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 1.0003 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.
And to avoid this fate, watch the Saudi Arabia royal family send billions for the Yankees to beef up their payroll, and keep these kids out of the streets and watching a Yankee world series.
the Navy Seal that offed Bin Laden was wearing a Big Papi jersey
KHADAFY KILLED BY YANKEE FAN
Gunman had more hits than A-Rod
KHADAFY KILLED BY YANKEE FAN
Gunman had more hits than A-Rod
That's gotta be in the top 3 NYP headlines, up there with
STAR WARS PLAN TO ZAP RED NUKES
and the one that grafted a weasel's head onto the French ambassador at the UN, though in that case we probably should've listened to the weasel.
Why don't you go over to the Kendrick thread and watch the Obama supporters yuck it up about someone blowing someone else's head off on their porch, you dope.
What the hell does that have to do with war, excrement for brains?
Behold the fierce moral urgency of change!
I enjoy the various Post headlines about Lindsay Lohan. Jail-Loh might be my favorite as it works on many, many levels. So many levels.
At least this guy actually got a couple of the folks he was after, unlike the previous bumbler in chief who couldn't seem to hit water if you put him in the ocean with a map and a compass. For a group that prides itself on being all warry and deathy and stuff, it was amazing how sh1tty they were at actually prosecuting one.
Your whining was about liberals being all jokey about war AND death. Your thesis that this is somehow something having to do with Obama and liberals is just plain stupid, so I pointed out where the conservatives on the board are finding death as funny as ever by their very own selves, with no help from our current administration.
Clearer?
Behold the fierce moral urgency of change!
Oh, Good Face, no, please. We have our differences, but I've never thought you were stupid. Supporting this absurdity cannot be what you want to do. I guess that's concern trolling, but, blech, you really can't agree with this, can you?
BTW, as I did with the Osama frenzy, death is still not something to jump up and down about, IMO anyhow. So now that DOESN'T mean I hate America? Or it does? Can I not win?
No kidding. I wish I had saved links to some of those red diaper baby threads back in the day when they would fulminate for hundreds of posts on end about the Bush wars, and contrast that to the stuff we get from them now.
You watch, once a republican is back in the White House again, these guys will be right back to their old ways with all their feigned outrage, pretending how much they hate war within about a month.
Weirdly, DODGING wars isn't such good practice for WAGING wars. Ba-zing! And with that, I exit stage left lest I risk my #17 most popular poster rating.
War is so cool and awesome and hip and funny to Joey except when there's a Democrat in charge. Then, it's still coon and awesome and hip and funny, but then he has to work hard to let everyone know that the Democrat shouldn't get credit for anything good that happens anywhere, ever.
Bush, Jr. was cosmically awful at waging war effectively. His buffoonish-on-every-level "Mission Accomplished" rally was better satire than Dr. Strangelove.
Is there no park adjustment for the ones he inheirited? And you call yourself a sabermetrician? Next you'll be praising RBI!
Nixon inherited Vietnam from a bunch of Democrats and ended that war. What's stopping Obama?
Community Organizer All-Star Barack Obama Makes 8-Year Old Internet Commenter Cry
Four years later than necessary, at the cost of thousands more unnecessarily killed and wounded in action.
Sorry, but you're wrong pal. I'm thrilled that the old terrorist is dead; I wish that it had happened a long time ago. The Marines, the Pan Am Flight 103 victims, and his many other victims have finally gotten some justice after all these years. The taking out of Bin Laden and Ghadafi are about two of the only things he's gotten right in nearly three years.
Sure, I could act like you lying creeps usually do and sit here and pretend that I'm "anti-war" and outraged and that Ghadafi's killing was an unjustified murder, but I'm not going to do that one bit. I'll let you hypocrites put on that little routine once again down the road.
The young fighter in the Red Sox cap would have gotten him first but he was too busy eating batatan mubatana and drinking tea with a nice reghwet on it back in the fighter guys’ clubhouse.
Nobody has an issue with it. I think the only angle you are seeing is guys like Joey pointing out the more than obvious absurdity of liberals praising the cold-blooded killing of a "sovereign leader" just a few years removed from hysterically crying at every other use of violence and lack of rule of law.
Personally, I don't care about the political game. People can see the absurdities without having to harp on them, if you ask me.
I'm happy Obama is continuing Bush's bold policy of aggressively killing those that support terror, etc....it's a no-brainer. More killing could be a good thing, depending on who gets killed.
Is this your prediction for Obama? What's stopping Obama? He seems to have doubled down in Afghanistan with zero payoff. Iraq? Still there. Guantanamo? Yup. Just asking a question and wondering if Obama meant what he said.
I have an issue with it. How about the fact that it was none of his ####### business?
And it pissed you off so much that he got something right that you decided to throw a tantrum?
The fact that you'd parse all democrats as peace-loving hippies in communes, and that therefore snarky comments on a board makes all of them lying hypocrite is stupid and ridiculous. Dan Savage himself advocated setting terrorists on fire and throwing them off buildings by the dozen.
Be as conservative and hateful as you want, but at least try to be less hallucinatory about it. Or don't care. Whatever.
I think the only angle you are seeing is guys like Joey pointing out the more than obvious absurdity of liberals praising the cold-blooded killing of a "sovereign leader"
Er, where was this on this board, where Joey made his specifically reactive comment, exactly?
The biggest reason why republicans now have such a hard time fighting our wars effectively is because the lefty creeps of the kind that are so damn overrepresented on this board do absolutely everything in their power to prevent them from doing so.
As much as I dislike Obama, I'm willing to at least let him try to fight our wars as best as he can. Liberals refuse to make the same concession.
How's that Dopey/Cheney thing workin' out for ya?
I'm not concern trolling... we're spending billions of dollars we don't have to kill people who aren't even a serious threat to us, let alone an existential threat. I'd cheerfully vote for a presidential candidate who I believed would end our wars, bring our troops home, and slash military spending.
How you deal with your cognitive dissonance is your issue.
1) This should go without saying, but many liberals are opposed to our military actions in Libya and many of this administration's anti-terrorism measures.
2) Liberals supporting the administration's military action in Libya is no more hypocritical than Republicans opposing it -- especially after Republicans initially criticized the administration for not getting involved.
As much as I dislike Obama, I'm willing to at least let him try to fight our wars as best as he can. Liberals refuse to make the same concession.
Nobody shits the bed quite like you. Nobody!
If I didn't know better, I'd say your protestations about the proliferation of these types of threads are a bit disingenuous.
* I checked. Yup it's zero.
I have none whatsoever, actually.
(And I meant me, with the concern trolling. That I was concerned you were supporting epically stupidshit just because it was banging the liberals.)
Translation: I can't handle or rebut the truth.
Because some people that would rather do anything than give the current administration an ounce of praise regardless of what they accomplish, that's how.
Funny you should mention that, Joey...
Let me spell it out for you:
1. Iraq was a situation where we invaded another country with several hundred thousand troops on the basis of obviously (yes, obviously) doctored evidence and no respect for the international community. It's a war that cost more than a trillion dollars, de-stabilized the region, and was done for the express purpose of making the other party seem "weak on defense" for a midterm election.
2. Libya was a situation where we provided air support to an insurgency with no American troops in danger, where we acted in such a way as to increase our standing in the Arab world and the international community. It cost around a billion dollars (so a thousand times less than Iraq) and has been done with zero political grandstanding.
Gee, no difference at all! Besides the trillion dollars, thousands of lives, horrible precedent and general effectiveness, THEY'RE THE SAME THING. And the sick thing is, some of you might actually believe that.
I'm glad you cleared this up for me. I'll remember this, and I'll be watching you guys carefully the next time a republican president decides to adopt this strategy.
This is absolutely true. Democrats will always be more successful warmongers because the Republican will have to not only defeat the enemy, but the powerful liberal led opposition to any war. When a Democrat wages war, the conservative anti-war protester basically is non-existent. And the liberals mostly sit on their hands. Just a fact, that's all.
I'd actually be fair enough to state that the Qaddhafi thing was WAAAAAY easier now than it was during Bush's terms, with time, circumstance, and extant events of the Middle East contributing significantly.
The Osama thing, well, Obama was just a lot smarter than Bush.
This is absolutely true. Democrats will always be more successful warmongers because the Republican will have to not only defeat the enemy, but the powerful liberal led opposition to any war.
WTF effect did this powerful liberal-led opposition have on any war fought by the Bushes again?
No, dear, the translation is this: When you're having one of your innumerable bang-spoon-on-highchair moments, you're best ignored or mocked. Much like a toddler.
I truly wish there had been more organized liberal obstruction to Bush's pointless wars, but there wasn't. And, yes, I'm also opposed to Obama's warmongering and broken promises.
Now back to the poo fight you launched in this thread.
It's completely disingenuous to suggest Libya and Iraq are comparable in either complexity or national interest. Iraq is exponentially more complex than Libya. It's disingenuous sniping remarks like yours that set back our ability to exchange dialogue.
All you bring to the table is more tribalism and vilification of the most cynical kind.
Brilliant. Kudos.
I guess the lives of the people those bombs were landing on don't count? Or the lives of the people who now have to live in a shattered, destabilized country? That's all OK now that a guy you like is responsible for it?
Few, if any Republicans opposed action in Libya. Most did ask questions of the operation which is what should be done during a run up to a war. Asking tough questions and outright opposition are not even close to the same. I bet you couldn't even name 2 dozen Republicans that opposed Libya.
And a Pirates-Orioles World Series.
(Desperation move to bring this back to baseball to forestall the inevitable exile to the Lounge)
To the Right: if you simply congratulated Mr. Obama, you might be able to put forth the claim, which is more or less true, that these Obama victories are founded on Bush policies. By reacting the way you are, you discredit your own patriotism and appear nothing more than petty children upset that you didn't score the winning goal.
To the Left: how about we re-visit Libya in 5 years and see if this was really a victory or not? Something tells me that Tripoli isn't the new Philadelphia.
Too easy.
I think you've got the concept of "victory" a little confused. :-D
I bet you couldn't even name 2 dozen Republicans that opposed Libya.
Too easy.
Hee!
It's completely disingenuous to suggest Libya and Iraq are comparable in either complexity or national interest. Iraq is exponentially more complex than Libya. It's disingenuous sniping remarks like yours that set back our ability to exchange dialogue.
Complexity, yeah, of course. Who compared complexity?
National interest? Not buying. A very good case could be made that helping Libya to further the unprecedented events of the past year, and at a proportional fraction of the cost, is a GREATER benefit to our national interest than the Iraq debacle was, or ever could have realistically been.
I don't know...wasn't it pretty shattered and destabilized before the US (or anyone else) got involved?
I have a few Libyan friends who started studying in England at the same time as me (just months before the outbreak of violence). Luckily they brought their immediate families with them, but they still have any number of family and friends back home. In all the conversations I've had with them European and US involvement rank around #57 of things significant to them. The only influence they seem aware of is the moral support of the Western nations which they're thankful for. Obviously I'm only getting one side of it, but it sounds like outside involvement is viewed fairly positively by Libyans.
Of course this is all anecdotes, and I'm sure there were one or two Iraqis claiming the US involvement in their country was great from the get-go.
The odd thing is my closest friend came here to do his PhD in International Crisis Management, though not in his native Libya. Subsequent events have kind of brought his research closer to home.
Every one of these guys supported action in Libya, nice try. This particular vote was the GOP opposing an UNLIMITED stay in Libya. Obama promised "days" not "weeks". The effort was to put a limit on how long the operation would be funded, different than opposing or demanding an immediate end to operations. Had the GOP not been in the details of the Libya policy, there is a good chance US troops would have died, all for a relatively insignificant country of 5.5 million.
Agreed. I did just this in #36
Fine, I'm a moron - continue to prove it. Tell or show me what tangible negative effect it had on the Bushes' efforts to wage war. And that's an honest invitation, as I really have no idea of said effect. Maybe I'll learn something I didn't know.
1) They're too stupid to make arguments on more substantial grounds, or
2) They know they'll lose an argument fought on more substantial grounds.
Basically, hypocrisy arguments are really weak tea. They're a favorite of stupid/disingenuous people because they're a good way to wage ad hominem attacks while appearing to be arguing more substantial matters. But they're still ad hominem attacks, and thus basically worthless for anything other than scoring personal/tribal points.
Also, they make for boring, reductive fights. See what's happened here:
"Liberals would never be cheering this on if Bush was still in charge!"
"Oh yeah, well Republicans are just mad because a Democrat did it!"
See how this devolves into dueling advertisements over how stupid each side can be.
It's obvious Arab Spring doesn't happen without the US capturing Saddam, Iraqi's putting him on trial and executing him, then holding elections. I do agree there is an opportunistic element to this success in Libya, 5 years ago, this Libya operation could not have taken place like this. You can cry hysterically that it's not so because Bush did it, but I recommend you don't. You should be pulling for the USA, not Democrats.
That said, I find it very disappointing when Iran was ripe for a similar revolution, the Obama admin refused to lift a finger, they did the opposite, even publicly supported the fascist thugs in power in Iran. They blew a golden opportunity to throw similar support behind the people of Iran. Obama was rightly ripped by the right for his laziness and inaction. The left at the time defended it and used big words like sovereignty. Laughable in light of this weeks events. Perhaps Obama learned his lesson by blowing the opportunity and jumped on this one in Libya, granted only after he was pushed by conservatives.
ORLY?
Bingo. Obama shat on the hopes and dreams of Iranians during their Arab Spring.
Isn't this (your quoted statement) generally true, though? Are you arguing that people (on both sides) approach their analysis of an issue such as this completely objectively, without any regard for who is in office?
This strikes me as editorial opinion more than analysis, especially given the quote you used to support it.
Here's the relevant text of the bill. It's H.J. Res. 68.
225 Republicans voted against it.
More information here.
Of course, you are probably correct that most of these guys actually did think action in Libya was a good thing, but the Republican Party's current governing principle is that opposing Obama is more important than acting in the interest of the United States, so as a result you get votes like this.
I know it's been awhile, but Johnson's second full term says hi.
Obama should get credit for taking this golden opportunity. Hopefully he gets another opportunity, this time in Egypt (another previously blown one) or Iran or Syria. If we get one or two, or all of those places to flip Bush's dream of a liberated middle east may come true.
No doubt liberals got off their hands. That's why I said "mostly" not "always". There have been many wars.
Well, there is the question of whether the U.S. had any vital national interest at stake, and also the lack of Congressional authorization. In other contexts, these were deemed (by some) to be important.
That said, I don't see why there should be any surprise or regret that Khadafy got the Mussolini treatement. That's how it usually ends when a despot is finally overthrown.
secondfull term says hi.I only recall the one.
Is that enough for you to concede the point, or should I keep going?
I don't know as much about Iran, but it seems like a very different situation where any outside intervention would have had to have taken such a different form that I'm not sure how you'd compare them.
That's because he closed it one year after his inauguration.
Even if it is true, what's the relevance?
Look, our actions in Libya are either a good idea or they are not. This is true regardless of who does or doesn't support it or why they do or do not support it.
The evidence appears to show that no one in this thread has any idea if it was a good idea or not beyond some vague notion of "Qaddafi bad". But, of course, this hasn't stopped anyone here from wanting to have a very strong opinion on it, either. And instead of learning a thing or two about what's going on, they just sling mud at all the hypocrites on the other side of the ideological divide - even though the consensus here seems to be that Qaddafi being dead is a good thing and that the US action here was successful.
In other words, it's just fighting about who was more right or who was right first. And despite being a fight over nothing of substance, it's being fought with such viciousness that ape-like stupidity is the only plausible explanation.
I agree with this. And in spite of the fact that many on the left wanted to proclaim the Bush Doctrine a total failure within about a couple of years of the start of its implementation, the reality is that we are probably still many years away from learning whether or not it is vindicated in the end.
The ironic part is that, barring some major unforeseen disastrous event happening, these successes that Obama has had basically guarantee that the Bush Doctrine is going to be continue to be followed for some time to come, regardless of who wins the next election.
In short, whether in our heart of hearts we like it or not, we had all better get used to more wars, more overthrown dictators, and more terrorists killed by Predator drones, because it's going to continue.
I only recall the one.
Sort of the point.
You have to admit, invading Iraq played a big part in making it more complex. And I say this as someone who wholly believed in the initial rational for invasion — it never occurred to me that the intelligence on Iraq's ties to the Taliban and nuclear weapons could be so profoundly wrong.
I tried this already, moron. Join the club.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main