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 0.5684 seconds
50 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.
Peter Angelos has, I think, donated money to every political candidate in America except Bush and Kerry.
And I can't think of a time I've not sided with Miller. Except when he refused to sign an autograph for me in '76. He assured me I didn't want to get his autograph, but some of the players' autographs. Considering that the players he was refering to were the 1976 Washington Diplomats, he was woefully wrong.
Oh, absolutely. I'd guess he makes far more from ESPN than he does from the Giants. Which makes sense, since Sunday Night Baseball is probably watched by 10 times as many people as a week's worth of Giants broadcasts put together.
Come on, pops Ernie Harwell came up with that much. Of course Ernie Harwell never had to bail W. out.
Also, I have no idea what Vaux is trying to say in #10.
As a former FEC analyst, my favorite "Occupation/Name of Employer" info came from a 2000 Buchanan supporter, who provided "Pat, why does the federal government want to know this about me?" and "God," respectively.
diEE, outta curiousity, how come you couldn't make it to Cincinnati this weekend?
Large donations (I believe the level is over $500) must be attributed to a specific individual and reported to the FEC. If someone--even a broker or business partner or investment company--were to donate in your name, they and the campaign that received the money would be in violation of several federal election laws.
Maybe you're referring to something else? The fact that all of us with any investments presumably end up "giving" tiny portions of money to candidates through the companies we've invested in. That's true, but not relevant to this list, since in those cases the donations come from the company or company officers.
I've listened to him since his rookie year, and he always struck me as a fully evolved mensch, but now I'll have to rethink that.
Harwell is also a diappointment -- Tiger Stadium Fan Club members who've dealt with him say that he's a very decent guy.
Maybe Scully is only half-bad, since he has given only 50% of the max. allowed.
(So far...)
Combination of me getting sick and me having too much work to do this week. I did get a nice message on my answering machine from Mike Webber and Joe Dimino, though, who sounded like they'd spent much of the convention in the hotel bar... I'm sorry I missed that.
And speaking of Scully, in 1976 Joe Garagiola actively campaigned for Jerry Ford, and (IIRC) did a series of promotional TV interview spots with him as well.
Did Ford play baseball without a helmet, too?
I am speaking as a lifelong democrat turned Republican (1997), who understands that not all Republicans are Count Dracula and not all Democrats are Captain America...There is a hell of a lot more to meaningful political discourse in this country than just "rootin" for your guy to win and chastizing anyone whose viewpoint may be different...this goes for both sides of the political spectrum.....
He also donated $2000 to Bush and $1000 to former Democrat-turned-Bush-lackey Norm Coleman.
And I'm not surprised so many oldtime baseball people campaign for the GOP. The last immortal I can think of who stumped for the Democrats was Stan Musial, who campaigned for JFK and was a major McGovern backer in 1972.
Jim Bouten was a member of the New Jersey delegation at the 1972 Democratic Convention.
A wonderful and important baseball personality to be sure, but as a player, not in the "immortal" category.
I was going to post something to this effect, but Ron beat me to it and said it much better than I could have.
But you still can't hit worth a lick, Ron. And what was that peach fuzz on your chin all about? For most of your career, you looked like a 15-year-old trying to pass for an adult.
You are a class traitor and will be butchered like the goat you are. [/wingnut Maoism]
What can one expect of an effete Ivy Leaguer?
Bucknell is not the Ivy League. Eddie Collins was an effete Ivy Leaguer.
I concur. Tim hardaway is an effete Miner.
I think it has something to do with the catcher position. After all, Tom Prince looked like he was thirteen even when he was approaching his forties.
If he had paced himself during warm-ups, he wouldn't have been so tired once the war started.
I bet he was dodging service at Bucknell, instead of fighting Spain or the Filipinos in 1898.
I understand Emilio Aguinaldo was the Ichiro of his time. Little guy who rarely hit with maximum power, but was effective at harrassing his opponents.
Later on, Einstein started vacationing in that area (not for the TB sanitarium, though) and--I am ashamed to say--my grandfather was actually much more excited to recount his Einstein viewings than his Mathewson encounters.
With all due respect to Christy Mathewson, why on Earth would be be ashamed of that. I assume you mean Albert Einstein, and not his namesake the comic or his brother, Super Dave.
And if you don't get the reference, look up Albert Brooks birthname. And who his brother is.
Actually, Joe Theisman's favorite, Norman Einstein.
I don't think that's terribly unusual--people want to have all their bases covered.
I would say that the point at which you start giving thousands of dollars to both of two opposing candidates to "cover your bases" is the point in your life to say, "I have too much money."
Actually, looking at Lucchino, it appears he gave money to Bush in 1999, and to Kerry in 2001--nothing really unusual about that, as they weren't running against each other at the time.
Or Primer posters:
For instance . . . .
Not a big surprise, eh?
He gives a TON of money to the Democrats in soft money, too.
The site's soft-money DB isn't totally up-to-date, it appears, but check out some of his prior donations.
And he still found money to sign Marty Cordova.
What a guy :)
For instance . . . .
Cool, now I know who to look up in Louisville when I need a place to crash on my cross-country flight from Johnny Law.
Nope, it is not. For anyone who cares, Sidney Feldman is not my real name, so I'm not the Sidney Feldman in the database who gave to Arlen Specter, Max Cleland, Zell Miller and George W. Bush.
I did contribute to Kerry, though.
Why not? do you hate freedom?
Santorum, and other individuals and organizations I've never heard of.
Also, a certain A. Akbar gave $1,000 to Kerry. You can't make this stuff up, kids.
Coretta Scott King likes Hillary. Spike Lee likes Hillary and also Bill Bradley.
Bruce Springsteen and wife also gave Bradley $2,000. Eddie Vedder, $2,000 to Nader. Paul Simon donated to both Chris Dodd and Hillary, while Art Garfunkel gave to Bill Bradley. Dweezil Zappa is a Gore-lover.
Pat Boone, meanwhile, gave lots of money to Dubya. That's reason enough in itself not to vote for the man.
Several different people named Michael Moore gave money to George W. Bush. Ken Burns, meanwhile (the real one), is a Kerry guy, big surprise.
John Kerry's billionaire wife gave him $2,000, which I find amusing for some reason.
Abe Lincoln and George Washington each made contributions to the "National Federation of Independent Businesses." Looks like somebody's having a little fun with the ol' FEC.
I always thought of Michael Jordan as a Republican for some reason, but it looks like he gave some big-time cash to Barack Obama. Phil Knight, on the other hand, gave $5,000 to Nike, which must have been an interesting transaction.
Pat Boone was one of the celebrities trotted out by Rick Santorum at his post-FMA-failure press conference. Hilarious (you have to click on the link).
Phil Knight, on the other hand, gave $5,000 to Nike, which must have been an interesting transaction.
Probably some sort of Nike charity fund. My company has one of those that you can donate a portion of your paycheck towards, with the proceeds going to inner city literacy programs. Some firms match employee contributions, I can't remember if mine does.
Pat Boone can't be all bad. His books of life and love advice to teenagers (circa 1959-1960) are absolutely hilarious. He didn't mean them to be, but they are, never the less.
Remind me again why Stan Musial is my favorite non-Red Sox player ever?
Charles Barkley's Grandmother: "Charles, how can you even think of being a Republican? They only care about rich people."
Barkley: "Nana, I'm rich."
This was years ago - Barkley has since given up on running for governor of Alabama as a Republican.
Is this because you think Bush is evil, or do you classify the entire party as a party of evil? And by evil do you mean deliberately malicious or so incompetent that evil consequences result? Just trying to understand where you're coming from.
I gave to Dean, so I feel foolish now.
When Bill Bradley was opposing Al Gore in the Democratic primary four years ago, I remember Michael Jordan being one of the more outspoken Bradley supporters.
I don't think that's fair. I can understand people giving money to McCain, or Schwarzenegger, or Mike Ditka, or lots of other Republicans. One of my best friends works for Rudy Giuliani, and he's not evil.
But I just can't wrap my head around someone who looks at George W. Bush and is so impressed with the job he's done as president that he wants to give his own money to make sure he can do that job for four more years. I guess the estate-tax-hating, pre-emptive-war-waging, Osama-Bin-Laden-ignoring, homosexual-loathing, deficit-spending-loving wing of the Republican Party is bigger than I think.
I can't really see any reason to vote for Bush, other than the fact that he isn't a democrat. I think most of his support will be from people just following the party lines, which is precisely why others will vote for Kerry.
There's so little difference in the two anyway. Any difference is either trivial or a difference in public perception. The closest I could find a difference between them is Kerry's healthcare plan, but then he nominates Edwards as VP, whose trials have done so much to cause the problems.
No, but he did redefine pathologically paranoid bullying jerkiness for the new millennium.
When one thinks of Rudolph W. Giuliani, one should always think of Desmond Robinson's "forgiveness."
What an utterly moronic diatribe.
I don't know about that, but it seems like a pretty fair assessment of the baseball player & owner elite class, doesn't it? Well, I don't know how they feel about ignoring Osama, but you can see why they'd hate the estate tax, gay-bashing is still rampant amongst ballplayers, and aren't 31 or so of the 32 teams into deficit spending....
I couldn't disagree more. There may be some areas in which their public statements don't seem much different, but I don't see how you can think that Kerry would have implemented the same tax cuts, or gone to war in Iraq, or pushed the FMA like Bush did.
Also, beyond the policy distinctions, I just think the governing style of Kerry (or just about anyone else) would be substantially different from Bush's--the extreme secrecy, the dishonesty (i.e. regarding the cost of the prescription drug benefit), the extreme partisanship.
That's just insane. You're not going to vote for a candidate even though you acknowledge that you'd like him to win? Is this just so you don't have to dirty your angelic hands with the "amoral" likes of John Kerry?
Well, if you live someplace where it's already a foregone conclusion that Kerry is going to win, I could understand voting for a third-party candidate just to make a point.
--------
That's just insane. You're not going to vote for a candidate even though you acknowledge that you'd like him to win?
How is that insane? If I as a voter feel neither candidate deserves my vote, you think I should be obligated to vote for one of them anyway?
I didn't vote for either Bush or Gore in 2000, even though I hoped Gore would win. I did this for a couple of reasons:
1) I really, really disliked Al Gore at the time. He didn't deserve my vote. But I wanted him to win on the lesser-of-two-evils principle. (Interestingly, I think more highly of Gore now than I did then. Like Dole in 1996, after losing the election Gore became somewhat more genuine, more willing to say what he believed and less like a politician wind-up doll.)
2) I lived in a state where the outcome in 2000 was a foregone conclusion. I could have voted for Tommy Chong and it wouldn't have made any difference. So I chose to vote for Nader, the candidate with whom I agreed on most of the issues. What's so insane about that? Isn't that what elections are supposed to be all about -- voting for the candidate you believe in?
3) My vote for Nader potentially had far more impact than a vote for Gore would have. First, it would serve as notice to the Democrats that in order to gain the votes of people on the far left like myself, they were going to have to change their policies somewhat. And second, if enough people nationwide had voted for Nader, the Green Party, a party I identify with more then either the Republicans or Democrats, could have surpassed the 5% threshold required to secure federal campaign financing in future elections.
So tell me, why is that insane again?
I agree. John Kerry was a Yale grad from a wealthy Massachusetts family, while George Bush was a Yale grad from a fabulously wealthy Massachusetts family.
I was thinking more along the lines of appointees to SCOTUS and other federal courts, taxes, international diplomacy, civil liberties, and civil rights.
I couldn't care less what type of family the candidate was raised in or whether he/she is wealthy.
Muslims - how many times has Bush refered to Islam as a religion of peace?
foreigners - You are talking about the same President that tried to push what amounted to amnesty for illegal aliens, right?
terrorists - if they actually are terrorists - we're supposed to hate them. After all, they are trying to kill us.
The biggest pandering to hatred in this country is the whole Michael Moore crowd, which, thankfully, Kerry hasn't embraced.
I don't hate Bush or understand the unreasonable hatred towards him from probably 1/3 of the country. I think he would make a fine ex-president and look forward to seeing him in that new job.
That wasn't insane at the time, but it would be this time around. (Well, "insane" is obviously hyperbole; I prefer "indefensible.") Now, we have knowledge of what happened in 2000, and the actual difference a few hundred votes can make.
And don't tell me that the outcome is a foregone conclusion; no one thought a few hundred votes would make a difference in New Mexico last time around.
It seems to me that all a liberal needs to know is that conservatives are fighting hard to get Nader on the ballot in as many states as possible. If they want to give you the opportunity to vote for him, it can't possibly be a good idea for you to take them up on it.
Would you have voted for Nader in a swing state?
And second, if enough people nationwide had voted for Nader, the Green Party, a party I identify with more then either the Republicans or Democrats, could have surpassed the 5% threshold required to secure federal campaign financing in future elections.
Which would be a huge boost to Republican presidential candidates for the next couple decades...
If you think Kerry/Gore is better than Bush, the decision boils down to: Is it more important for you to feel better about voting for a hopeless candidate than for 280 million Americans to benefit from having a better president?
If there are only two reasonable candidates, and you hope one of them wins, I think you're doing yourself a disservice if you don't vote for them.
I should have added a caveat like "unless you've already decided that your vote doesn't mean anything anyway." In which case, of course, a vote for Nader is just as futile as a vote for Kerry or Bush.
1) I really, really disliked Al Gore at the time. He didn't deserve my vote.
Why? He seemed to me like a person who had dedicated most of his life to his country, and genuinely wanted to make things better. I can understand people who disagree with him, but I don't know why people -- especially admitted lefties -- would dislike him.
Or New Hampshire...
Well, the decision could be to change the voting system to allow the possibility of a previously "hopeless" candidate outside the 1 1/2 existing parties to get elected.
The fact that nobody has any hope that their third party vote will be useful in the process only contributes to general apathy towards the political process. In other words, if there is only two options, and you continually dont like one, why even bother paying attention.
Okay, return to Bush-bashing.
Perot was far more popular in 1992 and 1996 than Nader was in 2000. Did that change anything?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main