Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, March 21, 2013

If Jeff Suppan doesn’t latch on anyplace he may run for Congress

Sure, Jeff Suppan would listen if John Boehner called.

Colusa County Supervisor Kim Vann is likely to challenge Rep. John Garamendi in the Sacramento-area 3rd District. Former state Sen. Tony Strickland is expected to run again, most likely forging a rematch with freshman Rep. Julia Brownley in the Ventura County-based 26th District.

There’s some talk that Strickland would take a look at the neighboring 25th District if GOP Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon opts for retirement. One plugged-in GOP source said another person looking at a challenge to Brownley is baseball pitcher Jeff Suppan, who may run if he doesn’t make a Major League roster this season.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 21, 2013 at 01:48 PM | 158 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: congress, jeff suppan, padres, politics, republicans

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 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. RollingWave Posted: March 23, 2013 at 06:02 AM (#4394856)
What's the big fuss, a guy who doesn't qualify for any other job tries to run for Congress seems like what happens to 80% of the Congress seats isn't it ? ;)
   102. bigglou115 Posted: March 23, 2013 at 06:50 AM (#4394862)
Gandalf is a lesser god in the middle earth world (also sauron though he was more powerfull). him and the other wizards are sent there to fight against him with out getting there hands dirty, or just read the more Tolken


Noted exception for other divine beings though. He could fight the Balrog because they were maiar like him. I was always fascinated by the whole universe he created, I think I enjoyed the Sulmirillion more than the LOTR trilogy itself. I wrote my high school English paper on the Sulmirillion as a dramatic retelling of the Biblical creation story (this did not go over well at my Baptist high school, apparently they prefer their messianic figures to have fur coats and roar)

Have you been as irritated as I have at all the people who are irritated at the "extra" stuff in the Hobbit movie?
   103. formerly dp Posted: March 23, 2013 at 07:50 AM (#4394866)
Snapper, you have more patience and restraint than I do. Thank you for speaking truth again, even as you are bombarded with self-satisfied ignorance and arrogance.
Yeah, insisting that progress in medical science be impeded for no other reason than "my fake god says so!"-- that not arrogant or ignorant at all.
   104. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 23, 2013 at 09:57 AM (#4394884)

Yeah, insisting that progress in medical science be impeded for no other reason than "my fake god says so!"-- that not arrogant or ignorant at all.


Perhaps a good stretch on the rack will help you see the foolishness of your heresey!
   105. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: March 23, 2013 at 10:08 AM (#4394889)
I don't agree with snapper here (my take is somewhat like dan's), but I definitely appreciate snapper's demeanor in threads like these.
   106. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 23, 2013 at 10:13 AM (#4394893)
Snapper, you have more patience and restraint than I do. Thank you for speaking truth again, even as you are bombarded with self-satisfied ignorance and arrogance.

I don't agree with snapper here (my take is somewhat like dan's), but I definitely appreciate snapper's demeanor in threads like these.

Thank you both for your kind words.
   107. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 23, 2013 at 10:20 AM (#4394896)
Yeah, insisting that progress in medical science be impeded for no other reason than "my fake god says so!"-- that not arrogant or ignorant at all.

If you don't believe in God, why do you care so much about medical research? We're all going to die, what difference does it make if some people die sooner. Better not to waste society's resources on the old and sick.
   108. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 23, 2013 at 10:24 AM (#4394899)
If you don't believe in God, why do you care so much about medical research? We're all going to die, what difference does it make if some people die sooner. Better not to waste society's resources on the old and sick.


Attempt to answer the question yourself. If there is no magical sky castle to play your harp in for eternity if you've been a very good boy, why would you want to make yor single life on earth as healthy, comfortable, and productive as possible? Such a puzzler.
   109. Lassus Posted: March 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM (#4394903)
If you don't believe in God, why do you care so much about medical research? We're all going to die, what difference does it make if some people die sooner. Better not to waste society's resources on the old and sick.

Snapper, you know this makes no sense in about ten different ways. Way one: Not all sick people are old. Way two: sick people who become well contribute to society, make money, have children. It goes on. Sticking to faith is one thing, erasing logic is another.
   110. formerly dp Posted: March 23, 2013 at 10:35 AM (#4394908)
If you don't believe in God, why do you care so much about medical research? We're all going to die, what difference does it make if some people die sooner. Better not to waste society's resources on the old and sick.
One does not need to believe in higher power to have concern for the sick.

But anyway, I appreciate your continued attempts to make the rest of society continue to abide by your Dark Age assumptions about the human body! All the people out there with spinal cord injuries will rest easier knowing that your views have been respected while they continue to not be able to use their limbs.
   111. formerly dp Posted: March 23, 2013 at 10:40 AM (#4394910)
Sticking to faith is one thing, erasing logic is another.
Sticking to one's faith requires erasing logic.
   112. Lassus Posted: March 23, 2013 at 10:43 AM (#4394912)
Sticking to one's faith requires erasing logic.

Eh. Erasing logic for faith does not mean erasing it for every sentence you write on every topic.
   113. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 23, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4394914)
Snapper, you know this makes no sense in about ten different ways. Way one: Not all sick people are old. Way two: sick people who become well contribute to society, make money, have children. It goes on. Sticking to faith is one thing, erasing logic is another.

Look at this.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/12/31/health_care_spending_by_age_america_spends_money_on_oldsters.html

A very large % of medical spending in the U.S. goes to people over 65, and beyond that, to a very small % of very sick people.

There is no productivity argument for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on these people. Particularly for the diseases cited in this thread (e.g. Alzheimers, Parkinsons, etc.) the economic upside of treatment is almost nil.

As a society, we subsidize the treatment of these people out of pure charity, b/c we believe something about the dignity of humans. We don't do this for very sick animals; we put them down.


Attempt to answer the question yourself. If there is no magical sky castle to play your harp in for eternity if you've been a very good boy, why would you want to make yor single life on earth as healthy, comfortable, and productive as possible? Such a puzzler.


Yet the people who consume most medical care are either old or very sick, and generally in pain and otherwise suffering. We're really not improving their lives by keeping them alive. Alzheimers patients are the perfect example.

If there is no God, the Peter Singer types are right, we should just put them down, like a sick pet, and save the money.

   114. formerly dp Posted: March 23, 2013 at 10:48 AM (#4394915)
Eh. Erasing logic for faith does not mean erasing it for every sentence you write on every topic.
Fair enough. Or not:
If there is no God, the Peter Singer types are right, we should just put them down, like a sick pet, and save the money.
   115. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 23, 2013 at 10:49 AM (#4394917)
Sticking to one's faith requires erasing logic.

Eh. Erasing logic for faith does not mean erasing it for every sentence you write on every topic.

I'm sorry, but you are the ones refusing to follow your positions to their logical conclusions.

Your inability to reason logically is amply demonstrated by the fact that you all can't argue your positions without insulting my faith.

If there is no external entity (we don't have to call it God) that gives humans some special value and dignity, if we are purely material animals, then there is no logic in treating humans any different than dogs or cats or cattle.

The Singer types, and the PETA nutjobs are actually more logical. They realize that in the world view you've adopted, there is no place for human exceptionalism. There is no reason to act out of anything but pure self-interest, or utilitarianism.
   116. formerly dp Posted: March 23, 2013 at 10:51 AM (#4394918)
If there is no external entity (we don't have to call it God) that gives humans some special value and dignity, if we are purely material animals, then there is no logic in treating humans any different than dogs or cats or cattle.
Is that really how they explained it to you in church school? No wonder your morals are so twisted around.
   117. Lassus Posted: March 23, 2013 at 10:52 AM (#4394919)
Your inability to reason logically is amply demonstrated by the fact that you all can't argue your positions without insulting my faith.

And again, snapper, pardon?


If there is no external entity (we don't have to call it God) that gives humans some special value and dignity, if we are purely material animals, then there is no logic in treating humans any different than dogs or cats or cattle.

Whether it is called god or not, this is only an assumption. This assumption is logical based on faith, but it is illogical when taken in a context that does not include that faith in said external entity.

   118. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 23, 2013 at 10:55 AM (#4394921)
Is that really how they explained it to you in church school? No wonder your morals are so twisted around.

No. That's my independent logical conclusion.

Let's take an example. Say I have the choice between saving the life of my cat, or a busload of school children. If I don't believe in God, why would I save the children?

My cat makes my life better. The children do nothing for me. I won't notice if they're gone.

Extend it to 100 million people in China. If I had the choice of losing my pinky, or having them die, a pure materialist should let them die. My pinky is at least somewhat useful to me. I'll never notice the 100 million are gone.
   119. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 23, 2013 at 10:56 AM (#4394922)
. If there is no external entity (we don't have to call it God) that gives humans some special value and dignity, if we are purely material animals, then there is no logic in treating humans any different than dogs or cats or cattle.


Oh I would say the victims of the Inquisitions were treated worse than dogs or cats. But, you know, only their flimsy corporal bodies. Their souls were purified.
   120. formerly dp Posted: March 23, 2013 at 10:56 AM (#4394923)
Your inability to reason logically is amply demonstrated by the fact that you all can't argue your positions without insulting my faith.
As long as religious types continue to introduce their faith into conversations about public policy, insulting it is fair game-- "because the invisible man said so" is an argument that should have no bearing on our ability to do research about repairing spinal cord injuries.
   121. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 23, 2013 at 10:59 AM (#4394925)
As long as religious types continue to introduce their faith into conversations about public policy, insulting it is fair game-- "because the invisible man said so" is an argument that should have no bearing on our ability to do research about repairing spinal cord injuries.

False. Why does it matter where my preference set comes from? Even if God is made up, your preferences and values are equally made up.

If there's no objective truth, we're all just making #### up. It's pure preference whether anything is right or wrong.

Edit: I'm going to play DMB. We've been over this before. You all just can't face that your beliefs are based on faith, as much, or more, than mine. There's no scientific way to decide moral issues.
   122. formerly dp Posted: March 23, 2013 at 11:00 AM (#4394926)
No. That's my independent logical conclusion.
Impressive.
If I had the choice of losing my pinky, or having them die, a pure materialist should let them die. My pinky is at least somewhat useful to me. I'll never notice the 100 million are gone.
But the choice is not between "invisible man" and "pure materialism."

Your argument reduces belief to an instrument of morality-- we need to believe, not for its own sake,, but because without belief, we will have nihilism. That's a weak argument. Your faith, essentially, serves a utilitarian function, and has no intrinsic value. at least as you've articulated it.
   123. Lassus Posted: March 23, 2013 at 11:13 AM (#4394928)
Snapper, I wasn't just being flip. I'd appreciate being told where I insulted your faith, considering I was quoted in the "you all" contention regarding those insults.
   124. rr Posted: March 23, 2013 at 11:17 AM (#4394932)
If I don't believe in God, why would I save the children?


Because you're aware that the deaths of many children would be emotionally devastating to their parents and scores of others. Or because you're aware that among those children, there might be future greatness and saving them might alleviate suffering and/or aid the planet in the future. Or because you read BTF all the time, and have learned that your cat would kill and eat you if it were strong enough. Or maybe just because you know that saving the kids would make you a hero and might get your mug on TV. Any number of reasons.

As an aside, although the guys who do it are mostly guys whom I like, the religion-bashing and Catholic-bashing are often over the top at BTF. But as I have said a few times, BTF is not the Algonquin Round Table, but it is not the yahoo message boards, either. Give and get.
   125. formerly dp Posted: March 23, 2013 at 11:26 AM (#4394935)
False. Why does it matter where my preference set comes from? Even if God is made up, your preferences and values are equally made up.
This is a good question. Secularism is the answer.
If there's no objective truth, we're all just making #### up. It's pure preference whether anything is right or wrong.
Catholics fought a war against knowledge for over a thousand years, where only a privileged few were allowed to offer truth claims. Secularism was an attempt to free knowledge production from intertwined religious and feudal authorities. You can't just wipe this history away. We can argue about what should and should not be moral. But those arguments, at least in a secular society, have to be grounded in principles that have public assent, arrived at through discursive negotiation. That's step one-- if we don't take it, we're left with perpetual war over scriptural interpretation. You want all of the benefits of secularism without having to pay the cost-- which is simply this: religious beliefs cannot be the grounds for public policy decisions.
You all just can't face that your beliefs are based on faith, as much, or more, than mine.
What I can't face is that you insist on attempting to bring your religion, in all its ugliness, out into the public sphere, even after it has shown time and time again to have no capacity for moral judgement. That's the nature of my beef-- members of a religion that has no problems with its own history of torture, murder, and rape, each of which it did for no other reason than to maintain its own power-- not just lecturing the rest of us on morality, but setting the bounds for scientific research that would improve the lives of the sick. Secularism is a compromise designed to insulate religion from these sorts of critiques-- but you have to hold up your end of the bargain.
   126. rr Posted: March 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM (#4394939)
Superhero movies: I didn't see Captain America, but I did see Thor, and I thought it worked much better than I would have expected. Hemsworth did a good job, and the CGI Asgaard was fun to look at.

I did not see the Spiderman reboot. I get the whole reboot thing from the painfully obvious economic perspective, but I thought that one was too soon even by those standards. I hope they try Daredevil again; I always liked that character, and I think a good movie could be made about him.
   127. formerly dp Posted: March 23, 2013 at 11:35 AM (#4394942)
Or because you read BTF all the time, and have learned that your cat would kill and eat you if it were strong enough.
This might be the most useful bit of knowledge I've gained on BTF.

I enjoyed Thor as well-- not brilliant, but didn't try to be, and it captured the spirit of the character nicely. I put Thor and Captain America in the same category-- not as good as the Iron Man films, but I like the characters more, so was happy to see them. Didn't see Spiderman; I will at some point, but am not in a hurry...just seems pointless.

A little off the beaten path: Wanted really disappointed me-- if your only contact with the story was through the film, the comic is worth reading. Same goes for Kick-Ass, though to a lesser extent.
   128. Lassus Posted: March 23, 2013 at 11:43 AM (#4394944)
Wanted really disappointed me

That film was pure crap.

I liked Thor but found Captain America way way to origin-heavy and overall rather boring. Not enough super-soldiering.
   129. formerly dp Posted: March 23, 2013 at 11:46 AM (#4394945)
That film was pure crap.
The comic series is awesome. I'm not one of those "the book is always better" people-- but they took out all of the awesomely weird metaphysical stuff story in translating the story to screen.
   130. Jim Wisinski Posted: March 23, 2013 at 12:16 PM (#4394953)

Let's take an example. Say I have the choice between saving the life of my cat, or a busload of school children. If I don't believe in God, why would I save the children?

My cat makes my life better. The children do nothing for me. I won't notice if they're gone.

Extend it to 100 million people in China. If I had the choice of losing my pinky, or having them die, a pure materialist should let them die. My pinky is at least somewhat useful to me. I'll never notice the 100 million are gone.


Yet people don't generally act like this so that stands as proof that religion isn't necessary for people to have morals and act decently.
   131. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: March 23, 2013 at 12:39 PM (#4394959)
The problem is that snapper is a sociopath, as far as I can tell, who only behaves well because he has an irrational fear of going to hell. So he assumes that's the only way to motivate people to do good. It's a ridiculous and corrupt view of the universe, but there you have it.

And I'm a little bit stunned that people compliment his deportment in these conversations. He's a self-righteous prig at pretty much every opportunity.
   132. steagles Posted: March 23, 2013 at 12:53 PM (#4394960)
I hope they try Daredevil again; I always liked that character, and I think a good movie could be made about him.
what, you didn't like the one with ben affleck and michael clarke duncan and joe pantoliano and kevin smith and oscar platt and colin farrell?
   133. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 23, 2013 at 12:56 PM (#4394961)
The problem is that snapper is a sociopath, as far as I can tell, who only behaves well because he has an irrational fear of going to hell. So he assumes that's the only way to motivate people to do good. It's a ridiculous and corrupt view of the universe, but there you have it.

And I'm a little bit stunned that people compliment his deportment in these conversations. He's a self-righteous prig at pretty much every opportunity.


Again, insults instead of arguments. Characteristic of those who can not argue their position logically, or don't have a logical position. Ad hominem attacks are the lowest form of discourse.

Apparently you don't recognize the rhetorical techniques of taking things to their logical extreme, or playing devils advocate. I don't actually believe people are mere animals.

I am the furthest thing from a sociopath. I may be a bit of a misanthrope (I don't know why one wouldn't be given the world we inhabit) but I believe people have inherent dignity as creatures of God; even though we all tend towards sin. That is why we should treat each other well, not out of mere fear of Hell, or maudlin sentimentality. Though, we should all fear Hell.

   134. cmd600 Posted: March 23, 2013 at 01:03 PM (#4394963)
He's a self-righteous prig at pretty much every opportunity


Regardless of their position on this issue (and not comic book movies) who isn't in this thread? There's little actual conversation in this thread, and a bunch of talking past each other because those other dummies just don't get it. My favorite part of the political thread is when we have to discuss whose self-righteousness and insults are truly the worst.
   135. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 23, 2013 at 01:05 PM (#4394964)
Secularism is a compromise designed to insulate religion from these sorts of critiques-- but you have to hold up your end of the bargain.

Secularism is a religion. It's creed is the individual as the sole arbiter of morality, and to insulate the wealthy and powerful from any moral restraint.

In the area of abortion alone, your faith has more blood on its hands, in the last 50 years, than all the misdeeds committed in the name of my Church in 2000 years. Of course, you conveniently salve your conscience with a Stalin-esque definition of unborn children as "non-persons".

Now back to DMB. cmd600 is correct; there is no conversation going on here. It's a waste of time.
   136. formerly dp Posted: March 23, 2013 at 01:15 PM (#4394965)
Characteristic of those who can not argue their position logically, or don't have a logical position.
There's an argument there; you opted not to engage with it because doing so is inconvenient. The problem with your argument is that it's easy to flip it, like Voxter and I did.
but I believe people have inherent dignity as creatures of God;

And this is the issue-- you can get all of that without the words "believe" and "creatures of god." I'm not really interested in rehashing this either, I just want your Dark Ages beliefs out of our research labs. So long as you continue attempting to put them there, you open them and the institution from which they were derived up to criticism. You don't get to inject your faith into public discourse, and then state the terms within which people are to engage it.
Secularism is a religion. It's creed is the individual as the sole arbiter of morality, and to insulate the wealthy and powerful from any moral restraint.
But it's not. It's a solution to an impasse. That you refuse to recognize that such an impasse existed is your problem, not mine. What you're advocating for is a permanent state of holy war waged by a theocracy on its enemies both foreign and domestic. Just so we're clear on some basics.
In the area of abortion alone, your faith has more blood on its hands, in the last 50 years, than all the misdeeds committed in the name of my Church in 2000 years.
I know the Catholic church has been too busy working to keep rapey priests raping to be bothered with facts, but even if we grant the premise in your silly book that abortion=murder, this still doesn't come remotely close to being true. And the last 50 years doesn't do your side a lot of favors, either-- you have a lot of blood on your hands for perpetuating the HIV crisis in Africa.
   137. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: March 23, 2013 at 01:19 PM (#4394967)
Don't worry Snaps, God forgives you for how much you loathe your own humanity ...
   138. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: March 23, 2013 at 01:28 PM (#4394973)
Snapper, you have more patience and restraint than I do. Thank you for speaking truth again, even as you are bombarded with self-satisfied ignorance and arrogance.
Snapper:
If you don't believe in God, why do you care so much about medical research? We're all going to die, what difference does it make if some people die sooner. Better not to waste society's resources on the old and sick.

This is precious.
   139. Publius Publicola Posted: March 23, 2013 at 01:59 PM (#4394981)
Again, insults instead of arguments.


OK, I'll give you an argument. You say that using adult stem cells for research is OK but pluripotent stem cells are not because pluripotent have the capacity to become human beings while adult stem cells do not.

But you have the science wrong. It has never been shown that you could take a human pluripotent stem cell line and make a human being with it. Even if you were allowed to try, which you aren't by the way because it's illegal, but even if you could, you would have to find a women who is willing to loan her womb for about 8 months, if the experiment worked the first time, which it almost certainly would not. That would be a tough row to hoe.

Second, it is theoretically possible to de-differentiate adult stem cells and create offspring. Dolly the sheep was not made from pluripotent stem cells, you know, it was made from somatic cells of the mammary gland. So, to adopt your ethos, every human living cell is a potential human being that deserves protection from the law.

The idea that adult stem cells are a replacement for pluripotent stem cells in research is not founded on sound scientific principles, it is founded on religious/political theory masquerading as science. There's a lot of that going around these days, and this republic is a lot worse of for it.
   140. odds are meatwad is drunk Posted: March 23, 2013 at 02:15 PM (#4394983)
Biglou, I havnt seen the Hobbit, but i am excited to see it knowing they used other history from the books to help fill the world it. And indeed it is one of the best books he wrote, the creation of the world and the events that shaped it are interesting, would be worth a movie, plus lots n lots of battles
   141. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 23, 2013 at 03:43 PM (#4395010)
Or because you're aware that among those children, there might be future greatness and saving them might alleviate suffering and/or aid the planet in the future.

Sounds like a good argument against abortion.
   142. tfbg9 Posted: March 23, 2013 at 05:57 PM (#4395056)
Attempt to answer the question yourself. If there is no magical sky castle to play your harp in for eternity if you've been a very good boy, why would you want to make yor single life on earth as healthy, comfortable, and productive as possible? Such a puzzler.


Nice imitation of a 7th grade theology question, by our resident Pocket Bigot.

The theology doesn't say YR will get into Heaven by being a good boy. YR cannot earn Heaven, as it is infinite, it is eternity. The way into heaven is by admitting you're a bad boy and begging to be forgiven by the only One who can forgive you.
   143. Publius Publicola Posted: March 23, 2013 at 06:34 PM (#4395067)
The way into heaven is by admitting you're a bad boy and begging to be forgiven by the only One who can forgive you.


Forgiveness for what exactly? I mean, I've done some thoughtless and selfish things from time to time but nothing that really merits eternal torture. If God is so loving and forgiving, then why would he force you, under threat of torture, to ask forgiveness for paltry transgressions? It seems to me the greater transgression is his, torturing people via eternal damnation merely for lack of sufficient subservience.
   144. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 23, 2013 at 06:38 PM (#4395071)
Forgiveness for what exactly? I mean, I've done some thoughtless and selfish things from time to time but nothing that really merits eternal torture. If God is so loving and forgiving, then why would he force you, under threat of torture, to ask forgiveness for paltry transgressions? It seems to me the greater transgression is his, torturing people via eternal damnation merely for lack of sufficient subservience.

Well, we've got a healthy does of pride. That's one of the 7 biggies.
   145. Publius Publicola Posted: March 23, 2013 at 06:48 PM (#4395076)
Well, it's pretty obvious god's is even worse. Isn't he being a bit of a hypocrite, punishing for the same sin he's guilty of in spades?

And if it's so important to him that we extend sufficient fealty to him, what is the purpose of him keeping himself a secret? Surely, since he created us, he knew that there is a large proportion of his creations who are naturally skeptical of grandiose claims. Why did he give us reason if he wanted us to not use it?
   146. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: March 23, 2013 at 06:56 PM (#4395080)
Well, we've got a healthy does of pride. That's one of the 7 biggies.


Eh, he's human. What's god's excuse?

[edit] Mexican coke to PP
   147. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 23, 2013 at 07:07 PM (#4395083)
Pride is the only sin that belongs on the Top Seven List (or Top One List). Envy would be in the on-deck circle.

The others are too situational to get the big brush stroke. One can pursue the Seven Cardinal Virtues to a bad end (e.g. patience, chastity, charity) just as one can sloth or wrath themselves into oblivion.
   148. Jim Wisinski Posted: March 23, 2013 at 07:20 PM (#4395089)
Serious question: From what is the fetuses (and apparently embryos as well) are humans viewpoint of religious people derived? Is it from something that's actually in the bible or is it just something that was decided on by somebody in one of the churches at some point and became accepted as a basic article of faith by most Christian religions? Also, how do Muslims and Jews feel about abortion?
   149. Traderdave Posted: March 23, 2013 at 07:53 PM (#4395097)
Also, how do Muslims and Jews feel about abortion?


Like most Catholics, they believe it's always wrong for others, and also themselves until they're in a tight spot, when an exception can be made.
   150. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 23, 2013 at 08:43 PM (#4395115)
42. Jolly Old St. Nick Done Jumped The Ship Posted: March 22, 2013 at 07:36 AM (#4394070)

What is it with these guys?

This is what it is with these guys.


Thanks. Tom da Bug is huge. Huge! There really isn't anything better out there. Some as good, but nothing better.

I have told my children (and ex) to do whatever with my mortal remains (since I am done with them),...


How old are you?

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it, but assuming I don't make it to the Singularity and its high-fidelity whole brain emulation I'd give some thought to the digital equivalent of having my head frozen if it meant a shot at immortality. We're talking here about a disc storing several minutes of perfect fidelity, real time, brain MRI. Once you've got that, it's only a matter of time before your consciousness can be re-created.

Your neurons may vary.

I thought it was fun. Not great. I dug Avengers, and am maybe the only person alive who enjoyed the Hulk films. But I went into the with low expectations, and was unbothered by the CGI.

The Avengers showed that the Hulk could work in a movie, if they would just not waste their time with the plodding story and go and have fun with this creature. He's Jeckyll and Hyde, we get it... Now show him smashing stuff, and make sure it's an unambivalent badguy.


Hulk needs a real actor when he's Banner, probably more so than any other superhero 'out of costume' (though Downey showed how much fun a real actor out of uniform could be), to make his pain believable. Bana wasn't that actor, while Norton was. Ruffalo was also that actor.

Btw, one of the best scenes in Avengers was when Ruffalo 'threatened' to turn when he was alone with Johannsen. It needn't be 'an unambivalent badguy' for Hulk's menace to work onscreen.

I think the importance of an origin story increases significantly when the protagonist has superpowers and wears a costume. Characters like McLane or Bond or Jones (or countless other examples like the samurai in Yojimbo or the man with no name in the Sergio Leone films, etc.) have exceptional talents but they all involve doing otherwise ordinary things extraordinarily well. When the hero is running around doing impossible things, I think the audience quite naturally wants to know how he or she came about these powers and why he or she chooses to exercise them while wearing a silly uniform.


Consider, though, how well the Bond 'origin' in the newest Casino Royale worked, both to establish the new Bond's particularly gritty tone and how he became what he became, but more important to give context for the later and effective wrestling he does with 'what's left of his soul' once he's alone with whatshername.
   151. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 23, 2013 at 09:15 PM (#4395123)
Tom da Bug is huge. Huge! There really isn't anything better out there. Some as good, but nothing better.

For a combination of imaginative humor, humane values, memorable characters, and an ability to go straight for the jugular, I can't think of any political cartoonist going back to Oliphant, Herblock, Art Young or Thomas Nast who tops Ruben Bolling. Part of it is likely that he's not under the constraints that those four were, but goddam, is he ever a voice for sanity in this insane asylum of 21st century American politics. I only wish he could be persuaded to do a lampoon of some of our BTF threads, even if I might not like how I came out.

EDIT: For the first time I just noticed that adding an "n" to "goddam" brings the nanny in from the bullpen. We have a very subtle nanny.
   152. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 23, 2013 at 09:21 PM (#4395126)

The way into heaven is by admitting you're a bad boy and begging to be forgiven by the only One who can forgive you.

Forgiveness for what exactly? I mean, I've done some thoughtless and selfish things from time to time but nothing that really merits eternal torture. If God is so loving and forgiving, then why would he force you, under threat of torture, to ask forgiveness for paltry transgressions? It seems to me the greater transgression is his, torturing people via eternal damnation merely for lack of sufficient subservience.


It's a worldview that's nothing short of insane. We're not particularly well made. Many of us were abused as children, which makes it rather difficult to believe there's a God up there looking out for us. And yet, if we don't get it right in the few years given to us, if we struggle, if we're not really convinced not only that God exists, but that the right God exists, what we get isn't some sort of neutral afterlife, somewhat similar to this one, but perhaps with more protection against evil, but an eternity of torment. It's like blinding an infant with a poker for missing the toilet, except that it's much, much worse.

Telling Africans (and anyone else, of course) in the middle of an AIDs epidemic not to use condoms is criminally insane. It's entirely beyond the pale to knowingly counsel people to take actions you know with certainty will cause them to suffer years of agony before dying horrifying deaths.

The idea that you, snapper, would wonder at how people without God can operate morally in this lifetime is so delusional I'm completely at a loss for anything else to say.
   153. Swedish Chef Posted: March 23, 2013 at 09:34 PM (#4395132)
From what is the fetuses (and apparently embryos as well) are humans viewpoint of religious people derived?

8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.
   154. booond Posted: March 23, 2013 at 09:39 PM (#4395134)
10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.


If there are no pictures it didn't happen.
   155. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 24, 2013 at 02:41 AM (#4395200)
Well, we've got a healthy does of pride. That's one of the 7 biggies.


I understand idolatry is popular amongst certain subsets. That's one of the ten biggies.
   156. Jack Keefe Posted: March 24, 2013 at 10:36 AM (#4395228)
Well now I see that O'Nan is in the thread and Al this is my chance to contibute. Today is Pam Sunday and I asked my Parrish Priest Father Michael Cornelius McGillicuddy what was so wrong about O'Nan. I said Father at least O'Nan was not watching some kind of Antimated Porno when he spilt his seed. At least he was not thinking about Farm Animules. And Father Mack said to me Keefe this is why you will spend a good Billion Years in Purgatory. You do not have a keen sense of Sin Keefe, your Will is Weakened and your Innerlect Darkened. So what was so wrong about O'Nan said I. Was it just that he ran it up and down the old Flagpole too often? Is it that he had too many dates with Mrs Thumb and her four Daughters? NO said Father Mack can you read Keefe wait dont answer that. See where in the Scipture it says he spilt his seed on the Ground. That is messy and who had to clean it up do you think? His mom or maybe some poor Chamber Made. No Keefe if extra fluid must be unloosed be careful to have a Hanky or maybe some kleenex Double Ply though Al. When Manny Ramirez felt the need of release back in his Bosox days he would get the clubhouse boy to bring him some laundred Turkish Towls. If no towls are availble then what is wrong with standing over the Sink you Sinner. He gave me a lot to think about Al and instead of casting my Bread on the Walters I think I will now wait till marriage to expend any more Keefe Essence.
   157. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 24, 2013 at 10:53 AM (#4395230)
One more Primey for Jack to go on a shelf that's packed with them.
   158. formerly dp Posted: March 24, 2013 at 11:21 AM (#4395234)
If there are no pictures it didn't happen.
The lord did a lot of slewing in those days. I definitely would not have hung out with that guy-- sounds like he's got a little Joe Pesci in Goodfellas thing going on-- will just beat a ############ to death because he's having a bad day or doesn't like the guy's haircut.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Traderdave
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(2771 - 11:49am, Sep 17)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(180 - 11:47am, Sep 17)
Last: NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!)

NewsblogSteven Matz, other top minor league Mets to be honored at Citi Field on Monday
(43 - 11:44am, Sep 17)
Last: Conor

NewsblogPedro pens a letter to Clayton Kershaw
(29 - 11:44am, Sep 17)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogA’s lose Triple-A Sacramento affiliate
(62 - 11:40am, Sep 17)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(826 - 11:34am, Sep 17)
Last: The Good Face

NewsblogChris Davis Rescues Man Pinned Under Truck
(28 - 11:34am, Sep 17)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogBryan Cranston’s One-Man Baseball Play Inspired By ‘Looney Tunes’ Is Incredible
(46 - 11:27am, Sep 17)
Last: Batman

NewsblogWith 8-2 win Tuesday, Orioles clinch first American League East title since 1997
(14 - 11:25am, Sep 17)
Last: Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq.

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-17-2014
(11 - 11:23am, Sep 17)
Last: Batman

NewsblogRyan Zimmerman Watches Nats Celebrate From Afar
(1 - 11:23am, Sep 17)
Last: Jeff Francoeur's OPS

NewsblogNed Yost Is The Worst Manager, Except For All The Other Managers
(46 - 11:11am, Sep 17)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogNew approach on offense has Pirates in playoff contention this season
(19 - 11:01am, Sep 17)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogBarry Svrluga, WaPo: Washington Nationals can celebrate the present — and their future
(1 - 10:35am, Sep 17)
Last: Dingbat_Charlie

NewsblogCalcaterra: Derek Jeter got a bucket of crabs and a captain’s hat from the Orioles
(21 - 10:31am, Sep 17)
Last: JE (Jason)

Page rendered in 0.7699 seconds
52 querie(s) executed