Also, doesn't "retaliation" imply that the people attacked were in some way responsible for the act being retaliated to?

sigh

so if the ballplayers wear "peaceful tomorrows" caps instead that respects the veterans like HOW? or is it not ok to raise money for returning veterans because you are/were against any kind of retaliation/war. the veterans went out there, did a job, got shot up/injured and you wanna say fukkem because you think they shouldn't been there at all?

how is THAT not a slap in THEIR faces?

does demause think the friends/relatives of everyone killed/injured on 9/11 belongs to "peaceful tomorrows" and if they gave money from caps to that organization what about the slap in the face to people who feel different

this demause guy sux

It does make me uncomfortable as well that a commemoration of Iraq War veterans is being conflated with 9/11. It reinforces the idea that the Iraq War was responsive to 9/11, which I don't feel is accurate.

But, what are you gonna do when Selig comes to you with this? Say "we'll commemorate the Afghanistan vets, but not the Iraq ones"? Or "we commemorate all veterans on Memorial Day, we think that's enough"?* Any objection would be spun as not caring about veterans and would be a first-class public relations disaster. It's one of those dippy loyalty tests that it's a lot easier to half-heartedly go along with than it is to object to.

Veterans could be commemorated on any other day of the year, though, and they would almost all be better choices than this. I think continuing to associate 9/11 with the Iraq War is bad for the country.

* "I just think our veterans deserve a little recognition."
"That's what Veterans' Day is for, Bart."
"But is that really enough to honor our brave soldiers?"
"They also have Memorial Day!"
"Oh, Lisa, maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong... the important thing is that veterans deserve a day to honor them."
"They... have... TWO!"
"Well, maybe they should have three. I'm Bart Simpson."

baseball is casting its lot with those who say the proper response to tragedy is to retaliate

9/11 wasn't a "tragedy". It was murder. It was an act of war.

groups like Peaceful Tomorrows that are working to use the shared grief of victims of war and terror to build bridges to international understanding.

Yeah, let me know how that works out for you.

I see that DeMause (who looks like an even bigger dweeb than I would have imagined) is expanding his repertoire from whining about stadiums and arenas to whining about MLB celebrations.

This is obviously intended to be the next multi-thousand post political thread, so let the games begin. I'm not sure why the last one got locked.

But, what are you gonna do when Selig comes to you with this? Say "we'll commemorate the Afghanistan vets, but not the Iraq ones"?

Especially considering the vets don't get to choose where they go.

groups like Peaceful Tomorrows that are working to use the shared grief of victims of war and terror to build bridges to international understanding.

Yeah, let me know how that works out for you.

This made me laugh.

It does make me uncomfortable as well that a commemoration of Iraq War veterans is being conflated with 9/11. It reinforces the idea that the Iraq War was responsive to 9/11, which I don't feel is accurate.

Perhaps, but many troops joined to fight in Iraq because of 9/11. You can't ignore their motivations, even if you plausibly think they were misguided.

I'm not sure why the last one got locked.

Andy actually emailed Jim Furtado to ask; according to Andy, Jim said he was OK with the tone of the thread.

I told Andy that I assumed it was the over-the-top abortion jokes, but I don't know. As BTF political threds go, it was pretty civil, and based on my exp, BTF threads are more civil than much of the political discourse on the net.

It sounds like the writer of the Simpson's exchange in post #3 listened to Obama's speech on Memorial Day wherein he acknowledged that he saw lots of veterans who were being honored in attendance that day.

groups like Peaceful Tomorrows that are working to use the shared grief of victims of war and terror to build bridges to international understanding.

Yeah, let me know how that works out for you.

This made me laugh.

Why? Because the OTHER response has been more successful? Really? How so, exactly?


Andy actually emailed Jim Furtado to ask; according to Andy, Jim said he was OK with the tone of the thread.

Well, did he then say what he WASN'T ok with which caused him to lock the thread?

so if the ballplayers wear "peaceful tomorrows" caps instead that respects the veterans like HOW? or is it not ok to raise money for returning veterans because you are/were against any kind of retaliation/war. the veterans went out there, did a job, got shot up/injured and you wanna say fukkem because you think they shouldn't been there at all?

Way to completely miss the writer's point. Why not just do this event on one of the other 364 days of the year?

one of the reasons i DETEST politics

but yeah, the posters here are usually good and not, um, showing bad manners. and it just goes to show that most "conservatives" are not just hate filled religious nuts like that sicko limbaugh and "liberals" agree with "conservatives" on more than a few things. and i hate labeling people. it is degrading to simplify the complexness of human beings like that.

as for the veterans
well they put their neck on the line for me. and everybody else. i look at it like that and i respect their courage. i don't care if they joined up because they needed any job or because they believed we should kill arabs to get even with the terrorists they enable or because they thought they should defend their contry right or wrong. i don't care if they use mothers day to honor them and help them out. or ANY particular day.

post #3 listened to Obama's speech

Why? Because the OTHER response has been more successful? Really?

And away we go. BTW, RMc is another of the put-upon, outnumbered righties here. I can provide a list...;-

yearggggh

i got his point fine. i object to his making a distinction between that particular day and any other day. like it isn't ok to honor veterans ONE day

BTW, I also think this comment about "slap in the face" to these peace groups is completely retarded. And I support these groups.

You can't ignore their motivations, even if you plausibly think they were misguided.

I'm not sure you have to have a celebration to specifically honor why people enlisted. That just seems weird. People enlist for all sorts of complicated personal reasons.

And away we go.

Excellent. I like getting things started, though I'll bail on this thread after a few pages when I've lost track of it.

For the laughs, here is the full quote to which I alluded:

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes—and I see many of them in the audience here today—our sense of patriotism is particularly strong

I told Andy that I assumed it was the over-the-top abortion jokes, but I don't know. As BTF political threds go, it was pretty civil, and based on my exp, BTF threads are more civil than much of the political discourse on the net.

I've heard Szym was behind it. His head usually explodes whenever the topic of Bush's sociopathy is raised.

Some of the posts were grotesque, but overall the good stuff vastly outweighed the bad stuff, and I was sorry to see it die. You know, it does seem like kevin is involved whenever long threads get flushed...

as for the veterans
well they put their neck on the line for me. and everybody else.

For the most part, since 2000, they were duped, lied to, and died for very little reason. They do, however, deserve out support and compassion and help just as much as WWII vets.

Why? Because the OTHER response has been more successful? Really? How so, exactly?

Settle down, I just got an amusing mental picture of somebody delivering that speech about "shared grief building bridges to understanding" to a person like Putin, and the reaction to said speech.

In any event, the organized application of violence has demonstrated itself to be extremely effective in ordering human affairs over the last few thousand years. We can talk about whether that's a good thing, but it's a real thing. The "shared grief, bridge building" stuff, not so much.

robin,

i do believe that "rightys" are outnumbered here like 8000 - 3

i got his point fine. i object to his making a distinction between that particular day and any other day. like it isn't ok to honor veterans ONE day

You don't think 9/11 is a day that has some special meaning to a lot of people? You honestly don't understand why some people would want to make a distinction between that day and lots of others? There are plenty of other days for this event (plus we already have veterans day and memorial day). This has nothing to do with honoring the troops or respecting the fact that they put their necks on the line. This is about exploiting their sacrifice for political ends.

I'd just like to say that I believe a good, well-worn baseball cap is an exponientally greater symbol for America and its spirit than anything with stars-and-stripes slathered over it. I also believe that "Take me out to the ballgame" is more patriotic and American than "God Bless America" and that if there was any justice in this world, it would be our national anthem.

I'm aleskel and I approve this message.

i do believe that "rightys" are outnumbered here like 8000 - 3

[sigh] yes, yes, they're truly an oppressed minority.

arkitekton,

For the most part, since 2000, they were duped, lied to, and died for very little reason.

you got that right

which is why seeing as how they DIED, got injured in body and spirit and VOLUNTEERED to put their life on the line for the rest of us i don't care WHAT day we use to honor them. and i include christmas and easter (and remember that i am a devout christian too)

And today Sarah Palin said that the government was previously paying for Freddie and Fannie, and that this explained why they had to be taken over.

And John McCain had no idea what the President's Working Group on Financial Markets was. (youtube). We can play this game forever. I've certainly got more. It proves nothing - the plural of anecdote is anecdotes.

i do believe that "rightys" are outnumbered here like 8000 - 3

No way. More like 60%-40%. And on political threads, the post ratio is often even. There are 4 righties who have already posted on this here thread.

I know you are sensitive about the Atheist/Christian dynamic here, but that is a different issue, although there is overlap.

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes—and I see many of them in the audience here today—our sense of patriotism is particularly strong

Everyone knows I like Obama, but this is pretty funny.

Everyone knows I like Obama, but this is pretty funny.

reminds me of the speech Reagan gave in Germany that he opened with "My fellow Americans ..."

yearggghhh,

i'm not getting the exploiting part. sorry. and 9/11 has plenty of meaning to me. kindly do not insult me because i am a texan and was not personally in the line of fire, wounded or had friends/family murdered. i understand PERFECTLY who some people feel different then i do. that is their right. and it is MY right to disagree.

and rightys on this board ARE actually a minority. not oppressed even though SOME people try tothere is more libertarians here then rightys and 3 people on a board of over 8000 qualifies as a minority. and they got the right to believe what they believe and say what they think just as much as the rest of us. and i object to you objecting to them expressing their beliefs

you sound as rigid and close minded as the limbaugh people. just in the opposite direction.

In any event, the organized application of violence has demonstrated itself to be extremely effective in ordering human affairs over the last few thousand years.

This is either so broadly construed as to be meaningless, or a claim that requires a book's worth of arguments.

Certainly, human affairs have been greatly ordered by violence throughout records history. If you mean "effective" in the sense of "having effects", you're right, but everyone already knew that and it's a silly statement.

If you mean that violence has generally been a good thing, I would love to hear a historically-literate defense of that claim. You seem to be suggesting that the factual ubiquity of violence should lead us never to critique violence, which doesn't follow in any ethical system worth talking about. Even if one agrees that somehow on average or something violence has been good, it in no way follows that violence should not be critiqued, or limited, or modulated in particular circumstances.

In any event, the organized application of violence has demonstrated itself to be extremely effective in ordering human affairs over the last few thousand years. We can talk about whether that's a good thing, but it's a real thing. The "shared grief, bridge building" stuff, not so much.

Yeah, I know, Good Face, thanks for the reply, this is a bugaboo of mine. The "building bridges" stuff is hippie crap, but the "talking like thinking, evolved humans to figure out how we can get out of this without death and destruction" isn't. Profit can be made, even.

Except that people are mostly just generally content with violence, overall. I'm not.

. and i object to you objecting to them expressing their beliefs

No one is doing that.

"more libertarians here then rightys"

Ever read Nieporent and DiPerna write about the campaign? If you mean "social conservatives", there are a few. No one does not want them here that I have seen.

aleskel Posted: September 08, 2008 at 02:19 PM (#2933049)

I'd just like to say that I believe a good, well-worn baseball cap is an exponientally greater symbol for America and its spirit than anything with stars-and-stripes slathered over it. I also believe that "Take me out to the ballgame" is more patriotic and American than "God Bless America" and that if there was any justice in this world, it would be our national anthem.

I'm baseball chick and i agree 100% with this message.

- and if ballplayers can wear pink ballcaps and use pink bats on mothers day to honor mothers and raise money for breast cancer research then the ballplayers can wear stars and stripes and raise money for vets. of ANY war.

robin,

are you saying that 46-60% of posters ON THIS BOARD are "conservatives"???? i count exactly 3 - joey b, rmc and raydiperna. GR and JC are fanatical anti-abortionists but i won't use JUST that to say they are "conservative"

as for the remark about christian, i bitterly and angrily resent having to get classified as "conservative" because i am christian. i just really brought it up to show that i have no objection to honoring those people who are willing to defend my life on 2 of my 3 holy days (the other being Opening Day)

And away we go. BTW, RMc is another of the put-upon, outnumbered righties here. I can provide a list...;-

You know who else had a list? That Nixon fella. ;)

If people have actual grievances beyond "there are more of those people over there" - what precise effects have the characteristics of the BTF population had and what sort of reforms of practice in political threads would counteract these effects? I'm perfectly happy to have that conversation.

Also, everyone thinks the other side is too mean. It's going to be extremely difficult for anyone to have any effects by claiming either that it's just that the lefties need to be nicer and the righties are good just the way they are, or vice versa. The critiques need to be particular and clear, not broad and vague.

I think it would be a lot more interesting to just talk about politics than to talk about how we talk about politics, but if talking about how we talk about politics is going to be a recurring subject on these threads every two or three pages, we should have an intelligent discussion that might actually have useful effects.

i'm not getting the exploiting part. sorry. and 9/11 has plenty of meaning to me. kindly do not insult me because i am a texan and was not personally in the line of fire, wounded or had friends/family murdered. i understand PERFECTLY who some people feel different then i do. that is their right. and it is MY right to disagree.

and rightys on this board ARE actually a minority. not oppressed even though SOME people try tothere is more libertarians here then rightys and 3 people on a board of over 8000 qualifies as a minority. and they got the right to believe what they believe and say what they think just as much as the rest of us. and i object to you objecting to them expressing their beliefs

you sound as rigid and close minded as the limbaugh people. just in the opposite direction.

Now you're just completely misrepresenting my arguments. Challenging someone is not objecting to them expressing their beliefs. Don't I have a right to express my opinion as well? We could go back and forth on our "rights" to hold and express opinions all day.

And I certainly was not saying that 9/11 had no personal meaning to you. But you're the one who is arguing that there's no reason to make "a distinction between [9/11] and any other day" for the purpose of honoring veterans. If that's the case, then why bothering having the event on 9/11 at all?

Certainly, human affairs have been greatly ordered by violence throughout records history. If you mean "effective" in the sense of "having effects", you're right, but everyone already knew that and it's a silly statement.

There are a surprising number of people who disagree. You've never met anyone who said "Violence doesn't solve anything!"?

You seem to be suggesting that the factual ubiquity of violence should lead us never to critique violence, which doesn't follow in any ethical system worth talking about.

Not at all.... critique all you like. But recognize its ubiquity and efficacy. To do otherwise is an appeal to magic... witness the Peaceful Tomorrow folks.

The "building bridges" stuff is hippie crap, but the "talking like reasonable humans to figure out how we can get out of this without death and destruction" isn't. Profit can be made, even.

Sure, if talking has a reasonable chance of yielding a desireable result, it's a better option. Winston Churchill, no peacenik he, said as much.

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes—and I see many of them in the audience here today—our sense of patriotism is particularly strong

I suppose this line could work at, say, Arlington National Cemetary.

No one is doing that.

Seconded.

"more libertarians here then rightys"

The self-proclaimed libertarians on this site are invariably righties, and almost invariably indistinguishable from the far right wing of the Republican party.

Proceed.

are you saying that 46-60% of posters ON THIS BOARD are "conservatives"???? i count exactly 3 - joey b, rmc and raydiperna. GR and JC are fanatical anti-abortionists but i won't use JUST that to say they are "conservative"

Then you're defining conservative way, way too narrowly.

as for the remark about christian, i bitterly and angrily resent having to get classified as "conservative" because i am christian. i just really brought it up to show that i have no objection to honoring those people who are willing to defend my life on 2 of my 3 holy days (the other being Opening Day)

Who classified you as a "conservative" because you're a Christian? I don't understand your anger.

There are a surprising number of people who disagree. You've never met anyone who said "Violence doesn't solve anything!"?

This doesn't follow.

"Effective" in political terms does not imply a value judgment. I can think that the Obama-Muslim smear emails have been effective - had significant effects - without condoning them ethically.

"Solving" in political terms implies a strong value judgment - that a problem existed and was a bad thing, that the problem went away because of particular actions and this was a good thing.

I was saying that violence has ordered human history. I could also claim that all violence has always been a bad thing, and never solved anything, and not in any way be inconsistent. (I don't think that, but I'm trying to get you to explain what you meant with greater clarity. At the moment, I can't respond becuase you haven't explained what you meant.)

EDIT: Another way of phrasing my point. I've never heard anyone say, "violence has never done anything".

The formal honoring of veterans on 9/11 is a cheap (or at best misguided) and obvious attempt to conflate the war in Iraq with the attack on the WTC. That other motives and feelings are possible and, indeed, worthy of support, I don't deny.

As for when formal impeachment proceedings should begin, I can think of no more appropriate date than September 11th.

Not at all.... critique all you like. But recognize its ubiquity and efficacy.

This reads very transparently as "uselessness" the way you write it. If that's not the tone you meant, I'm wrong, but whether it is or not, I can't get behind that tone.

No one ever finds "compromise" or "sacrifice" as desireable, and that pretty much makes the Churchill quote so much smoke because violence in that case will always be easily justified.

Has it been needed in various events in world history? Of course. Has it been needed in the majority of them? Not even close.

i do believe that "rightys" are outnumbered here like 8000 - 3

I'm a centrist - I outnumber myself.

You know who else had a list? That Nixon fella. ;)

Touche. But the diff is he called it an "Enemies List." I call it, to riff on what I once said to snapper, "A Fellow Citizens and Baseball Fans With Whom I Disagree About Politics List."

as for the remark about christian, i bitterly and angrily resent having to get classified as "conservative" because i am christian.

Who did that? You are loudly apolitical.

arkitekton,

The self-proclaimed libertarians on this site are invariably righties, and almost invariably indistinguishable from the far right wing of the Republican party.

you GOT to be kidding me. i been reading what DMN and szym write for years and they got very VERY little in common with limbaugh/palin/cheney. now WHO are these hate filled "christian" nutjobs? and i won't put all the anti-abortion fanatics on the far right wing rubbish heap if that is their ONLY far right position


yearrrghhhh,

the point about christmas/easter is that i "should" object to those days to honor soldiers who march OFF to war not AS to war on the holy days to honor the Prince of Peace.

but i don't

and the word "christian" is linked to "conservative" like "Miguel Tejada" and "GIDP"

the reason i hate HATE HATE words like "conservative" and "liberal" is because they have no exact definition.

people are complicated. even rush limbaugh the "conservative" is a drug addict. whatsisname the footwashing baptist preacher is bisexual and hires male hos. pat buchanan had pre-marital sex and "had" to get married like bristol palin.

"liberals" send their kidz to fancy white-only private skools. they hire illegals so as they don't have to pay taxes/social security and the servants can't get uppity. they can be fanatical anti-abortionists

i like the complex-ness of humanity and the human soul/being. and i hate reducing human beings to 1-liners

I think it would be a lot more interesting to just talk about politics than to talk about how we talk about politics, but if talking about how we talk about politics is going to be a recurring subject on these threads every two or three pages, we should have an intelligent discussion that might actually have useful effects.

This is partly my fault. I often make meta-comments.

Anyone wondering why that last thread got closed must have missed the last few posts that caused me to close the thread extremely quickly.

When you have people threatening each other, one poster telling another that he was going to forcibly sodomize him, and another post in which a person suggests a specific sexual act that one of the candidates would be more qualified to execute on the poster rather than their prospective office, you've got a problem thread. When those issues interrupt a thread that had already gone onto aborted fetus jokes and a poster's relationship with his ex-wife, that's a thread not worth saving.

Jim was just annoyed that I hadn't mentioned it to him so that when people asked, he had no idea what was going on.

Touche. But the diff is he called it an "Enemies List." I call it, to riff on what I once said to snapper, "A Fellow Citizens and Baseball Fans With Whom I Disagree About Politics, and Will Promptly Have Executed Come The RevolutionList"

-Fixed

Most libertarians on this site often do look like traditional conservatives at first glance. That's mostly because there are so few traditional conservatives here. If you want to argue for socially conservative positions, you'll have to go it alone, so those discussions don't even take place. (Not to mention that if they did take place, I'd have to find myself agreeing with the dirty socialists far too often, and I'd rather not.) Economic issues are where you'll find disagreement here.

But the diff is he called it an "Enemies List." I call it, to riff on what I once said to snapper, "A Fellow Citizens and Baseball Fans With Whom I Disagree About Politics List."

Oh, I know. When I do wade into one of these threads you're one of the guys I'll read. JC's another, FWIW.

I just have an Enemas List. A list of people to whom, when the Revolution comes, I will forcibly give enemas. Some because I hate them and some because I like them and understand their special wants and needs.

Dan Szymborski Posted: September 08, 2008 at 03:18 PM (#2933143)

Anyone wondering why that last thread got closed must have missed the last few posts that caused me to close the thread extremely quickly.

When you have people threatening each other, one poster telling another that he was going to forcibly sodomize him, and another post in which a person suggests a specific sexual act that one of the candidates would be more qualified to execute on the poster rather than their prospective office, it's time to shut 'er down.

- sigh

it is sad that a few people have such bad manners. at their age. and their brains. and education.

but it sure nuff explains right there why the "peaceful tomorrows" people will never ever succeed and why there always has been and always will be violence.

war happens because one group of people says about another group of people

1 - i want what you have
2 - i don't like how you think/live and i am gonna kill you for it

if intelligent educated people can't manage to have enough insight/understanding/decency to rise above crap like that, how can this world ever not have violence/war

szym
you did the right thing
and some guys really need to go sit in the corner and not come out until they say they are sorry

but i got this bad feeling they gonna be like my little boys and yell and cry and tell me NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
i am NOT sorry

sob sob sob

i'd rather dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

but my boys are 5 and 6 now and they don't do that no more.

i'm sorry bout some grown men not being that mature (and yeah i KNOW it was men because me and SMK and susan we don't talk like that)

Not to be confused with your Anemones List, of course.

the reason i hate HATE HATE words like "conservative" and "liberal" is because they have no exact definition.

If that is the case, I would repectfully suggest that you then avoid comments about who outnumbers who on BTF. Also, I was not kidding about the list--I have posted the names before. You also might to want to check out the locked thread and see what Nieporent had to say about the choice of Sarah Palin as VP. His first line of his first post about it was "woo-hoo!" JC called it an "incredible, incredible choice."

There are different kinds of beliefs along the right-wing spectrum. We see that in the right-wing posters here, and the board is the better for it. But there are commonalities among that group too, and there are more of them around here than people realize.

But Matt's right. I should probably shut up about it. Still, I resent the idea, sometimes floated here, that the liberals here are all a bunch of clowns and bullies, and I think if there were less of that, more righties would post--like snapper did last time, for example--and we would have better threads. That's why I keep riding the hobby horse.

His first line of his first post about it was "woo-hoo!"

Because it helps the democrates get to the White House?

JC called it an "incredible, incredible choice.

I, too, found it difficult to believe.

Score one for people talking about media bias:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080908/ap_en_tv/tv_nbc_olbermann

I've never heard of this Demause guy before, but I definitely agree with him here. Can we all agree at this point that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were not involved in the 9-11 terrorist attacks, or are there still some holdouts?

But Matt's right. I should probably shut up about it. Still, I resent the idea, sometimes floated here, that the liberals here are all a bunch of clowns and bullies, and I think if there were less of that, more righties would post--like snapper did last time, for example--and we would have better threads. That's why I keep riding the hobby horse.

You hardly brought it up. I'm not saying we can't have the discussion - we can't seem to stop having the discussion - I'm just asking that if we're going to talk about talking about politics, and this is going to be based on righty grievances (it always is, here), then I'm asking for a particular shape to the grievances - specific, clear - that can allow us to actually start doing something about how discussions are run here.

Well, this thread went meta in a hurry, didn't it?

Well, this thread went meta in a hurry, didn't it?

Hey, I posted the Olbermann/Matthews link to try to get it back on track. I was surprised anyone thought Olbermann could be anything other than a commentator. I mean, as a lefty/Obama fan, I like some stuff he says, but Olbermann is a commentator.

robin

i think the thread was deleted. i can't find it at all. i know it was like 3800 posts and i was only on like page 15. takes a LONG time to read that sucka

- when i first heard about sarah palin, my first thought was - well, it was woo HOO, holy shtt, the crazyass republicans just gave the election away. an incredible, incredible choice.

but unfortunately i now understand why her and i now say that it was an incredible, incredible choice and i take my hat off to karl rove. much as i hate that &*%^&#! that SOB understands about winning elections

i am the LAST person to say liberals here are either clown OR bullies. i prefer to say that specific people are clowns or bullies and they come in all politics. but i have noticed that sometimes here, like a lot of other places, the majority tends to, um, fanboy the minority (think bout the old days and all the billy beane luvvvvers)

"liberals" send their kidz to fancy white-only private skools. they hire illegals so as they don't have to pay taxes/social security and the servants can't get uppity.

I hope this is a joke.

and some guys really need to go sit in the corner and not come out until they say they are sorry

but i got this bad feeling they gonna be like my little boys and yell and cry and tell me NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
i am NOT sorry

sob sob sob

i'd rather dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

You're projecting. THe only one crying about people being mean is you.

If that is the case, I would repectfully suggest that you then avoid comments about who outnumbers who on BTF. Also, I was not kidding about the list--I have posted the names before. You also might to want to check out the locked thread and see what Nieporent had to say about the choice of Sarah Palin as VP. His first line of his first post about it was "woo-hoo!" JC called it an "incredible, incredible choice."

Thank god I missed that thread. The fact that DMN is excited about a McCain/Palin ticket should finally kill off any notion that he's a "libertarian." And I don't see how JC is anything other than a run-of-the-mill conservative.

When you have people threatening each other, one poster telling another that he was going to forcibly sodomize him, and another post in which a person suggests a specific sexual act that one of the candidates would be more qualified to execute on the poster rather than their prospective office, you've got a problem thread.

I think I missed this. That's what happens when mom fumigates the basement and I have to go to the video game store for five hours.

Sam or one of the other mets fans should post Matt Mendelsohn's piece in today's NY Times. Pretty funny article.

think I missed this. That's what happens when mom fumigates the basement and I have to go to the video game store for five hours.

Did you pick up Spore? Not liking what I'm reading so far, but wouldn't mind hearing more opinions.

Not liking what I'm reading so far, but wouldn't mind hearing more opinions.

I'm not even all the way through the second stage yet, but from what I've seen so far I think I agree with the reviewers who say it's hundreds of miles wide, but only a couple of feet deep.

It's a great concept with tremendous potential, but I doubt I'll be playing it over and over again like I do Civilization.

Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: September 08, 2008 at 03:50 PM (#2933195)

"liberals" send their kidz to fancy white-only private skools. they hire illegals so as they don't have to pay taxes/social security and the servants can't get uppity.

I hope this is a joke.

- unfortunately, no
i clean/cleaned their houses
and one of the "liberal" couples volunteers to get convicts off death row and reverse the death penalty and they are fanatical anti abortionists and they believe that doctors who do abortions should be shot

like i said, people are complicated

- DMN is a registered democrat. and a LOT of democrats were delirious with happiness over the mccain/palin ticket. it does not mean that DMN thinks palin is a good candidate. and i would be REAL surprised if he agrees with most of her politics or even thinks she has any brains. i actually should go to his blog and read what he thinks of her before i assume what he thinks. even when i disagree with him, i respect his brains and a lot of times he points out things i didn't think about. especially because he has a different point of view.

- as for JC, i know he is a fanatical anti-abortionist. so yeah that is right wing. but i got no idea where he stands on other right wing issues. i know he is married to a rich woman with a high paying job, position and power, so he can't be too anti-woman (guess she is the very definition of a modern femi-nazi) and he got SIX grrrls (i think it is 6. or is it 7?) and i don't guess he wants to see them pregnant and married at 16/17 like bristol but he wants them educated with good jobs. he don't strike me as the kind of father who don't talk to his grrls about sex, hope they never think about it, not pay no attention to them or the dogs who come sniffing around them, then get surprised when they turn up preggo but hey who cares they just a uterus anyhow. i don't know where he stands on the other usual hotly argued issues like illegals and increased taxes and more/less war and green stuff and government health care for everyone but the very rich who can afford the good doctors anyhow.

unlike joey b and rmc and ray who have said where they stand

Every time I've been to a video game store lately, they've been populated (both customers and employees) by punk "horribly misunderstood" kids with weird clothes and hair. I guess it's probably always been like that, but it's kind of embarrassing.

Let's see.... bleeding-heart conservative, pragmatically pro-life, evangelical sans politics, deficit hawk checking in. Michael Gerson of the WashPost possibly my favorite editorial-izer. But I prefers talkin baseball to these threads most of the time, so I don't proimise to respond to whatever is said to me. I'd rank the U.S.PRezzes of my lifetime Dutch-Bush41-Clinton-Ford-Carter-Bush43-Nixon. On this server I'm probably defined as a 'righty' I guess.

It's a great concept with tremendous potential, but I doubt I'll be playing it over and over again like I do Civilization

Goodness...I finally have common ground with Joey B., well...that and and views on Russia's relations with the "near abroad."

When you have people threatening each other, one poster telling another that he was going to forcibly sodomize him, and another post in which a person suggests a specific sexual act that one of the candidates would be more qualified to execute on the poster rather than their prospective office, you've got a problem thread. When those issues interrupt a thread that had already gone onto aborted fetus jokes and a poster's relationship with his ex-wife, that's a thread not worth saving.

Too bad because I was waiting for a few Piazza jokes to make the thread complete.

are you saying that 46-60% of posters ON THIS BOARD are "conservatives"???? i count exactly 3 - joey b, rmc and raydiperna.

I've been a registered Independent since 1992, but never mind.

I'd rank the U.S. Prezzes of my lifetime Dutch-Bush41-Clinton-Ford-Carter-Bush43-Nixon. On this server I'm probably defined as a 'righty' I guess.

You're a Nazi.

"When those issues interrupt a thread that had already gone onto aborted fetus jokes..."

Hey, at least they were funny. To me, anyway.

I'd rank the U.S. Prezzes of my lifetime Dutch-Bush41-Clinton-Ford-Carter-Bush43-Nixon. On this server I'm probably defined as a 'righty' I guess

Where is Alexander Haig in this list?

"Where is Alexander Haig in this list?"

Third in line, IIRC.

Goodness...I finally have common ground with Joey B., well...that and and views on Russia's relations with the "near abroad."

One thing that I have to say is pretty darn neat, my creature has already been uploaded to the official Spore creature database, in all of its evolutionary phases.

That is going to be one friggin' HUGE database.

rmc,

so are you saying you are NOT a political conservative?

regardless of what you are registered as

...the organized application of violence has demonstrated itself to be extremely effective in ordering human affairs over the last few thousand years. We can talk about whether that's a good thing, but it's a real thing. The "shared grief, bridge building" stuff, not so much.

That seems to be the lesson learned by the plotters of the Sept. 11 attack.

Why build a bridge when blowing up a building is much more effective in not only getting one's message across, not only drawing the reaction of millions of people, but in consolidating power in fewer hands on both sides.

You can argue about whether what I just wrote is good or not, but it's certainly real.

And what's the use of grief beyond fueling vengance?

- unfortunately, no
i clean/cleaned their houses
and one of the "liberal" couples volunteers to get convicts off death row and reverse the death penalty and they are fanatical anti abortionists and they believe that doctors who do abortions should be shot

like i said, people are complicated

Oh, so you're talking about 1 or 2 "liberals" who you've met. I agree with you that people are complicated, but I have no idea what this example is supposed to prove.

- DMN is a registered democrat. and a LOT of democrats were delirious with happiness over the mccain/palin ticket. it does not mean that DMN thinks palin is a good candidate. and i would be REAL surprised if he agrees with most of her politics or even thinks she has any brains. i actually should go to his blog and read what he thinks of her before i assume what he thinks. even when i disagree with him, i respect his brains and a lot of times he points out things i didn't think about. especially because he has a different point of view.

Not even sure how to respond to this. Are we talking about the same person?

- as for JC, i know he is a fanatical anti-abortionist. so yeah that is right wing. but i got no idea where he stands on other right wing issues. i know he is married to a rich woman with a high paying job, position and power, so he can't be too anti-woman (guess she is the very definition of a modern femi-nazi) and he got SIX grrrls (i think it is 6. or is it 7?) and i don't guess he wants to see them pregnant and married at 16/17 like bristol but he wants them educated with good jobs. he don't strike me as the kind of father who don't talk to his grrls about sex, hope they never think about it, not pay no attention to them or the dogs who come sniffing around them, then get surprised when they turn up preggo but hey who cares they just a uterus anyhow. i don't know where he stands on the other usual hotly argued issues like illegals and increased taxes and more/less war and green stuff and government health care for everyone but the very rich who can afford the good doctors anyhow.

Again, you're defining conservative or right-wing way too narrowly. I define a conservative as someone who largely agrees with republican positions and republican candidates, not as some sort of xenophobic, misogynist, etc. fanatic. I don't think there's any question that DMN, JC, and lots of other people on this site fall into that camp.

BTW, I'm a pretty jaded guy, but I've been absolutely floored by the cynicism of the McCain campaign. I'm used to politicians spinning and shading the truth, but the McCain campaign acts as if the truth is simply irrelevant. They're brazenly and repeatedly lying about absolutely everything. It really is stunning.

The self-proclaimed libertarians on this site are invariably righties, and almost invariably indistinguishable from the far right wing of the Republican party.

I've proclaimed to lean libertarian. But most libertarians I've encountered would suggest I'm not one of them. Then again, some conservative friends think I'm a communist, and some liberal friends think I'm another Rush Limbaugh.

I think too many people have adopted the "you're with us or you're against us" mentality in which any nuance of dissent is spun as an attack on one's core principles.

I think they should honor the troops, who are making a huge sacrifice. I think they should do it on some other day than 9/11, because I prefer that to be a day to honor the men and women of the police forces and fire departments, who have also made a significant sacrifice worthy of our honor, as well as other civil servants (rescue workers, for example), and that seems the natural day for it. I'm not against honoring the troops on any given day, but if you're looking for someone to honor on 9/11 I think that's the way to go.

If people have a problem with the forcing of a symbolic connection between 9/11 and the Iraq conflict, fine, speak up about it. What's nice about this country is that nobody has to accept a point of view forced upon them, and a reminder of a different viewpoint is a good thing.

Now get off my damn lawn.

EDIT: Upon re-reading my own post I'm now assuming that we could get another 100 posts out of my use of the phrase "point of view". I don't see any tangible connection between 9/11 and Iraq based on the facts at hand. Whether someone is trying to force a symbolic connection because of the timing of this event... that is a point of view. That's all I meant.

If people have a problem with the forcing of a symbolic connection between 9/11 and the Iraq conflict, fine, speak up about it.

I do! Not only was there not an operational connection between Iraq and the 9-11 terrorists, there is not a symbolic connection either. At least not one that justifies an invasion. ("They all hate America" doesn't cut it.)

The self-proclaimed libertarians on this site are invariably righties, and almost invariably indistinguishable from the far right wing of the Republican party.

I don't know how many Republicans would advocate legalizing all drugs, the way that Nieporent does.

And since when does honoring people currently serving in the military mean that you support the Iraq war? And why is it inappropriate to honor people serving in the military on 9/11? Seems to me that a lot of people working in the Pentagon serve in the military.

When those issues interrupt a thread that had already gone onto aborted fetus jokes..."

Hey, at least they were funny. To me, anyway.

I am with you but sometimes its lonely on the sarcasm highway.

As to the 9-11 discussion I tend to change the station on my car radio when "God Bless America" comes on in the 7th inning so I am not one to agree with any sort of thing baseball does at this point with regards to being patriotic.

yearrrgggghhhh

why use the words "liberal" and "conservative" if you actually mean "republican" and "democrat"

i do not agree that DMN largely agrees with most republican positions. not from what i've read about everything he says. not religion, females, illegals, war or taxes. he CERTAINLY is not anti-gays. as for jc, i don't know what his political positions are on any issue except for abortion so i can't say anything about whether or not he is largely a republican or democrat. i seem to remember him saying he is a democrat, but i could be wrong

i truly hope that most republicans are decent people and not like rush limbaugh. i listened to him once. made my blood run cold. i am as afraid of the limbaughs as i am of the islamists. actually i am not sure what the real differences are

smile

wasn't real too long ago when the republicans were the party for womens rights and legal abortion

times change

"I am with you but sometimes its lonely on the sarcasm highway."

Yeah, really. If I'm not allowed to talk about dead babies or people like funny names, that's like half of my material right there. God help me if we ever develop a respect for the Irish.

I also think it's interesting that it was the jokes about purely theoretical dead babies and not the photos of actual, dismembered fetuses posted by Red Juice that were apparently the point where we went over the line.

I am not one to agree with any sort of thing baseball does at this point with regards to being patriotic.

These things quickly become rote and lose whatever special meaning they once had. They started playing the National Anthem before baseball games during World War I. Now it's just something that happens, and people don't think too much about it most of the time. War memorials get built with great fanfare, but in a couple of generations are largely ignored. They put Kennedy's name and face all over everything, and now a generation is growing up wondering why such a huge fuss was made over a short-term, mediocre President.

I have little doubt that in fifty years people will still be singing "God Bless America" during the seventh-inning stretch at Yankee Stadium (or whatever they're calling it at that point), but most people won't realise why, and 9/11 will be as much a historical footnote as 12/7 is today.

I've been a registered Independent since 1992, but never mind.

Yeah, and Nieporent's been a registered Democrat his whole life. That means nothing in terms of one's actual views on the issues.

Query: What do Nieporent, Fred Phelps and I have in common? We're all registered Dems. Beyond that, I don't think any of us has much in common politically with either of the others.

I have little doubt that in fifty years people will still be singing "God Bless America" during the seventh-inning stretch at Yankee Stadium (or whatever they're calling it at that point), but most people won't realise why, and 9/11 will be as much a historical footnote as 12/7 is today.


I agree with you as the loss of life during Pearl Harbor was almost as much as what we had on 9/11 and caused us to enter the biggest event arguably of the 20th century. Yet if you asked anyone about Pearl Harbor they would probably think you are asking about that horrible Ben Affeck movie of a few years ago. of course we will be sure to be reminded of 9/11 as much as possible as long as Guilani is around.

yet if you asked anyone about Pearl harbor they would probably think you are asking about that horrible Ben Affeck movie of a few years ago.

I doubt that. I can't even imagine that anyone who saw that garbage didn't already know about the historical event, and I can't imagine how you could phrase a question where the context is unclear.

I doubt that. I can't even imagine that anyone who saw that garbage didn't already know about the historical event, and I can't imagine how you could phrase a question where the context is unclear


After seeing the Republican National convention last week where they are running as the party of change anything is possible.

why use the words "liberal" and "conservative" if you actually mean "republican" and "democrat"

I tend not to use "democrat" or "republican" or "libertarian" to avoid the DMN problem -- I care more about what a person's views are than the label they use to describe those views. OTOH, agreement with the positions of the republicans or democrats is a pretty good proxy for whether you're on the left or right. Of course there are many nuances, and no one agrees with any other person 100% of the time, but for the purposes of broadly determining whether a person is on the left or right, or is liberal or conservative, their sympathy for one party or the other is a useful indicator.

Anyone wondering why that last thread got closed must have missed the last few posts that caused me to close the thread extremely quickly.

I did miss them, but typically I skip over the non-serious posts anyway. I guess you had reason to close the thread, Dan; I just find it frustrating when the adults are trying to have a serious discussion and yet the thread needs to be closed because of the behavior of a few adolescents.

I suppose simply deleting the offending posts wasn't an option. (?)

Hey Retro,

Does the deletion of that thread mean that my "So's your mom" joke doesn't count, sort of like Harvey Haddix's 12-inning perfecto in '59?

Does the deletion of that thread mean that my "So's your mom" joke doesn't count, sort of like Harvey Haddix's 12-inning perfecto in '59?


No, the position of BTF is that your joke counts.

Oh, look, Mike Lupica is attacking someone he knows nothing about. I know I'm shocked:

I was watching the hockey kid who's supposed to be marrying Sarah Palin's daughter the other night, and I kept thinking that whatever everybody's saying now, that kid has already set a date in his own mind: The 12th of Never.

BTW, I'm a pretty jaded guy, but I've been absolutely floored by the cynicism of the McCain campaign. I'm used to politicians spinning and shading the truth, but the McCain campaign acts as if the truth is simply irrelevant. They're brazenly and repeatedly lying about absolutely everything. It really is stunning.

McCain's cynicism is breathtaking, and the Republicans will win the Presidential election because they understand that they're selling a product, and they understand that the great mass of the electorate cannot differentiate the true from the false, any more than they couldn't figure out that buying SUVs was a bad idea, or that eating at McDonalds regularly is a bad idea, or that invading Iraq was a bad idea, or that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and so on and so on. Obama doesn't understand how it's done in America, so he's running for President instead of selling an image of himself as President. It's why he's going to lose. When you're selling a product, truth is largely irrelevant. The Republicans understand this.

Hey Retro,

Does the deletion of that thread mean that my "So's your mom" joke doesn't count, sort of like Harvey Haddix's 12-inning perfecto in '59?

You will get no asterisks from me, robin. Whatever one thinks of the thread as a whole, that joke was sublime.

NEW YORK - MSNBC is replacing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as co-anchors of political night coverage with David Gregory, and will use the two newsmen as commentators.

The change reflects tensions between the freewheeling, opinionated MSNBC and the impartial newsgatherers at NBC News. Throughout the primaries and summer, MSNBC argued that Olbermann and Matthews could serve as dispassionate anchors on political news nights and that viewers would accept them in that role, but things fell apart during the convention

It's too bad they're using Gregory, who defines "boneheaded mainstream hack" in his numbing Race for the White House show. My only problem with Olbermann is that he goes too easy on Democrats. And calling McCain (or Obama) a liar on the air isn't prejudicial when it's accurate.