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.
Page 11 of 58 pages
You can't make the economic argument when the war cost far more.
"Perpetual union" alternative histories might assume some sort of 18th-century dissolution of the states and reorganization of the US into something like the later French départements. I seem to recall that at least one Constitutional Convention delegate proposed such a reorganization (and I have it stuck in my head that it was George Mason, though I can't remember where I read it).
there's more to reading than just perceiving the literal text in front of one's eyes
No, actually, they don't. You only think they do BECAUSE YOU CAN'T READ!
You're denying the entire enterprise of literary criticism with your silliness.
Where in 943 did Andy indicate any type of dissent from the "credibility" deficiency he postulated?
Well, Virginia secession was no sure thing. If Virginia doesn't join, the whole CSA collapses quickly.
Multiple European countries figured out ways to end serfdom peacefully, and to finance the cost. It's not impossible for the U.S. to have done likewise.
You can't make the economic argument when the war cost far more.
That is to say, you're the criminal you accuse all of these other spectral "modern liberals" of being. It's funny, except that you're too ####### stupid to realize how stupid you're being.
That's not what you wrote
In the first sentence, where he said he was bothered by the racial composition of the jury.
The South shall rise again! In the form of higher cholesterol.
New York is, uh, not. No way. I feel like I lost 20lb just moving here. I blame the preponderance of amazingly good Yankee ice cream.
And that's what both Ray and I were commenting on
Yeah, you're right ... it was the second sentence -- "The only part of the trial itself that bothers me is the racial composition of the jury."
And what (Ray) wrote, no need to read between the lines, was that Andy's 943 was vintage racially-tinged liberalism.
No. Before getting to "credibility," he said that white people and black people have different "perspectives" and "POVs."
Yes. And as pointed out upthread, the demographics of places like Jamaica were vastly different from those of the southern US. Jamaica had a tiny white minority in control, and a minority that (relatively speaking, and for the most part) tended to see themselves as businessmen out on extended assignment rather than permanent immigrants. Southern whites in the US were either a majority or a large minority, and very few had roots overseas that they could simply reattach themselves to. Colonization of freed people to Africa was bizarrely impractical, but the very existence of colonization as an important ideology and a practical experiment shows the unwillingness of 19c white Americans to imagine a multiracial society. It was never going to be a matter of simply buying the freedom of millions of people, as if that could have been a simple matter to begin with.
He didn't attribute these things to "different socio-economic and historical backgrounds"
Oh, I get it -- now your backtrack is going to be that when someone writes "black people" and "white people," what they mean is "people with different socio-economic and historical backgrounds"?
Now who's mindreading?
In my experience you have fewer truly obese people in the NEC, but fewer thin people as well.
The South shall rise again!
You're fooling most of the people most of the time with that nonsense, but that's all.
I dunno, overall people here seem to be a good bit less health-conscious overall than I've been used to. I can't remember the last time I've been around so many smokers, and I know I've never seen so many people who look like Captain Lou Albano.
The only part of the trial itself that bothers me is the racial composition of the jury. That doesn't mean that any or all of those jurors are going to be consciously unfair to Martin, but it does mean that within the jury room all the subconscious assumptions about the motivations of Martin and Zimmerman are going to be coming from a white person's perspective, with nobody there to present a countering thesis from a black person's POV. As a general proposition, whenever there's any sort of racial background to a case like this, IMO it's infinitely preferable to have a jury with representatives of both races, if for no other reason than to give the verdict more universal credibility across the racial divide.
I'm sure every modern liberal did. That's essentially the problem here -- you and Andy are used to talking and writing in modern liberal -- i.e., senseless -- conventions. When actual adults -- i.e. thinking people who take language and rhetoric seriously -- ask you for further explanation or point out the problems with what you write, instead of explaining yourselves better, you blame those adults for whatever it is you're blaming them for.
Rick Perry announces he will not run for reelection.
In the mean time I certainly hope for the best, but my cynical side is not hopeful.
thinking people who take language and rhetoric seriously -- ask you for further explanation or point out the problems with what you write
You do see the disconnect there, right?
The birthing of democracies has always been painful, sloppy and blood-red wet.
As a counter some countries have been amazingly good in their "slide" into Democracy. Both Romania and South Africa have moved along in a much less horrifying way than I would have guessed. I am sure there are others. Many - of course - have been much worse.
Both Romania and South Africa have moved along in a much less horrifying way than I would have guessed.
No, you weren't. "Black people" and "white people" are not "commonly used" to denote "people of different socioeconomic and historical backgrounds," or anything close. It's laughable that you're continuing to cling to this nonsense.
Isn't South Africa one of the most violently crime-ridden nations in the world?
It's best not to base your entire campaign on the idea of rolling 20s every time.
People with brains understand
Perry has got to be the worst politician who has ever been re-elected in a decent sized state.
Sure (I mean I am not sure, but I am willing to accept it as true), but my expectation for South Africa was it was going to be a total bloodbath. The various folks there surprised me in a very good way. They done good, relative to where they were.
A survey for the period 1998–2000 compiled by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime ranked South Africa second for assault and murder (by all means) per capita and first for rapes per capita in a data set of 60 countries...One in three of the 4,000 women questioned by the Community of Information, Empowerment and Transparency said they had been raped in the past year...South Africa has amongst the highest incidences of child and baby rape in the world. If the rapist is convicted, his prison time would be around 2 years...Crime against commercial white farmers is particularly high.
There have been numerous press reports on the manipulation of crime statistics that have highlighted the existence of incentives not to record violent crime.
So are you and Andy studyin' up on the surely-extant differences in the socioeconomic and historical backgrounds of the white people on the jury, to assure "appropriate" balance?
They "done good" only if you consider the alternative to be some sort of Mad Max scenario with marauding bands of hockey mask-wearing warlords throwing razor-edged boomerangs at feral children and Tina Turner.
But the Islamists and secularists have zero common ground. I bet the next autocrat takes closer to 10 months than 10 years to emerge.
Less likely but on the table was exactly a "Mad Max" type scenario, but in the real world (ie., Somalia) they don't have Tina Turner or much fetish gear.
I don't know if I'd consider it any sort of success story. They "done good" only if you consider the alternative to be some sort of Mad Max scenario with marauding bands of hockey mask-wearing warlords throwing razor-edged boomerangs at feral children and Tina Turner.
No surprise there.
They done good considering that the likely alternatives were somewhere between Civil War and Zimbabwe.
Rudy Giuliani was just on the radio saying that the key to the case is who was crying out for help - and he said logic has that as being Zimmerman, since witness "Mr. Good" said he saw Martin on top, and that the back of Zimmerman's shirt as well as Martin's knees were wet.
Where did you ask what he meant? From my memory (no I am not going to wade through all that again) you knew from the start what Andy truly was saying. I don't remember any actual questions about what he was getting at (there easily could have been "when did you stop beating your wife?" questions, I am looking for a genuine question).
until the bugaboo of "modern liberals" got him sidetracked
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 8.4573 seconds, 48 querie(s) executed