User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
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. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6473 seconds
53 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.
I have never heard anyone say that. But I do hear that particular obnoxious meme every time there is racism. It's worse than hearing "Where's the damn global warmin!!" every time it snows.
It's not quite as stupid as that, no.
No, Craig's conservative friends don't tell him that.
That is not a "conservative" viewpoint.
Nobody serious claims there aren't individual racists.
LOL. The unnamed conservative bogeyman, always lurking around the next corner.
That's some might fine bait by Calcaterra.
Alarm goes off. Cops show up. Guy walks out of the house the alarm had gone off in. They didn't handcuff him, they didn't abuse him, they didn't shoot him on sight. Isn't this pretty much how we want the cops to react (except for the 20 minutes part)? Hunter even made it clear he wasn't pissed at the cops but appreciative of the manner in which they acted.
Darn those few bad apples.
To be fair, this phrase is merely mocking the absurd claims of the other side of single weather events being a result of global warming.
Any law enforcement types here? What is protocol for this kind of thing? Are the cops allowed to have their guns out and pointed down for protection until they figure out who the guy is, i.e., whether the location is a threat?
I'd love to meet a person that said this. I've heard many times people say racism is a tiny fraction what it was. But no one I know says it has been 100% eliminated. Liberals require a lot of hand holding don't they?
I know. Give me some names. First and last. I bet the list is small, tiny in fact. Gotta love people that worry about a tiny segment of the population, say 1%, every day.
I'll grant the guns might be excessive. But this isn't close to the issue that Calcaterra is making it out to be. And when challenged on it in the comments, he just digs his heels in deeper.
Now that would have been consistent with a black neighborhood. Which would have been a racist reaction in this case.
I'm far less interested in the race angle than I am the fact that multiple agents of the state drew lethal weapons for no particular reason and in the face of no particular threat. It's possible that Hunter mistook a taser for a handgun (claiming that he was marched at gunpoint and then clarifying that the barrels were pointed down makes him at least a bit questionable), but even then you have to question the blatant aggression and show of force by Officers Friendly. There's no reason to be drawing any weapon on a civilian unless there's a high probability of using it.
No they don't, but individual racists aren't the problem. I think bigoted individuals have effectively been shamed out of voicing their thoughts in the public sphere, and if they slip up, they become the subject of ridicule and derision. The bigot then serves as a sin eater for society at large - his presence allows us to say, "look, there's racism, over there, located in the body of the racist!" as Slavoj Zizek puts it. This allows us individually to feel good about ourselves for not being racists, while simultaneously ignoring structural inequalities that break down along racial lines.
Yes, excessive use of force by police, and police impunity, have reached epidemic levels in this country.
Why wouldn't they have their guns out (but pointed down) for a possible burglary in progress? If you wait until you see the bad guy with a gun, it may be too late.
Or you see bad guys where there aren't any. Dead unarmed black men produced by police officers are hardly isolated occurrences.
Exactly. Conservatives will admit to the theoretical existence of racism. But they've never actually found a real, live example of racism. Still, the search continues . . .
Why are the guns excessive? The cops carry guns right? Why is it excessive to pull out the gun? The guns were pointed to the ground not at the unidentified individual.
It is not accurate to claim the cops pointed guns at a homeowner inside that homeowner's house. The cops never did that. They encountered a person that was unidentified that was exiting a home with an alarm going off. The cops didn't know this was the home owner until the unidentified person (Tori) produced ID. At that point the cops holstered their guns.
Perhaps one of the cops thought the unidentified black man was Tori Hunter of the LA Angels. Perhaps that cop wasn't 100% certain, therefore he chose not to say "hey, it's Tori Hunter", for fear of being wrong and making a racist assumption that all black guys with apparent money are athletes.
I like to think the cops would have reacted the exact same way had this not been a "lily white" neighborhood, say like in South Central LA.
Sure, but isn't it reasonable for cops to assume that there is, in fact, a "bad guy" in a home with an alarm going off?
Because I'm not a cop and I don't know the procedure for this type of situation. If cops chime in and say that is not their protocol, I'll defer to them. I'm with you on everything else. If my house was being robbed and the cops reacted in this manner to the robber, I'd have no problem.
I'll tell you who doesn't have a problem holding back or hiding their bigotry these days....the anti-evangelical Christian bigots. They aren't even bothering to hide their bigotry.
For those who are slow: There are individual racists. Real, live ones. It is racism as an institution that no longer exists (in this country).
Are you talking about people who are bigoted against "evangelical Christians" or Christians who are bigots against evangelicals?
Liberals are terrible at math and the concept of frequency. Yea, unarmed black men are being killed by cops about as often as black gang member kill other black gang members.
Ray? Is that you underneath the white hood?
The irony of this statement is, Craig and liberals everywhere see bad guys where they don't exist all the time. This case is the perfect example. Tori Hunter didn't even object to the police response. Get a grip people. Nothing is stopping Tori from demanding an investigation (MR PRESIDENT).
You're terrible at grammar and thinking in general. Will you lay off? You have the most bizarre notions about just about everything, and your general incoherence and frantic posting in threads like this are annoying, if not especially disturbing.
There were about three going on at roughly the same time (based on Hunter's Twitter posts and timing, his probably was in that grouping), which may explain the 20 minute response time.
Thanks for your input. I'd just as soon wait to learn what standard operating procedure is, as well as all the facts, before making a determination. They didn't know him personally, so it's not like they showed up and were like "Oh, Mr. Hunter, glad to see it's you."
It's easy for people like you to tell the cops they shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves when showing up to an alarm call without knowing who the person is that they find there or whether other people are on the premises that may pose a threat.
Is it reasonable to believe that the person they encounter may simply be the owner? Sure. Is it reasonable to believe that the person they encounter is sometimes not the owner? Sure. I mean, it's not like they just started firing away after encountering him.
You are obviously trying to suggest the bigotry is justified since you find the evangelical Christian categorically a bigot. Nice try. I used very clear language but I will expand.
Bigots against evangelicals. Which do include non evangelical Christians and others of course.
If it ain't the pot calling the kettle black.
And how about the insulting tone people take when discussing Scientology? Everyone just thinks it's a hoot to make jokes about Thetans and Auditing but Xemu forbid you mock the Magic Cracker What Becomes Meat, then you're a bigot.
Tell me about it, I hear they claim the earth is hundreds of thousands of years old, and maybe even older!
Calcaterra, in the comments, is arguing the police should have recognized Hunter on sight and/or known it was his address.
No, it was a real question. I didn't understand what you wrote because it was NOT clear. My question did not have the intent that you imputed to it. I had no ulterior motive than to try to understand what you said. I now understand, thanks to your clarification. I agree that there is bigotry against evangelical Christians. I do not think evangelical Christians are "categorically ... bigot[s]." I happen to think that they're categorically deluded, but that's a discussion for another day.
No, it's not. What I did in my post was point out what is obvious and what I and numerous others have pointed out since you started with the bizarro anti-liberal/anti-progressive strain here. You are seriously deluded if you think your rants against liberals and progressives make sense.
Has he named his unnamed "conservative friends" yet? The ones who always tell him there is no more racism in this country? Or does the search continue?
As it rightly should because no one is using 100 years of weather data to prove the existence of global warming. Is that what you actually think? Do you really think climate scientists are using just 100 years of weather data?
Maybe they didn't know Torii Hunter was black.
Chief Wiggums: "Check this guy out boys, he says he's Torri Hunter!"
Lou: "Yeah, and I'm Reggie Cleveland!"
Will it finally convince you if he names names? I don't get what you're after here. As I pointed out above, there are many ways for conservatives to say effectively that racism doesn't exist, even as they're being racist. As I argued above, I think there's a strong strain of conservative politics that aligns itself with the notion of a post-racial world so that it can make laws and policies that are racist. People are very good at "softening" the appearance of racism, cloaking it in other terms and notions.
Also, high quality trolling by LotS. I'm impressed.
Newt Gingrich, for instance, acts and says racist things.
Awesome. Do we all get a cookie for the elimination of the systemic institutionalized discrimination against black people that existed for 300 years?
Also, you're arguing against a strawman. I never argued that institutional racism still exists. Next . . .
Yes and no. They can't possibly use just 100 years, it would be a complete joke if they did, even though that is roughly all we have. In fact we really only have 30-40 years of good data, from satellites. They are using data such as ice core samples, which have their own set of weaknesses when trying to analyze this subject matter.
The fact is, the weather data doesn't exist to make a definitive claim one way or the other. So a lot of alternate sources of data have been brought forth which have dubious application in our quest for understanding man's impact on climate.
Examples of these laws and policies that are racist? Many of us are still waiting on your proof. You claim to have some. Share.
In 2012, I can count on every single county in my state voting for Romney. It's because Obama has trampled on the Constitution, right? Signed NDAA? Has bombed several countries? Executed Americans without due process? Targeted women and children at funerals?
"Cuz he's a Socialist!"
"(sigh)"
Seeing how "the science" gets "settled" is quite revealing.
It is not the case that we have only 100-150 years of data from which to draw the conclusion that (a) global warming is occurring and (b) it is significantly caused by human activity. Data from coral growth, tree rings, stalagmite sedimentation, and other sources shows that this is the warmest period of the last 1000 years.
We know from multiple sources that it is currently hotter than it's been in the last 1000 years, and the last 50-100 years have seen a major spike in warmth compared to the previous 1000. We know from the ice core data that climate spikes of this sort have only ever happened previously due to orbital forcing - the slight oddities inherent in elliptic orbits which produce ice ages. We are not currently at a place in the orbital cycle where this should happen - they're incredibly regular, occuring about every 100,000 years, and the last one was less than 20,000 years ago. This warming requires other explanations than natural cycles.
Luckily, we have a really good explanation. There is a clear micro explanation as to how CO2 produces global warming (the greenhouse effect), and the ice core data shows obvious correlation between CO2 and global temperature. The ice core data confirmed beautifully what the theories said - it's a great example of a theory being tested by the acquisition of new data, and performing about as well as could be expected. CO2 isn't the only driving factor - warming trends before humans started spewing CO2 into the atmosphere were usually spurred by orbital forcing and then CO2 feedback loops continued the warming - but it has been shown both explanatory theories and by retrospective data to affect climate change in significant ways.
We also know, from the ice core data, that atmospheric CO2 levels are nearly twice as high as they've been at any time in the past 400,000 years, and that this spike occured in the last 100-200 years, as a function of the industrialization of human society. We have a warming trend which does not fit historical "natural" explanations, we have ice core data confirming a theory about CO2's forcing effect on climate change, and we have a spike in atmospheric CO2 unprecedented in hundreds of thousands of years, clearly caused by human activity.
This is the case of anthropogenic global warming, and it is highly compelling - the scientific consensus is based on how well this all holds together. We need to significantly slow the rate at which we're expelling carbon into the atmosphere if we're going to stem this warming trend.
I don't see it. Sure blacks as a percentage are sent to prison at a higher rate than whites for drugs, but that's because they are caught more. The sentencing law is pretty clear and race isn't a factor. Pretty much the same deal with home loan apps....black probably get financed at a lower rate than whites, but that's because they are more likely to have worse credit and weaker debt/income rates. Are these things racist? Or are blacks merely more likely to be below middle class?
The good news is you'll get your third team in NYC, maybe a second in Boston and a team in Portland.
Even though I agree with your premises 99 percent, that's an awfully big "we".
Which 'consensus" is that? You'll probably never believe this, but the other side uses it in exactly the same way. It doesn't make you any smarter, more honest, or less biased to do that. But whatever, you'll keep doing it anyway.
I didn't claim to have proof. But some policies that are specifically designed to be racist and not look like they're being racist are 1) racial profiling at American airports; 2) Arizona's immigration law; 3) restrictive voter ID laws. These are all laws that disproportionately affect non-whites, and poor non-whites the most. I think that is a fact that even you can agree with. I can agree that they also affect some whites. This is exactly what I mean: here are some laws that affects both whites and non-whites, but they were designed specifically to target a minority population. There are "other" justifications for these laws, sure. But I happen to think that the primary motivation for any of these laws is just to make it difficult to be a minority in this country.
Uh, and why is that? It's not because drug use is more prevalent in black communities. Not according to the latest National Survey on Drug Use and Health which found drug use and abuse more prevalent among whites. You're hand-waving away an awful lot there.
1) If this is the warmest period in the last 1000 years, then what caused Earth to be warmer 1000 years ago? (1,000 years? so what, you do know the Earth ain't 8,000 years old, right? The bible was wrong on that you know? Right?)
2) No, we don't know what caused the ice age(s). Perhaps "orbital forcing" is a factor but that's unknown, including various other theories. Also, you sell this idea that ice ages are predictable, they are not. We know there has been a larger climate cycle looking backwards, but we don't know what's driving that or when it will change again.
3) "The ice core data confirmed beautifully what the theories said" - What theories? And what was confirmed? I think you meant to say, the ice core data also showed a correlation with CO2 and Temps.
4) Why was CO2 higher in (thousands) years past? CO2 today is not at an all time high.
5) Yes, CO2 has been proven to contribute to a "greenhouse effect" in experiments, but the real question is, how much does it contribute to changes? How can you isolate its contribution or even know where to start? Is the contribution 1%, 100% or just 5-8%? Or 50%?
The real answer is in the single digits. Which is a non-significant factor.
Penalties for one hit of cocaine vs. one hit of crack is a very easy one.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Do you have an issue with my highlighted comment you took from #64?
The scientific consensus around global climate change is expressed by the IPCC - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But really, you don't have anything better to do?
I just don't get what conservatives get out of claiming that global warming does not exist. I mean, what's the payoff? If it does exist and you're wrong, and it has all of the bad consequences that scientists say it will have, then you've just ###### over generation and generations of people. And the consequences of lowering greenhouse gas emissions will be, what, exactly? You'll probably have to use CF bulbs, and buy stuff locally, and try not to drive your car so much, and not to use so much electricity. Is this bad?
I get why conservatives are so bound to saving money. But mitigating global warming is an enormous FINANCIAL opportunity as Toyota and others are proving. Reducing reliance on fossil fuels will probably have the unintended side effect of making certain elements in the middle-East and other places around the globe less pissed off at us, and less desirous of bombing us.
What do you get out of keeping things status quo? Have you ever thought about that?
There's also the "consensus" among conservatives that it's a bunch of hogwash. What Ray doesn't seem to realize is that using global warming as a "litmus test" only indicates what kind of meat you prefer: red or blue.
Many, if not most federal sentencing guidelines on drugs were set just after Len Bias died. I believe Dems led by Tip O'Neill drove that legislation, although the laws were overwhelmingly passed by large majorities. Where does this fit into the conservative is a racist in hiding? The laws were largely written by Dems trying to prevent the next Treyvo....I mean Len Bias.
Yes I would say an institutional policy of anti-affirmative action is institutional racism. It's not awesome thought.
Can you explain this? I don't follow.
If it exists, the government has to regulate business to prevent a global catastrophe. Conservatives don't like government regulation of business.
I thought the TSA goes out of its way to show #1 doesn't happen (i.e., patting down 2-year-old white girls and 95-year-old Catholic nuns).
#2 clearly seemed to target illegal immigrants, the population of which spiked a staggering 400-plus percent in a decade in Arizona.
#3 seems like legislative chest-thumping more than anything else. I don't believe that huge numbers of Americans lack a proper ID, and, for the ones who do lack ID, all of these state laws provide a photo ID free for the asking.
That still doesn't answer my question. What do they get out of it? I don't think it comes down to regulation. I think it goes deeper than that. I think there's more than a bit of anti-intellectualism in it, coupled with a fierce and misguided libertarian streak. But there's also a very deep vein of eschatology. There are a few documentaries out about how many prominent Republicans wish for peace in the middle east so that a prophecy from Revelations can take place bringing about the end of the world. That's my guess. But I'd like to hear it from a real true-red conservative.
Their is zero crime in Newport Coast. It is a master planned community of ~$1.5 - $3 million tract homes and a large number of semi-custom and custom homes. There are also a handful of $10+ million "estates". The police show up for everything, but they bill residents/businesses hundreds of dollars for false alarms.
In #69 I claimed global warming does exist. Just not to your satisfaction. Speaking of why risk it.....have you done the math on what's required to not only stop CO2 levels but dial them back to 90s levels as suggested by the IPCC? That would be a crushing blow to the developing world, China, Brazil, India, African nations, etc. The US could fall off the face of the Earth tomorrow, but the nations I just named are growing so rapidly, they would replace our CO2 contributions in less than 10 years.
Do the math, see what is actually required to save Earth, according to the IPCC and then decide how likely this is going to happen. FYI: the solution they are demanding isn't merely driving a Prius to Starbucks and bringing my ceramic mug.
this is my problem with the issue, the sun and the universe will decide whether there is going to be a global catastrophe. Man will have no say in the matter.
You must be right then.
He hasn't changed a bit since his prior handle.
You are aware that man is part of the universe? You've heard of systems? When you put something into a system, you get something out? The earth is one such system. Put too much CO2 into the atmosphere and you WILL get some output, some change or alteration in the system. This is very basic science.
Why do you assume I'm status quo? I'm not. Just because I'm opposed to your "solution" of dialing us all back 200 years. I want to move forward, not backwards. I'm as radical on technological progress as anyone.
Underlying reason being, compliance costs money. It is a lot cheaper to produce something if you don't have to worry about environmental and labor regulations. No limitations on working conditions, no work plans, no permits, no disposal fees, no monitoring, no reporting, no accountability except to stockholders, ... no oversight, no limits.
Fortunately, the invisible hand will make it all work out in the end
Let's say for a moment that they're right and that the changes required are extreme. What do you get out of denying that it's as dire as scientists say it is? What do you get out of not changing your behaviors?
Except now LotS is pretending to be a woman. Which is always a fun troll maneuver.
How many conservative friends do you have? Sure, like you I consume media from time to time, but tell me you aren't getting your exposure to conservatives only from the media. Seems like you are pedaling the extreme caricature of conservatives only.
LOL. Awesome.
***
No, it's exactly what I just quoted above. Right-wingers admittedly tend to be skeptical about global warming, but even if it's a scientific fact, the proposed cure might be worse than the illness.
As for global warming, right now we have around 33 years worth of satellite data, and it looks like around +0.13 Celsius per decade so far in that time period. Because arguments over the satellite data have all seemed to be hashed out and finally agreed on, that seems to be a pretty factual gauge of temperatures over that period of time (global average temperature is not the easiest thing to compute).
I'd rather we let folks who know something about it examine what that does and doesn't mean than to have the left and right use it as a cudgel with which to beat the other side.
Satellite Temp Data
The above is the extent of my knowledge on the subject, so I've decided to not postulate any further on which side is more ignorant, because I know for a fact that I certainly am on the subject.
You know, my carbon footprint is almost certainly smaller than average. I rarely turn the heat on living in the north, I have only had one real x-mas tree with lights (about the most carbon useless item - for those of you that think CO2 is bad---which I don't since plants require it to make "green"). I brew my own coffee 80% of the time. I clean my plate!
Why is it we never see the same level of outrage for pot-on-kettle crime?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main