Sunday, June 02, 2013
Clarion Ledger: State will help build Biloxi baseball stadium
(blogs.clarionledger.com)
Read More...Gov. Phil Bryant, at a Coast press conference with Beau Rivage workers dressed as ballpark vendors and handing out CrackerJacks, today announced the state will kick in $15 million of BP oil disaster money to help build a baseball stadium in Biloxi.
He also announced that an ownership group he’s been working with since last year is about to buy a team to play there, although its name and pro team affiliation would not be announced until later.
Talk recently around Biloxi has centered on the ...
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.
Page 1 of 120 pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 > Last ›Yep, because Obama is the messiah and incapable of doing anything wrong, and if you disagree with that you're a racist hate- mongering redneck.
No, it's not. Next!
You're so freaking cute when you talk like this.
Of course there is a bit of a link between Obama president and Obama candidate, but still. I admit I also like your line about: "Obama is a war-mongering, freedom-killing con man". Obama is more warlike than I would prefer, but he is extracting us from various wars we were in and has started fewer wars than the previous president did. I assume freedom killing is Health care related. Con man though? That one has me puzzled.
Bottom line is that people who think Obama and Romney are the same have a very limited perspective. The two parties have a few areas of agreement but very few (I admit they are areas I tend to disagree with both though).
#8 - Hmmmm. maybe it could be retroactively changed. Speaking of Romney it has been a very short while but I already miss the excitment of waking up every morning to find out what he screwed up on his trip around the world.
Politician. Ipso facto.
Actually, Rants, aren't you Canadian? That's what I meant about #6. Do you have any strong feelings about your own country's politics?
Hey now the last one had name calling and outright Clintonian style lying also! But there was some real political discussion there too. I would rather talk world politics though, more to learn.
But the way it is called out, it sounded like he was a con man above and beyond. I guess the fact that Obama is such a centrist pragmatic left/center Democrat who runs crazy efficient but drama free campaigns (and an overly cautious drama free White House) keeps fooling me. I totally get hating him (well not really, but I am not into hate), but acting like he is an empty suit with nothing there always strikes me as bizarre.
He is many things, but con man (other than the normal politician flavored) is not one of them.
More to be depressed with.
Just a thought about it though: Doesn't it behoove the organizations that were dead set against against interventions in Yugoslavia and Libya to speak up and loudly praise the international community for their perfectly spineless handling of Syria?
I said Obama and Romney are the same, yes. They are both scumbags, which is enough similarity for me to consider them the same.
Yes, I'm Canadian. Our situation is not good. Stephen Harper is Putinesque in the level of control and fealty he demands from his underlings, I mean Cabinet Ministers, and backbench MPs aren't allowed to say anything at all. Harper has taken a lot of credit on the international stage for the relative stability of our baking sector, but that rests with the previous government.
And Bitter Mouse, maybe its just me, but for a politician to run a campaign as if he's the second coming of Bobby Kennedy, only to continue with the Washington status quo, makes him a con man. He promised major change, a whole new attitude, openness and fairness - none of which has even remotely come to pass. I know, its all the Republicans in Congress's fault.
people are somehow affronted by the idea that someone would call him a war monger or a threat to freedom.Hey on the things you listed I agree with you to a degree, so I was not offended. I would much rather less war and less blatent disregard for civil liberties (two of my least favorite things about Obama). He is still less warlike than the previous president, and he has never hid from the fact he is relatively hawkish from a foreign policy perspective.
However, someone will end up as president, and the choices are Obama and Romney. Obama might be relatively hawkish, but he is drawning down the war machine on various fronts and has called for cuts in defense spending. Romney has a much more aggressive posture (example: Iran) and wants to greatly increase defense spending.
Both can be more militant than you want and there can still be a better and worse choice. There are no perfect candidates - you go to the ballot box with the candidates you have, not the candidates you wish you had.
On the civil liberty front, extrajudicial killings and such - I got nothing.
You say that like it's a bad thing, man.
Pretty much ... but only one wears magic underwear!
Its great for the CIA!
Politicians run campaigns to get elected. I admit I am not sure how much of the "hope and silliness" Obama personally believed. Still the policy positions his campaign put out and his actual talking points were always pretty centrist Democrat. The fact people bought into the hype is, I think, some what on them. Anyone paying attention knew how Obama would govern. Anyone who thought Obama would (or could) bring comity to DC is a moron.
The GOP has some of the blame for a lack of policy compromise. They have been one of the most obstructionist ever. But Obama has been very cautious in dealing with that reality and other Democrats have not really woken up to the obstruction except very slowly. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Didn't matter how much he believed but how much voters believed. If you promise rainbows and unicorns after eight years of war and blight, the public will eat it up. I don't think he was a snake oil salesman. He outlined the product reasonably well but the messaging attached to that product promised more than any president could deliver, especially one with an opposition party who worked harder on his demise than on the country's problems.
BC bud is the best.
But in total I think you are spot on and said it better than I did.
This is hard to tell. On the one hand, Obama inherited a huge mess that probably prevented meaningful changes in transparency or openness. On the other hand, the initial staff were all former pros from the Clinton years, who could reasonably be expected to behave like they did when they were in office the last time.
I think ultimately, H&C was probably never going to be a realistic outcome of the Obama administration, and it probably meant something different to O than it did to the rest of the country. O has always been about intelligent public policy rather than big, sweeping changes. This probably helps to explain the relative lack of scandals.
Torture not compassionate enough for ya?
I spend 1-3 months a year in India and am heading back there in 2 weeks. Fortunately, this next trip is to the Southern part of the Country (Bangalore and Panaji) where this power outage hasn't been felt. I am always amazed that with such a rapidly growing economy, and industrius population, the infrastructure is absolutely horrid. I am not suprised in the least that more than half a billion people were without power for an extended time due to a grid failure.
Back to politics ... did you know that it is illegal to sell liquor in India on election day? I was shocked to learn that. A good bottle of bourbon is the only way that I can make it through most U.S. elections.
And colour me blown away that the Regina Leader-Post would ever get posted on BTF. Actually, colour me blown away that the Leader-Post still exists. I recall people at the University of Regina Journalism School not bothering to look for work there on the assumption it wouldn't be around much longer.
Hopefully there's a backlash against how Harper is running things and we establish some kind of MP independence. The assumption of strict party discipline is my biggest problem with Canadian politics.
EDIT: It's also kind of cool that Bill Lee knows who Ron Lancaster is.
People are optimistic. It's not a bad thing until they run into marketing.
No, no, the problem is that it wasn't vacuous enough. 'Hope' is good, but anyone can look around and see nothing much has changed since 2008. Plus it invites unwelcome questions such as 'what exactly do you propose to change?' that require a person to carefully word his response so as to avoid actually promising anything measurable.
Pretty sure that used to be true in Arkansas back when I was living there (through 11/01), at least while the polls were open. Might still be*.
*Apparently not, judging by the Wikipedia listing of alcohol laws by state, but evidently it's still the case in Alaska, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Utah & West Virginia, & was until 2007 in Oklahoma.
I assume you are being facetious; it is illegal to sell liquor while the polls are open in the U.S., at least everywhere that I'm aware.
Partial coke to gef - it is still against the law to sell liquor while the polls are open in Indiana for sure. If you happen to drive past a liquor store or tavern here on election day you will see people starting to line up outside, waiting for 6:00 PM when the polls close and they can start selling booze.
So long as you're not doing anything that would otherwise get you arrested for disorderly behaviour.
As I just posted, apparently that's actually pretty rare, or maybe it's just a matter of local rather than state proscription.
But yeah, in general, maybe because of where I grew up (a dry county, as it happens, next door to another dry county where I went to college), I'm sort of shocked that anyone would marvel at that. Some people lead intriguingly sheltered lives, I guess.
Being obviously intoxicated in public will usually get you arrested even if you're not doing anything notably disorderly at the time. The police tend to take a very much 'better safe than sorry' approach to that kind of thing. I imagine they would crank that approach up to eleven on Election Day.
Over 1 billion had no power, but for 300 million or so, it was just another Tuesday.
My understanding, based probably on nothing in particular, is that such laws stem from the apparently common practice many decades ago of getting certain people falling-down drunk & then dragging them from polling place to polling place to vote for the candidate of the liquor supplier's choosing. Supposedly, that could've led to Edgar Allan Poe's final, fatal drunk ... though I gather he was discovered in the gutter on the first Sunday in October, which would seem to cast doubt on that scenario.
Not necessarily getting them falling-down drunk. Simply providing free booze in return for votes, early and often, was the deal.
The 19th century was AWESOME.
Many states still have election day blue laws -- I believe Indiana still does, at least it did about 10 years ago when I was still bartending in the state... Can't sell liquor - even at a bar - until the polls close.
Now they just give them food stamps.
Almost precisely zero chance of this. First of all, the party as a whole does not have fond memories of the rebellion against Diefenbaker (and has strong institutional memories of those days).
Of greater import, the party leaders hold an MP's career in their hands. If the party leader won't sign the nomination papers, they can't run for the party (regardless of how the riding association feels about the matter). One or two MPs have been booted from the party and run successfully as an independent, but in general your career is over if the party leader so decides.
Page 1 of 120 pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 > Last ›You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.