User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.1249 seconds
40 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.
see:
He's really short and his wife is pretty hot?
Was this the Teal and Black and snapper meetup that robinred alluded to? Why is there important info like this in these threads? I usually avoid them.
Seriously, you guys didn't know Andy's surname?
That's been his routine for a while now, at least when he's not defending known state sponsors of terrorism. Even other people in other threads have commented on that propensity.
I didn't threaten anyone with anything. I invited someone to come see me in person and insult me the way he does via aether. Totally different.
I know it shocks you for a "liberal" to vigorously defend himself and his beliefs. "We" are all supposed to roll over and play dead, I'm sure. But I've said absolutely nothing in this thread to match the offensiveness and putridity of Joey's comments. It's just that I'm not afraid to own my own positions fully, choosing to hide behind slurs and snide cynicism.
Teal and Black, Shooty and I had lunch. We're in Gaelan's DMB league together, and work within 5 blocks of each other.
You're an idiot and a coward.
I chuckled, too.
This reeks of collusion and I demand such communications cease immediately!
Yeah the collusion that led to my brilliant drafting of Coco Crisp.
Frigging Excel vlookup can't tell that Covelli Crisp is the same guy and is making $6M not the league minimum. D'oh!
I never said you did.
I'm not sure anyone in any thread, past or present has.
Seconded. Where's the Bay Area BBTF Hot Stove League meeting?
My mom, Shooty's mom, and Ryan's mom beg to differ.
Tell me, how many necks did you break in your days as a war hero, and were they the enemy's or guys wearing our uniform?
How's that league going? I was tempted to join, but was really pressed for time for a bit. I thought about Dialing this whole thread but gave up after reading two pages. At least I learned proper terminology. Moonbat:left::wingnut:right.
Good, we're in the scrubs stage of the draft and it has been a ton of fun.
Gaelan wants to expand next year, so there should be another shot at it.
Nothing more than clever misdirection serving a more insidious purpose that I have not yet uncovered... but I'm pretty sure my being saddled with Carlos Zambrano's contract is at least a part of it.
The draft has been loads of fun - not to mention, humbling when you find yourself pissed off that you missed out on a player you regularly trash here. Both Francouer and Livan are still on the board, though.
Based on the results most of us have landed on, I don't think time or the lack thereof has been much of a factor.
Gaelan is planning to expand in future seasons - and I am hopeful that I'll understand the rules by that point.
WTF are you talking about?
Joey got a comment actually deleted and hes been warned, too.
The next person in this thread who accuses other posters of supporting murder or challenges another poster to a fight is going to get a 24-hour siesta. Whatever issues there are between you and Joey and to you, Joey, you and Sam, stop right now, because this is getting completely out of hand. I don't care if each one of you feels the other started it, but it's finished.
So you're saying you're going to knock someone out?
Moderator, moderate thyself!
I've done a bunch of fantasy sports and played a historical DMB League for a while. I never fully Spock a draft. At some point, I wind up making a less than optimal move or four.
Terrible. I accidentally drafted Miguel Tejada far earlier than Miguel Tejada should have ever been drafted. Now I have a $15M shortstop on my bench.
As noted by others above, you should join next year when expansion kicks in. It'll be a lot of fun, and you'll get to enjoy the frenzied panic of trying to figure out whether you'd rather have Jeff Keppinger or Brendan Harris. For the record, I was legitimately pissed when someone else grabbed Brandon Harris.
The usual - was William Shakespeare a fraud that got credit for plays he didn't write, or not.
If you're really that interested, Joey's initial round of dickery is quoted in #439.
I figured this thread was about public financing of stadia, but only got intrigued when it got up to 500 posts. Boy was I Tejada-level wrong.
Hey, they've got nothing on Disraeli!?!
Seriously, I'd like to commend his ability to keep a handle on this. If not northern New York geography. :D
Terrible. I accidentally drafted Miguel Tejada far earlier than Miguel Tejada should have ever been drafted. Now I have a $15M shortstop on my bench.
Hey, let me tell you, I dropped Miggy the first week of this last season, and ask Shooty, that didn't turn out so well. Maybe he'll do even better this year. Miggy, I mean. Shooty I'd imagine will be in the 12th percentile again.
If you're really that interested, Joey's initial round of dickery is quoted in #439.
Did that comment just come out of the blue (I don't see anything nearby on the shooting)?
If so, wow!
I would think that the fact that Palmerston has conclusively been proven to be a piker next to Pitt had put that one to bed... but you're saying there are still anti-human gops of goo that believe otherwise?
Yes.
Where can you find this humor? Only on a swlabrmetrically-inclined website.
Honestly, I have no idea at all why it's considered OK to defend a country that is formally listed by the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. State Department as a known state sponsor of terrorism (a country with which we haven't had any formal diplomatic relations in thirty years by the way), but then accusing that person of being sympathetic to terrorists isn't.
But I don't make the rules, and I see how things stand, so I'll abide by them and beg off.
I agree, but you really need to let Moursund know. He's spent the entire last year concern trolling and telling everyone who'll listen that the Republican party is dead and will never win another election as long as we live.
I was wondering where that came from, but now I see it was way back on the first page of the thread.
Okay, Joey, back that up with something other than hyperbole. What I've said is that the Republicans will be lucky to win another presidential election as long as it lets itself be captured by the wingnut elements who control them today. That doesn't mean that they can't win in selective states and districts. They always have and they always will.
But for someone who makes posts like you have in the past couple of hours to talk about "trolling" is beyond parody. And as long as people like you control the Republican nominating process, I doubt if the Democrats will have much to worry about in 2012.
Well, glad we got that cleared up..
Unless the original topic is Ichiro.
As you can see below, Joey needed to know where some of us stood:
***
Your me=good, they=evil view of life is disturbing. I have no idea what Hutcheson said about Iran and I'm not going to read back and check, but I'm pretty sure having a more nuanced understanding of their positions than you doesn't make him a terrorist sympathizer.
Edit: Or, to put it better, I guess the disturbing part is your belief that all of the various disparate evil groups are working together and somehow support each others' conflicting goals.
Is this referring to Sam explaining why Iran wants nukes, or soemthing else?
This thread is like finding a pickup truck in a tree and trying to figure out how it got there.
Classic. The comment Dan deleted was not one of the ones where you were hassling Hutcheson about Iran; it was the one quoted in 439 and the one I partially quoted just above.
That "someone else" would be me. And I was legitimately pissed to have found myself in a situation where I had to grab Brendan Harris.
I had the second pick overall in the draft and chose Pujols (Hanley went first, I think grabbed by Shooty).
It's been all downhill since. Rock bottom came to me in the form of Alexi Casilla.
I assume you guys mean NYC. I was unable to meet up the other night re Lassus's thing, but I'm happy to meet for lunch or whatever the next time.
It's probably for the best if I don't repeat what I called you at that moment.
We've got another 10 or so rounds to go. Soon, we'll be at the point where we'd be thrilled to grab a player like Casilla. We're only just beginning to dig through the true dregs of MLB.
This sounds like a good description of the DMB draft.
(Edit for clarity: The next paragraph is about the deterioriation of the "conversation" once the Ft. Hood shooting was brought up as a cheap political prop.)
As someone who has a 20 year old cousin sleeping in holes in the Afghani desert and a 20 year old nephew/brother/son about to ship out to join him, I take offense at this line of slur and accusation. As such, I offered Joey the opportunity to meet me somewhere in real life and say as much to my face. For which Dan brought the hammer down upon my head.
I obviously have no desire to banned from a site that I've been visiting and contributing to for near a decade, but I've not done anything wrong in this thread either. That's where I'll leave it.
Actually, the draft is more like finding a turd in the punchbowl, but only after you've already drank three glasses.
Still needing a team name, Snapper's analogy is quite welcome...
Since I also find myself with a team filled almost entirely with players I never dreamed I'd end up with, I am leaning towards "Pickup Trucks in Trees"... but I need to have my marketing whizzes crunch it up a bit.
Yeah Ray, where do you work? We're all in the west 50's, until Shooty gets exiled next month.
We should do a league get together for beers one night after work. Shooty was saying half the league is in NYC.
Wait a sec. Gaelan - are you the same Gaelan from the DMB forum?
Is there a character limit to the team name? If not, you could go for something like "Tree Climbing Pickup Trucks" maybe with a "(Now how'd that get there)" paranthetical.
My expletives were uttered when someone took Mark Derosa after I was already up sh!t's creek without a paddle.
While I do think a large segment of the Iranian leadership are pretty close to crazed madmen, and believe somebody should bomb the crap out of their nuclear facilities, your post was perfectly reasonable.
Gaelan is setting up a Yahoo group. If you ask nicely, I'm sure he'd invite you in, so that you can participate in the mockery of my incredibly erratic selections.
There's been some talk of that (no standings yet, we're still in the initial draft stage).
Dan, could we have a thread on here? It's a DMB league run by Gaelan with about 90% BBTF membership.
Posada, Jorge C
Cuddyer, Michael1B
Roberts, Brian 2B
Longoria, Evan 3B
Uribe, Juan SS
Hunter Pence RF
Victorino, ShaneCF
Scott, Luke LF
Gomes, Jonny DH
Hundley, Nick c
Cabrera, Orlandoss
Snider, Travis of
Hart, Corey of
Sabathia, CC SP1
Lee, Cliff SP2
Rodriguez, WandySP3
Hunter, Tommy SP4
Bergesen, Brad SP5
Gonzalez, Gio SP6
Bell, Heath CL
Gregerson, Luke SU1
Ziegler, Brad SU2
Thatcher, Joe MR1
Francisco, FrankMR2
Crisp, Covelli extra
Here's my roster so far. 20 team league, $92M salary cap.
An absurd and radical position that not even the democratic Clinton administration nor the democratic Obama administration would go so far as to take. And by the way, not only is Iran a formally known state sponsor of worldwide terrorism, they were and are to this day a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so for them to develop nuclear weapons is a violation of international law.
Furthermore, there is reason to believe that Iran is illegally sending armaments into Iraq which are killing American soldiers. I would really appreciate it if you would stop spreading propaganda on behalf of these Iranian mullahs.
Furthermore, there is reason to believe that Iran is illegally sending armaments into Iraq which are killing American soldiers. I would really appreciate it if you would stop spreading propaganda on behalf of these Iranian mullahs.
He's not saying that he wants them to have nukes. He's explaining why they want to have nukes. Hell, Hitler had a perfectly rational reason to want nuclear weapons in 1944.
Just b/c it's rational doesn't mean we should go along with it.
I have never defended the current Iranian regime. I'm as big a proponent of the Green Revolution as you can imagine. Even so, I think it's an error of category to equate the madmen who currently run the (crumbling) Islamic Council with the sort of madmen who join and support al-Quaeda (as an example.) Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are evil bastards, but they're evil in the manner of Saddam Hussein rather than the manner of Osama bin Laden. They're primary goal is the acquisition and maintenance of power. Their interest in nukes are in service of those goals, and their likely use of nukes would be toward those goals. A nuclear Iran is not to be desired, certainly, but in the grand scheme of things a nuclear Iran would be a lot less worrisome than existing nuclear powers such as Pakistan and North Korea. Iran would be much more similar to Israel and France, in that they would have nukes but have no desire to use them.
But again, I have as much disdain for the current Iranian regime as any non-moron you'll meet. But I don't mistake the Iranian regime for *Iran* either.
If I'm a leftist, I don't want to see what a rightist looks like.
On second thought, I guess I'm a leftist in Saudi Arabia or somewhere like that.
CF Andrew McCutchen
SS Ryan Theriot
LF Adam Dunn
1B Adrian Gonzalez
RF Jason Kubel/Josh Willingham
2B Aaron Hill
3B Chase Headley/Jhonny Peralta
C Kurt Suzuki
C Jason Jaramillo
C Yorvit Torrealba
IF Cliff Pennington
OF Rajai Davis
Bat Matt Gamel
SP Justin Verlander
SP Ryan Dempster
SP Doug Davis
SP Francisco Liriano
SP Chris Volstad
P Anibal Sanchez
P Ian Snell
P Aaron Laffey
P Zach Miner
P Ed Mujica
P Brandon Lyon
Actually at that time relationship between the Taliban and Bin Laden were pretty rocky at that point. It's worth noting that Mullah Omar's initial response to the demands that Bin Laden be handed over was, "How about some evidence" and "No good Muslim would do such a terrible thing" (Yes, followed by "we don't know where they are", and "the goat ate my homework", etc)
And it's also worth noting that Bin Laden et al were let in before the Taliban took control (and some of the people who made that decision are in government now). They just didn't toss AQ out on gaining control.
Yeah the Taliban and AQ are pretty tight now, but a lot of that is enemy of my enemy.
According to my old (1980's) poli sci prof you would be. Although there is always contention in the definition of the paradigm. The method I was taught was the "left wing" of a nation wanted change, often radical, from the status quo. The "right wing" of a nation wished to slow the change or bring the status quo back to where it was in the past.
Consequently you get neat explanations of politics in other countries - like the hardline rightwing anti-immigration politican in Amsterdam who attended public events with his gay lover.
Anyway not everyone (even in the poli sci community) agrees with this definition.
EDIT - In summary - your politics in Saudi Arabia would likely be considered radical and left wing.
I've lost my "trusted user" status and then gotten it back about a half dozen times. Basically if you post enough and don't ruffle too many feathers, you get it back. It's a good clearinghouse for political info and gossip, although there's a pretty strong "echo chamber" aspect to it you have to keep in mind when you read stuff on there.
And yes, to snapper's point @575, my statements to date have been nothing more than explaining why the Iranian state would want nukes, and why that doesn't mean they plan on turning Tel Aviv into radioactive beaded glass.
This is where it gets dangerous, IMHO. Under current conditions, I don't think they'd attach Israeli. However, I think they'll be facing a revolution within the next decade, which probably leads to most of the current leadership and their families hanging from lamposts.
When this becomes imminent, their behavior will become unpredictable as they fear their imminent doom. Having nukes will at least make them more adventurous, supporting terrorism, launching wars, etc. which could lead to scenarios where they use the nukes.
I agree whole heartedly. The world does not need a nuclear Iran. The world should act in every way possible to avoid that scenario. To that point, we have made more progress - despairingly meek though that progress might be - in the last 9 months than we have in previous 30 years. There is real value in not approaching the problem with the assumption that anything less than Iranian leadership kowtowing to western ultimatums will end the "diplomatic engagement." There is real value in acknowledging that Iran - and lots of other places in the world - are not children to be told what to do, but real (if problematic) governments of real adults who deserve some modicum of human respect.
We need to keep moving in the direction we've started baby-stepping toward. That includes showing honest, good faith of our own, to the point of re-engaging Russia and destroying significant portions of *our* nuclear stockpile. We can't expect other nations to cease seeking nuclear arms, much less de-arm if they already have them, if we refuse to eat our own dogfood.
This is tough to relate to but it makes a certain sense. In this case, we're talking about an immigrant population who, in the mind of the politican in question anyway, seeks to turn the country from one where gays are not persecuted into one where gays are persecuted.
It's hard to put a "right/left" label on that per se. It's a label whose origins lie in the France of the Revolution and whose purest application these days seems to be in U.S., where it's imperfect even there. There's no particular intrinsic reason that a belief that a private sector left to its own devices will produce superior social outcomes to a beliefs that hawkish foreign policies are more effective or that it is desirable for the state to proscribe a wide spectrum of personal conduct in the substance-use and/or sexual arenas, and yet there's at least pretty strong correlation between the acceptance and/or rejection of all three of these propositions.
On another forum we break this down thusly:
Radicals (leftists) want to change society immediately, often by violent means.
Liberals want to change society perceptibly, within the system as it exists today.
Conservatives (not the people who call themselves "conservative" in US politics) want to slow change and audit any potential change for unintended
consequences and a realistic inventory of "what is lost" if a given change occurs too quickly.
Reactionaries want to reverse change and return to some assumed historical "better age."
The problem with this sort of exercise is that what was "liberal" in the 50s and early 60s is not what is "liberal" now. JFK's foreign policy was effectively what we now call "neo-conservative" but was then known as "liberal interventionism." His social policy was mostly center-left *for his time* but he wasn't nearly as liberal by his own terms as was LBJ. Of course, LBJ was walking in JFK's shadow, so he had more room to move there.
This would seem to fit Obama pretty well (except for the "by violent means," which is not a required condition since you said "often").
I mean, the health care thing is fairly described as "wanting to change society immediately."
Yes that is exactly the case. The politican, you may remember, was shot by a Muslim immigrant. The politician (whose name I can't recall) was against immigration because he felt a large number of Muslim immigrants were fighting to change the Netherlands to a more, let's say "family oriented" culture as opposed to the more (dare I say libertarian) attitudes to social conventions.
In this case the "conservative" was trying to preserve what we in North America would call liberal ideas. The immigrant was seen as a leftist fighting for what we might call conservative ideas.
My favourite example was after the fall of the Soviet Union some news agencies were calling the former government hardliners left-wing, other news agencies would say "hard line right-wing communists". In many ways they were both correct.
I suppose you are correct - though it doesn't leave much room for the SLA and PETA.
When I lived in England in the 1980s many members of the Labour Party (who is in power now BTW) wanted to leave Nato and declare England neutral in the cold war.
Now THAT was about as close to radical as you could get without violence.
That seems like a pretty questionable statement to me, one at least driven by perception and confirmation bias as by any other factor. The US has a perfectly functional and much beloved public health care program called Medicare. Functionally expanding that so that coverage is no longer limited to "old people" and is extended to "poor people" too isn't exactly earth-shattering, paradigm altering revolution.
I like those descriptions.
Zing. Two in a row David. You are on a roll.
Trying to legislate change after you have been elected President pretty much defines "within the system as it exists today." And providing a safety net for those who don't have any kind of health insurance is far less radical than what most liberals want (single payer). Obama is somewhat leftist, but he is far closer to the center than he is to being a radical. By your definition, any change at all is fairly described as "wanting to change society immediately."
Heh...
I'd invite you propose that on DK or similar... because the majority of lefty blogs have decided that Obama is a corporatist sell-out, too willing to compromise and go to incrementally/slowly.
I don't agree completely with them - but I think their point is that the left-side point of initial negotiation should have started with "single payer" (note - not a UK-style national health system, but a single payer system), and compromise from there should have ended up being some sort of public option.
I think that's reasonable a view... Single payer went by the wayside almost immediately.
And shouldn't we also find out who the victims voted for?
I think it is, although that's not a fair and complete description of what is being proposed.
You'll note that the country is just a tad polarized about this. People didn't show up to those town hall meetings in droves to protest Cash for Clunkers.
Using those baselines, today's Republican Party is hyper-conservative on social issues, bleeding into reactionary, while engaging a very liberal (I'd call it radical) "neoconservative" foriegn policy. Today's Dems are socially liberal with a conservative foreign policy (having coopted what used to be "realism") that still has elements of liberal interventionism. Libertarians tend to be socially liberal but economically radical. Their FP are all over the map.
Unfortunately, it didn't.
It's just hiding in the closet, waiting to come out once it gets dark.
Barney Frank and others have admitted such.
This is true, but at the same time polls are generally showing more than 50% in favor of some kind of public option. You're saying more than 50% of Americans are not just liberal, but radical?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main