
EDIT: to elaborate on that last point, if it's going to be printed in a single column format in a newspaper, the paragraphs have to be short or you get ridiculously long stretches of unbroken text with no white space. Very hard to read.
This may be another example of the "word count" issue Steven Goldman alluded to on the site the other day when some people here were criticizing a Pinstriped Bible column.
Scurrilous, sexist attacks like these are a national shame.
And Vlad for the record I prefer the left side of the brain as it has more anti-oxidants in it.
And if they've done both, you call them an inside-the-beltway lifetime politician.
Barely halfway there.
Everybody knows conservatives are too dumb to handle complicated cut and paste jobs and liberals are too cowardly to even attempt it.
Good one. I think bipartisan putdowns are usually the most chuckle-inducing. I guess we are padding this thread now.
It's because:
1) Long paragraphs look blocky and are less likely to be read, particularly in print and to a lesser but still significant extent online.
2) In print, paragraph spacing are sometimes used to adjust the overall length of articles/columns (in terms of space taken up). It's no accident that all the articles in a newspaper fit exactly into the boxes they are in.
Wow, TREEEmendous analysis there.
Obama did take a tougher line after the initial statement, and a few conservatives here made a big deal about it, using the same type of language--albeit a bit harsher--Sowell does. It led to a pretty good thread on Russia/Georgia.
It's a fine sentiment, but if that's all you're offering, it's not exactly effective leadership. To Obama's credit, he realized more was required and he revisited it.
I think we need to make sure that they're using real babies, and not just grinding up fetuses and calling them babies on the packaging. It's just not the same flavour if the little meatloaf isn't developed enough to feel fear.
And if they've done both, you call them an inside-the-beltway lifetime politician.
Michael Kinsley obviously missed the primary becuase Hilarity Clinton claimed extensive executive, foreign policy, and every other type of experience.
If you dared question when and how she got any of that experience, her supporters would call you a sexist. I notice that most of those Primery Hilaristas have gone into hiding post-Palin.
I'm not so stupid that I don't realize this, but in general the mere sentiment that people are more willing to accept fighting as a first option, and then put down those who think aggression is completely retarded as "hippie" and naive has always been a bugaboo of mine. I don't mean you, Good Face, just in general.
There were reasons for both sides to be fighting, but the reasons to try something other than fighting are just as - if not more - valid that the reasons to fight.
I've probably done an awful job trying to explain the concept of peace in three syntactically questionable sentences, but I'm sure you get it.
I would presume its the blended up babies in V-8 Fusion that JC is referrring too. I hope it wasn't my joke about K.A.R.R.
Good Face's response was quite magananimous. Others--like Sowell apparently--assumed that it reflected very badly on Obama.
I was watching the Daily show last night and at the end of the show they showed a clip where McCain basically said the same thing as Obama with regards to getting our Allies and the Un involved. Kinda like the tire pressure deal where he made fun of Obama wanting everyone to make sure their tires were full to save milage. Then again, its not surprising when you see that most persons on that side of the fence have no problem talking out of both sides of their mouth. You-Tube is a #####.
I assumed they knew that and were just dicking around. 3378 convinced me.
Jimi Hendrix disputes Kinsley's take on the matter and asserts that Sarah Polin and Barack Obama need to hold hands and watch the sunrise from the bottom of the sea.
3378 is on the short list for the most amusing, and yet completely reprehensible, post that I've ever encountered on this site. It was so over the top that I was actually gagging while laughing.
I'm pretty sure that JC in DC has another candidate for BBTFs new low.
I'm not sure that people, even the biggest hawks, accept that 'fighting is the first option'. Many people do recognize that a use of force may be necessary as a first response.
A use of force is a unilateral option that can be deployed quickly. Sometimes that option is necessary for preservation of life, property, culture, etc.
Negotiation is subject to bilateral agreement; is longer in initiation; many times longer in conclusion. It may always be a goal, but sometimes its not the appropriate response.
When you do fight, compete, etc. it is necessary to have the objective of winning. From a football field to a battle field, you may have very aggressive rallying cries. You may develop short term emotional responses to your adversary. However, almost everyone is going to want to achieve a peaceful result in the end.
Yeah just wait til you hear of his new idea for an energy drink.
It's an unfortunate side effect of Gambling Rent/Red Juice's anti-abortion rant which referred to blender babies.
Or his Frappuccino
I think it may have been--until today.
it started with the posts from #3205 from Red Juice that were a little over the top.
IOW, the white dwarf is advocating an energy policy along the lines of Chad.
Good luck selling that to the voters.
Except for your crap and Low Rent's babbling, I agree.
He's from freakin' Georgia! Is there a Georgian alive who doesn't know of the racial overtones associated with describing an African-American as "uppity"? Hell, is there an American alive who doesn't know this? This is possible the worst excuse I've ever heard!
Shooty has an energy policy? Does it involve tarps?
The trouble with this is, in almost all cases, the "necessary as a first response" is based on judgment that is wholly subjective, and in nearly every case wholly suspect.
And if their's isn't, the action that - according to the responders - necessitates the response (and again, these occasions, empirically, are scant) is also a "fight first" action. Each of these actions is brought about by a person or people who have little to no interest in seeing things done any other way. People who witness this are often attached to the "that's the way the world is" attitude, and the permissiveness, ideologically and emotionally, to "solve" things this way should be challenged more often. Should be challenged every damn time.
If there's a reason why they aren't, it is because we haven't evolved enough. I am an optimist. I think we either have or SHOULD have evolved that much by now. Evidence seems scant, I admit. If we haven't, I'd like to try and help that along, I guess. People coming to a realization in A.D 3450 not to start a conflict is better than people coming to that decision in A.D. 3455.
I think, given his speaking English and being alive, saying he doesn't know the overtones of the word is a complete load.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main