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

Saturday, May 03, 2014

[OTP - May 2014] House stadium funding package advances with Cuban baseball player provision

A bill that would enable professional sports franchises to compete for sales tax subsidies cleared a major hurdle Friday, winning overwhelming support in the Florida House.

The tax breaks would be available to professional football, basketball, hockey and soccer teams, as well as professional rodeos and NASCAR-sponsored events.

But baseball teams would have to stay on the bench — unless Major League Baseball changes its rules about Cuban baseball players.

Lawmakers added the stipulation in response to media reports that Cuban outfielder Yasiel Puig had been held hostage by human traffickers while trying to establish residency in Mexico in 2012.

Under Major League Baseball rules, players from Cuba must live in another country before they can become free agents. Cuban players who come directly to the United States are forced into the amateur draft, which limits their salaries.

“Major League Baseball [has] inadvertently created a market for human smuggling and the unequal treatment of Cuban baseball players,” said Rep. José Félix Díaz, R-Miami, who introduced the provision with Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach. “We’re not going to give away our taxpayer dollars until this ill is corrected.”

In response, the MLB issued the following statement: “While the sponsors of the bill in Florida blame MLB policies for the role of human smugglers, they do not provide any support for their premise that Cuban players must rely on traffickers to defect to countries other than the U.S. such as Mexico or the Dominican Republic, but would not need the assistance of traffickers to reach U.S. soil.”

 

Tripon Posted: May 03, 2014 at 09:38 AM | 4455 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: otp, politics

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 10 of 45 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >  Last ›
   901. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 08, 2014 at 08:50 PM (#4703136)
This really makes me mad. The last time I went to the VA, it was horrible, really long wait times, so I never went back. Fortunately, I had private insurance, so I didn't need to. I also didn't want to use the system and clog it up for other veterans who really needed the services. My dad used it all the time. He lived in Cleveland though, so maybe the hospital was better there.

I had an uncle in Aiken (S.C.) who was in and out of the VA hospital in that area (I think it was in Augusta) for the last 15 years of his life as a result of a whiplash accident he suffered when he was in his early 40's. He was a White Russian and his wife was Mrs. Tea Party who had photos of Reagan and Eisenhower and Nixon all over their house, but all I ever heard from them about the VA was that they wished that everyone in the country could be treated as well in their hospitals as he was in the VA's.

Obviously micro sample size, but until the last 10 or 15 years, pretty much everything I'd heard about the VA system was favorable, compared to the usual type of hospital treatment that the typical non-wealthy civilian patient gets.
   902. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 08, 2014 at 09:03 PM (#4703147)
No indication anyone had a problem with BBTF.

Yeah, you're retired, right?

Happily, and when I worked I usually put in 10-hour days, more than offsetting the occasional break to peruse BBTF. Never had a problem, but apparently my judgment was better than the EPA clowns, although they appear to still be on the payroll.
   903. tshipman Posted: May 08, 2014 at 09:14 PM (#4703155)
Happily, and when I worked I usually put in 10-hour days, more than offsetting the occasional break to peruse BBTF. Never had a problem, but apparently my judgment was better than the EPA clowns, although they appear to still be on the payroll.


I don't know anything about EPA porn guy, but if he really is winning performance awards (heh) while looking at porn a couple hours a day, doesn't that indicate that he's doing good work?

I mean, maybe he's looking at porn while working from home or something. Obvs, porn is not work appropriate.
   904. Publius Publicola Posted: May 08, 2014 at 09:46 PM (#4703168)
Yeah, like, Cano could have been thinking about porn while jogging out those GO's.
   905. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 08, 2014 at 09:50 PM (#4703170)
I don't know anything about EPA porn guy, but if he really is winning performance awards (heh) while looking at porn a couple hours a day, doesn't that indicate that he's doing good work?

Or the award standards are rather low?
   906. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 08, 2014 at 10:14 PM (#4703178)
The fact that the EPA is also the agency that kept a fake CIA Agent on its payroll, and gave him numerous awards & bonuses, also suggests lax standards are a factor.
   907. CrosbyBird Posted: May 09, 2014 at 01:55 AM (#4703217)
Oh my. Is there another closet telescope geek in the house? I've been taking advantage of the advances in sensor chip technology to do near-real time viewing with small telescopes from NYC. It's amazing what my rig can do - I can carry it outside and be viewing in 5 minutes, from a NYC street, but with the advantage of short integration times I can see structures in galaxies, tons of color in nebula, etc. It's a blast.

What do you do to filter out all the local light? I'm in Manhattan and I imagined that a telescope wouldn't be feasible.
   908. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 09, 2014 at 08:45 AM (#4703252)
I for one am very excited for the brand new Benghazi! house committee. This time, oh yes, this time Evil Kenyan Socialist and his side kick (The Murderess from Arkansas) will be shown for what they truly are!

So many actual issues and things to do, and this is what they spend time (and tax payer money, btw) doing. Given the make up of the GOP House though, maybe this is the most harmless thing they could be doing.


   909. JE (Jason) Posted: May 09, 2014 at 08:57 AM (#4703257)
I for one am very excited for the brand new Benghazi! house committee. This time, oh yes, this time Evil Kenyan Socialist and his side kick (The Murderess from Arkansas) will be shown for what they truly are!

So many actual issues and things to do, and this is what they spend time (and tax payer money, btw) doing. Given the make up of the GOP House though, maybe this is the most harmless thing they could be doing.

So you're still sticking with "What difference at this point does it make," never mind that more journalists are coming around on Benghazi? As for your second paragraph, you spit out the DNC talking points pretty much verbatim. Congrats.
   910. Publius Publicola Posted: May 09, 2014 at 08:58 AM (#4703258)
So many actual issues and things to do


They don't want to do anything. They're happy with the way things are now. Income inequality is growing by leaps and bounds and that's exactly they waynt it so they can keep their sponsors happy too.

So they have to appear to be doing something, so we get all the meaningless and politically- motivated busywork of Benghazi and IRS and EPA and all the rest of it.
   911. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 09, 2014 at 09:06 AM (#4703262)
Here's what the neocon Washington Post editorial board (i.e. Fred Hiatt) had to say on Benghazi just a few days ago. Cherry picking excerpts from it would only distort its message, so I'm quoting it in full, without any added emphasis. It offers little comfort to either party.:

REPUBLICANS HAVE a potentially strong case to make against the Obama administration’s handling of Libya, as the latest political developments there underline. On Sunday, a disputed vote in parliament led to the swearing-in of a new prime minister — the sixth since former dictator Moammar Gaddafi was overthrown in 2011 with the help of U.S. and NATO air forces. The new leader, an Islamist from the city of Misurata, replaced pro-Western prime minister Ali Zeidan, who was driven out of the country this year after his government proved unable to stop a militia from filling a tanker with stolen oil.

From the safety of Europe, Mr. Zeidan conceded what was obvious all along: Libya’s post-Gaddafi government has no army and no way of establishing its authority over the hundreds of militias that sprang up in the vacuum that followed the revolution. Libya has fragmented into fiefdoms, its oil industry is virtually paralyzed, massive traffic in illegal weapons is supplying militants around the region and extremist groups such as Ansar al-Sharia, which participated in the Sept. 11, 2012, assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, are unchecked.

The Obama administration and its NATO allies bear responsibility for this mess because, having intervened to help rebels overthrow Gaddafi, they then swiftly exited without making a serious effort to help Libyans establish security and build a new political order. Congress might usefully probe why the administration allowed a country in which it initiated military operations to slide into chaos.

Instead, House Speaker John Boehner announced Friday that he would ask the House to create a select committee to investigate the Benghazi attack and the administration’s alleged attempt to cover up how and why Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed. To the extent that it zeroes in on the behavior of White House aides and other U.S. officials in Washington following the Benghazi attack — as it appears likely to do — the investigation will address the least substantial and blameworthy aspect of the Libya record.

Numerous investigations and congressional hearings already have established the basic facts: U.S. intelligence agencies initially judged that the Benghazi attack was spontaneously inspired by reports of protests outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, and it “evolved into a direct assault” by heavily armed militants. That account was turned into talking points for then-Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice.

More than a year of efforts by GOP congressmen and conservative media to prove that Ms. Rice or the White House conspired to cover up the fact that Benghazi was a “terrorist attack” rather than a spontaneous act have gone nowhere, because there are no supporting facts. A recently released e-mail written by National Security Council aide Ben Rhodes reveals a not-so-scandalous proposal to argue that the Cairo and Benghazi protests did not prove “a broader failure of policy.” What’s missing is any evidence that Mr. Rhodes or anyone else knew the facts of Benghazi to be other than what was initially reported by U.S. intelligence. In fact, while an authoritative version of the Benghazi assault is still missing, the account cannot be ruled out.

Republicans may calculate that scandal-mongering about a Benghazi cover-up may rally the base before the fall’s elections. What it’s not likely to do is hold the Obama administration accountable for its actual failings in Libya.




   912. Publius Publicola Posted: May 09, 2014 at 09:13 AM (#4703266)
So you're still sticking with "What difference at this point does it make


Well, what difference does it make? The dead aren't coming back to life. Congress has control of the purse strings that mandate how much is spent on embassy security. If the GOP is unhappy there wasn't enough security or enough intelligence at Benghazi, then they should mandate a needs investigation and provide more funding support to fill the identified gaps.

The pointing of fingers is pure politics. And you know very well why it's occurring. They have identified Hillary as the frontrunner and are trying to find something to drag her down on.
   913. BDC Posted: May 09, 2014 at 09:14 AM (#4703268)
The Obama administration and its NATO allies bear responsibility for this mess because, having intervened to help rebels overthrow Gaddafi, they then swiftly exited without making a serious effort to help Libyans establish security and build a new political order. Congress might usefully probe why the administration allowed a country in which it initiated military operations to slide into chaos.


I'm struck by the parallels to the Bush (and Obama!) administration(s) overthrowing noisome governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, maintaining a huge military presence there for a decade, making a very serious effort to help Iraqis and Afghans establish security and a new political order, incurring traumatic costs, and seeing those countries slide into chaos anyway. There must be some lessons to be learned here, but I'll let others draw them.
   914. Lassus Posted: May 09, 2014 at 09:17 AM (#4703270)
So you're still sticking with "What difference at this point does it make,"

You left out the point that the article posted afterwards makes - what difference at this point does it make when there is nothing left on Benghazi on which to waste our time?

And if you are going to stick with journalists coming around on Benghazi, you can explain to the poor other journalists why you don't stick with them on global warming. You're going to hurt their feelings with this yes/no game.
   915. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 09, 2014 at 09:25 AM (#4703274)
So you're still sticking with "What difference at this point does it make," never mind that more journalists are coming around on Benghazi? As for your second paragraph, you spit out the DNC talking points pretty much verbatim. Congrats.


You are missing my point. Benghazi has never been a scandal (note: It was a tragedy, but tragedy <> scandal). The fact that the GOP desperately want it to be a scandal does not make it so.

But hey, let's pretend it is a scandal. It was a terrible thing that happened. It is not in the slightest an interesting scandal for the public. There is nothing interesting there. Diplomats who die in a dangerous foreign land is a tragedy, but is not earth shattering news. There is no great narrative to hang on it that grabs people's attention and makes it easy to follow. There is no crime or sex or skulduggery. Instead it is a mess of discussions of talking points, what the CIA said or did not say, what the military maybe could have done (if you ignore what the military says it could have done) and so on.

Many things matter that are not politically relevant. This may or may not matter (I would love to hear how exactly it does matter), but it is not relevant. It is boring, which in politics is deadly.

I have been consistent regarding Benghazi! for months and months now. I am not expressing talking points, but rather my own opinions (that may agree with the talking points).

So explain to me what exactly the narrative of the scandal is? Other than an opportunity to drum up some fundraising and try to damage HRC before 2016, what is the non-political scandal here?
   916. Publius Publicola Posted: May 09, 2014 at 09:50 AM (#4703300)
Putin celebrates defeat of German aggression, by lauding Russian aggression:

Putin Arrives in Crimea in First Visit Since Annexation
MOSCOW — Putting his personal seal on the annexation of Crimea, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia arrived in the naval port of Sevastopol on Friday, where he used the anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany to assert that Moscow had the right to take over the Black Sea peninsula.

Over the past decade, Mr. Putin has gradually turned Victory Day into a celebration of resurgent Russian power and nationalism. The visit to Sevastopol, in southwestern Crimea, the historical home of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, was a potent manifestation of his goal of reviving Russia as a global power.

The West reacted to the annexation in March with sanctions against Mr. Putin’s closest circle of advisers and against a few significant companies. By going to Sevastopol, the Russian president was effectively telling Western leaders that Moscow would do as it pleased.
   917. formerly dp Posted: May 09, 2014 at 09:55 AM (#4703303)
So explain to me what exactly the narrative of the scandal is? Other than an opportunity to drum up some fundraising and try to damage HRC before 2016, what is the non-political scandal here?
Stewart sums this up nicely. I would take the right-wing screaming about this seriously if the same people still yelling about Benghazi had uttered a peep of protest about the series of carefully-crafted lies spewed by the Bush admin. No one on the right seemed to care about the Pat Tillman cover-up, or the false story put out by the military, and embraced by the MSM, about what happened to Jessica Lynch.
   918. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 09:57 AM (#4703305)
You are missing my point. Benghazi has never been a scandal

Definition of "scandal": Something that happens when a Democrat isn't President.
   919. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 09, 2014 at 09:57 AM (#4703306)
From FiveThirtyEight.com - Midterm Election Turnout Not So Different From Presidential Year Turnout:
The demographics of who voted in 2012 vs. 2010 were different,1 but that difference didn’t make much of a difference. The reason Republicans won more votes in 2010 — and likely will in 2014 — is that voters wanted Republicans in office, not that minorities and young people didn’t turn out to vote.
. . .
Once all that’s done, the gaps between midterm turnout and presidential year turnout are even smaller. In this hypothetical 2010, Republicans would have won the national House vote by 4.1 points and taken somewhere in the neighborhood of 232 seats, good enough for a 53-seat gain. The more robust the math, the more solid the GOP’s lead.

The same thing works in reverse, when we take 2010’s turnout rates and apply them to 2012. With just midterm voters casting a ballot, President Obama would have won the national vote in 2012 by 1.2 points. That’s 2.7 points less than his actual margin in 2012, but it’s more than enough to have carried the election.5

It’s not that the demographic splits of voter turnout don’t matter. They worked in Republicans’ favor in 2010 and in Democrats’ favor in 2012; demographics just weren’t the reason either party won.6

What really mattered was that voters changed their minds about which party they wanted to vote for. Look at the voting patterns of each group. Republican congressional candidates won white voters who were at least 30 years old by 25.9 points in 2010, but Mitt Romney won them by only 20.2 points in the presidential race in 2012. Obama’s margin among black voters 30 and older was 89.4 points in 2012, while House Democrats’ margin for this group was 79.1 points in 2010.

Lots of tables that probably won't format right if I try to cut & paste, but the underlying point is that the GOP would still have taken the House in 2010 even with the 2012 turnout, and Obama would have won in 2012 even with the 2010 turnout.
   920. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 09:58 AM (#4703308)
I would take the right-wing screaming about this seriously if the same people still yelling about Benghazi had uttered a peep of protest about the series of carefully-crafted lies spewed by the Bush admin.

Sure you would.
   921. formerly dp Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:05 AM (#4703314)
Sure you would.
The troll, he demands feeding.
   922. zonk Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:16 AM (#4703323)
So you're still sticking with "What difference at this point does it make," never mind that more journalists are coming around on Benghazi? As for your second paragraph, you spit out the DNC talking points pretty much verbatim. Congrats.


Around to what?

Coming around to anything different than "turns out the talking points were bad?"

Would you say Benghazi is a worse, about the same, or not as bad a national security failing than say....

'Bin Laden determined to strike US' months before 9/11 yielding no actions to emphasize, deter, or address that threat?

Would you say Benghazi is worse, about the same, or not as bad a national security failing than say...

Reagan putting 300 marines in a poorly defended Beirut barracks against the advice of his Secretary of Defense and others?

Would you kindly rank the tragedies of Benghazi, 9/11, and the Beirut bombings -- and then, provide your assessment of the culpability/'scandal-ness' of the Obama, Bush II, and Reagan administrations respectively?

Or in simpler terms, why is it that two of those events were 'tragedies' but Benghazi a 'scandal'?
   923. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:39 AM (#4703351)
Definition of "scandal": Something that happens when a Democrat isn't President.


Scandal: an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage.



So yeah. I am not seeing Benghazi! as fitting the definition. The GOP is trying really hard to generate the "general public outrage", but I am not seeing it. Nor am I finding the moral or legal wrong, unless every mistake is a moral wrong.
   924. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:39 AM (#4703352)
Or in simpler terms, why is it that two of those events were 'tragedies' but Benghazi a 'scandal'?\

Because the potential scandal in Benghazi is the (potential) lying and phony accounts of what happened. That's what converts a tragedy or a ####-up into a scandal.

Lies obviously don't have the political force they once did, primarily because of the Democrats lining up en masse to defend Clinton's lies, but there's your answer.
   925. zonk Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:42 AM (#4703357)
Because the potential scandal in Benghazi is the (potential) lying and phony accounts of what happened.


I see... and there was no lying and/or phony accounts in the aftermath of 9/11 and Beirut? Everybody in those two instances were completely above the board and forthcoming? The talking points the following morning were all in good order in 1983 and 2001?
   926. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:44 AM (#4703359)
I see... and there was no lying and/or phony accounts in the aftermath of 9/11 and Beirut?

Wouldn't that have been something you'd have wanted to pin down before asking the question?

There were in fact massive lies in the Pat Tillman matter, and that was indeed a scandal. If the Democrats hadn't implored us in the Clinton matter to ignore the public lies of public officials, we might have had a better cultural reaction to the Tillman scandal.
   927. zonk Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:46 AM (#4703362)
I see... and there was no lying and/or phony accounts in the aftermath of 9/11 and Beirut?

Wouldn't that have been something you'd have wanted to pin down before asking the question?


I'm not asking if there was or there wasn't -- I'm asking if you know there was or there wasn't.... Or does your foreign policy scandal expertise only apply to dead diplomats, not dead marines or dead civilians?
   928. The Good Face Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:46 AM (#4703363)
I'm less interested in the Benghazi ####-up than I am in the fact that the Obama administration's bungling has turned Libya into a failed state.
   929. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:48 AM (#4703365)
I'm not asking if there was or there wasn't -- I'm asking if you know there was or there wasn't.... Or does your foreign policy scandal expertise only apply to dead diplomats, not dead marines or dead civilians?

Except that's not exactly what you did. You wondered why Benghazi was (purportedly) being treated differently than Beirut or 9/11 without seeking out possible answers.

   930. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:51 AM (#4703368)
I'm less interested in the Benghazi ####-up than I am in the fact that the Obama administration's bungling has turned Libya into a failed state.


So what should have been done? No wait let me guess, war? We should have brought freedom and justice to them, like we have to the good people of Iraq and Afghanistan? At little or no cost to the US, no doubt.
   931. Morty Causa Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:52 AM (#4703369)
Definition of "scandal": Something that happens when a Democrat isn't President.

Definition of perjurer: someone who has been acquitted of having committed perjury.
   932. zonk Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:52 AM (#4703372)
I'm less interested in the Benghazi ####-up than I am in the fact that the Obama administration's bungling has turned Libya into a failed state.


Libya was worse than a failed state with Gaddafi in charge.... The parallels with Iraq are instructive, I think -- both are a mess; Gaddafi was a bigger threat than Hussein, but the world is better off without both of them to be sure. The difference is that Libyan death toll was a several thousand fewer Americans dead, and trillion dollars and change less costly.
   933. Ron J2 Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:54 AM (#4703373)
#928 As far as I'm aware, the only person here who's made any kind of constructive criticism on Libya is Rants. And his suggestion was to to (try to) keep Gaddafi in power.

So, in your view what should have been done and why was that likely to lead to better results?
   934. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:55 AM (#4703374)
Because the potential scandal in Benghazi is the (potential) lying and phony accounts of what happened. That's what converts a tragedy or a ####-up into a scandal.


So I asked before, but I will ask again, walk me through the narrative. What are the lies and coverups? Where is the smoking gun? What is there to be outraged by?

Is it something more than some talking points for some flack on Sunday TV?
   935. Publius Publicola Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:55 AM (#4703375)
If the Democrats hadn't taught us to ignore the public lies of public officials, we might have had a better cultural reaction to the Tillman scandal.


Wait. The Democrats, who weren't in power at the time, influenced the Bush Administration to lie about the Pat Tillman fiasco?

Wow. I didn't know the Democrats held such an overwhelming sway over the Republicans like that.

   936. Publius Publicola Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:57 AM (#4703376)
Gaddafi was a bigger threat than Hussein


Really? How so? Gaddafi seemd to be receding from the international scene at the time fo the overthrow. He wwas even making halting steps at playing nice with the West, including giving up the PanAm bombers and agreeing to a suspension of his nuclear program.
   937. The Good Face Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:57 AM (#4703377)
So what should have been done? No wait let me guess, war? We should have brought freedom and justice to them, like we have to the good people of Iraq and Afghanistan? At little or no cost to the US, no doubt.


Don't be ridiculous. We could have avoided this outcome by doing nothing. That would have saved American money, at the very least those lives in Benghazi, and would have saved countless Libyan lives that have now been lost in chaos and anarchy.

Libya was worse than a failed state with Gaddafi in charge.... The parallels with Iraq are instructive, I think -- both are a mess; Gaddafi was a bigger threat than Hussein, but the world is better off without both of them to be sure. The difference is that Libyan death toll was a several thousand fewer Americans dead, and trillion dollars and change less costly.


This is insane. We should just run around the world overthrowing autocratic leaders and leaving chaos in our wake? What about the Libyans who now have to live in anarchy? The future consequences of turning Libya into a Mediterranean version of Afghanistan?
   938. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:58 AM (#4703378)
So I asked before, but I will ask again, walk me through the narrative. What are the lies and coverups? Where is the smoking gun? What is there to be outraged by?

So you haven't begun to figure out the thing you're opining about.

That's just the kind of opinion that we should take seriously.
   939. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 09, 2014 at 10:58 AM (#4703379)
The Democrats, who weren't in power at the time, influenced the Bush Administration to lie about the Pat Tillman fiasco?


Come on! The first lie was told by the first Democrat. It has all been downhill since then. All the fault of Team Blue.

EDIT: See 940 for affirmation that this is the line. First lie? All the fault of democrats. What an idiot.
   940. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:00 AM (#4703381)
Wait. The Democrats, who weren't in power at the time, influenced the Bush Administration to lie about the Pat Tillman fiasco?

Wow. I didn't know the Democrats held such an overwhelming sway over the Republicans like that.


No. In the Clinton matter, the Democrats normalized lies and perjury and acculturated people to accept them as expected behavior. The Republicans took advantage of that state of affairs in re Tillman -- as public officials of both parties will now continue to do.
   941. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:00 AM (#4703382)
So you haven't begun to figure out the thing you're opining about.

That's just the kind of opinion that we should take seriously.


So I say I don't see anything, and ask you what you are seeing (you can tell by the question mark, by the way), and your response is to belittle my opinon? Way to run from the question you coward.

Put up or shut up. What is the scandal? What is the narrative? (See more question marks, which signifies questions and not opinions).
   942. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:03 AM (#4703384)
Come on! The first lie was told by the first Democrat. It has all been downhill since then. All the fault of Team Blue.

Public lies and perjury had never been excused or justified anywhere near as widely, expicitly, or vociferously as in the Clinton matter. Nor had the people investigating public lies and perjury, and the investigative enterprise into public lies and perjury, ever been intentionally been called into disrepute as in the Clinton matter.

That's all on the Democrats.
   943. Greg K Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:03 AM (#4703385)
No. In the Clinton matter, the Democrats normalized lies and perjury and acculturated people to accept them as expected behavior. The Republicans took advantage of that state of affairs in re Tillman -- as public officials of both parties will now continue to do.

Haven't lies been the expected behaviour of politicians for...a while?
   944. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:04 AM (#4703386)
Put up or shut up. What is the scandal?

I never said there was one, and I've never said a single word about the substance of Benghazi.
   945. Lassus Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:04 AM (#4703387)
Definition of "scandal": Something that happens when a Democrat isn't President.

People have argued against perjury - has ANYONE said that the Lewinsky incident (and aftermath) wasn't a scandal?
   946. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:05 AM (#4703388)
Haven't lies been the expected behaviour of politicians for...a while?


Only because there have been Democrats around for a while. Besides the whole conept of lying started with Bill Clinton.
   947. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:07 AM (#4703391)
I never said there was one, and I've never said a single word about the substance of Benghazi.


So your opinion: There is no scandal (and that is a well though out opinion).

My opinion: There is no scandal (and that is the product of idiocy).

You can't be this dumb, can you?

(Note: this is a rhetorical question, it does not require an answer).
   948. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:07 AM (#4703392)
Only because there have been Democrats around for a while. Besides the whole conept of lying started with Bill Clinton.

The concept of lying didn't begin with Clinton. The concept of widespread, explicit defense of lying, and discrediting investigators and investigations of lying, began with the fin de siecle Democrats.

Nixon lied, and he got booted.
   949. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:08 AM (#4703393)
Don't be ridiculous. We could have avoided this outcome by doing nothing. That would have saved American money, at the very least those lives in Benghazi, and would have saved countless Libyan lives that have now been lost in chaos and anarchy.


I am OK if we had done less. I have been on record as saying Obama is more hawkish than I would like. However don't let perfect be the enemy of good, because obama was MUCH less hawkish than the 95% of the GOP and a large part of Team Blue.
   950. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:08 AM (#4703394)
So your opinion: There is no scandal (and that is a well though out opinion).

That isn't my opinion either.
   951. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:10 AM (#4703395)
Nixon lied, and he got booted.


I remember the trial, led by Gerald Ford, which rooted out the corruption left behind when Nixon resigned. How the GOP went through the entire government and never supported any lies or anyone who lied. In fact no one from the Watergate period ever served in a GOP adminstration since. Thank goodness.
   952. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:11 AM (#4703397)
That isn't my opinion either.


Because you are afriad to express an opinon? You don't have any knowledge to have an opinion? You only feel comfortable attacking others without having something to defend?
   953. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:12 AM (#4703398)
I remember the trial, led by Gerald Ford, which rooted out the corruption left behind when Nixon resigned. How the GOP went through the entire government and never supported any lies or anyone who lied. In fact no one from the Watergate period ever served in a GOP adminstration since. Thank goodness.

You obviously don't remember it correctly.
   954. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:12 AM (#4703400)
Few people know that the Ricky Gervais movie "The Invention of Lying" was actually based on Bill Clinton.
   955. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:13 AM (#4703401)
Because you are afriad to express an opinon? You don't have any knowledge to have an opinion? You only feel comfortable attacking others without having something to defend?

I didn't "attack" anybody. I did point out the obvious partisan leanings embedded in certain questions or professions of confusion.
   956. The Good Face Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:18 AM (#4703407)
I am OK if we had done less. I have been on record as saying Obama is more hawkish than I would like. However don't let perfect be the enemy of good, because obama was MUCH less hawkish than the 95% of the GOP and a large part of Team Blue.


Well, we didn't do less, and now Libya is a failed state. That's on the Obama administration, and to me that's a much bigger failure than not adequately protecting a small embassy and then lying about what happened.
   957. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:25 AM (#4703413)
I remember the trial, led by Gerald Ford, which rooted out the corruption left behind when Nixon resigned. How the GOP went through the entire government and never supported any lies or anyone who lied. In fact no one from the Watergate period ever served in a GOP adminstration since. Thank goodness.


You obviously don't remember it correctly.

That's either the height of misreading a comment or a masterly example of deadpan, but given the source I suspect it's the former. I'll gladly stand corrected if it's not the case.
   958. zonk Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:27 AM (#4703415)
Except that's not exactly what you did. You wondered why Benghazi was (purportedly) being treated differently than Beirut or 9/11 without seeking out possible answers.


OK - well, let me spell out some of the differences.

In 1983, against the advice of his defense department, Reagan sent marines into Beirut on a peacekeeping mission. It ended tragically when an explosive-laded vehicle drove through bailing wire, a chain link fence, and guards without loaded weapons detonating a bomb that killed 241 American servicemen. This occurred just 6 months after another car bomb had destroyed the American embassy in Beirut -- killing 17 Americans. Curiously - despite calling the April embassy attack a "vicious terrorist attack", Reagan called the October bombing a "despicable act" (from what I've heard regarding Benghazi - it's a big deal whether you say "terrorist attack" or not). A military report detailed a multitude of failures up and down the board after the deadlier October attack, but curiously -- there were no congressional hearings two years later, nor was it something that Walter Mondale or Democrats campaigned on in 1984 or 1986. Years later, we would hear that there were many in the administration and military that considered the whole Lebanon exercise a debacle.
   959. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:29 AM (#4703418)
That's either the height of misreading a comment or a masterly example of deadpan, but given the source I suspect it's the former. I'll gladly stand corrected if it's not the case.

It was deadpan in response to an utterly inane comment. Why would Gerald Ford lead a trial? Why would all non-lying Republicans never serve in government again?

   960. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:33 AM (#4703426)
A military report detailed a multitude of failures up and down the board after the deadlier October attack, but curiously -- there were no congressional hearings two years later, nor was it something that Walter Mondale or Democrats campaigned on in 1984 or 1986. Years later, we would hear that there were many in the administration and military that considered the whole Lebanon exercise a debacle.

So, in other words, just like Iran-Contra, none of the things the 21st century liberal looking back on the events of 30 years ago would have expected to happen given how awful and terrible it was ... actually happened. It was an awful scandal, it was a terrible scandal ... but Congress didn't even investigate, and the opposition didn't use it as a campaign issue.

See any pattern here? Maybe, just maybe, the "curiously" you stuck in there is a bit misplaced?
   961. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:34 AM (#4703428)
I'm loving this awesome "Democrats introduced unpunished lying to politics and now it's ruined" premise. It correctly identifies the most corrosive thing to happen to our society since Andy Pettitte turned baseball into something seedy and horrendous by only getting called for 12 balks.
   962. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:37 AM (#4703431)
That's either the height of misreading a comment or a masterly example of deadpan, but given the source I suspect it's the former. I'll gladly stand corrected if it's not the case.

It was deadpan in response to an utterly inane comment. Why would Gerald Ford lead a trial? Why would all non-lying Republicans never serve in government again?


Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you not only misread BM's comment, but that you don't even know what deadpan means.
   963. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:41 AM (#4703435)
Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you not only misread BM's comment, but that you don't even know what deadpan means.

Sounds like someone has the Mark Russell loops going again.
   964. zonk Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:42 AM (#4703437)

Really? How so? Gaddafi seemd to be receding from the international scene at the time fo the overthrow. He wwas even making halting steps at playing nice with the West, including giving up the PanAm bombers and agreeing to a suspension of his nuclear program.


Far from receding, he was just trying a different approach -- he had tried so, so many times... After 9/11 - there were glowing news items about the reformed Gaddafi, and how he was now trying to be a force for stability in Africa, etc.... Of course - there wasn't much follow-up... In fact, what he had been doing was using African Union 'peacekeeping' missions as recruitment tools and a wedge to install puppet leaders. Hussein was a monster- but a predictable one. He was pretty straight-forward totalitarian bluster.

This is insane. We should just run around the world overthrowing autocratic leaders and leaving chaos in our wake? What about the Libyans who now have to live in anarchy? The future consequences of turning Libya into a Mediterranean version of Afghanistan?


Except the sequence of events didn't start with the US seeking to overthrow Gaddafi... It started with a popular uprising, followed by an international failure to broker a ceasefire in advance of what looked certain to be a widescale slaughter in Benghazi. Far from the US acting to remove Gaddafi - the international community, via the UN, via the African Union, via the Arab League - blessed stopping that slaughter from occurring.

The alternative to being rid of Gaddafi was probably 10s of thousands of dead Libyans, and given Gaddafi's colorful past -- probably an even more paranoid and dangerous Gaddafi.
   965. Greg K Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:48 AM (#4703441)
Except the sequence of events didn't start with the US seeking to overthrow Gaddafi... It started with a popular uprising, followed by an international failure to broker a ceasefire in advance of what looked certain to be a widescale slaughter in Benghazi. Far from the US acting to remove Gaddafi - the international community, via the UN, via the African Union, via the Arab League - blessed stopping that slaughter from occurring.

It was interesting for me, at the time I had just started my PhD and was taking a general research methods course with a bunch of other first years. Probably the guy I spent most of my time with there was a Libyan guy starting a PhD in crisis management in North Africa (his research was on Darfur, but about 6-7 months after he arrived Libya suddenly became an area of "interest" for him too).

Up until the US and various other nations/international bodies got involved his take on things was that Libya would be a disaster (and much worse than it is now) had the US and UN not gotten involved. I'm sure things weren't done perfectly, and I don't know for sure, but I suspect Libya is better off for the international involvement than otherwise.
   966. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:48 AM (#4703442)
I'm loving this awesome "Democrats introduced unpunished lying to politics and now it's ruined" premise.


Back in 1979 there were no lies in politics. It is only since that apex we have seen the sneaky Dems and their lies pollute things. The decline in truthiness in politics is plain to see.
   967. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4703443)
Back in 1979 there were no lies in politics. I tis only since that apex we have seen the sneaky Dems and their lies pollute things. The decline in truthiness in politics is plain to see.

The contrast between the pre-decline reaction to Nixon's lies/crimes and the post-decline reaction to Clinton's is obvious -- and indeed a marker of said decline.

Thank you for your contribution.

(Not deadpan).
   968. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:54 AM (#4703445)
The contrast between the pre-decline reaction to Nixon's lies/crimes and the post-decline reaction to Clinton's is obvious -- and indeed a marker of said decline.

That equivalence is 100% sensible, and beyond reasonable argument. That is, unless I'm lying in this post-Clinton world.
   969. The Good Face Posted: May 09, 2014 at 11:55 AM (#4703446)
Except the sequence of events didn't start with the US seeking to overthrow Gaddafi... It started with a popular uprising, followed by an international failure to broker a ceasefire in advance of what looked certain to be a widescale slaughter in Benghazi. Far from the US acting to remove Gaddafi - the international community, via the UN, via the African Union, via the Arab League - blessed stopping that slaughter from occurring.


An uprised fomented in part by US action. And supported by US warplanes. Libya got the slaughter anyway, but we have the wonderful bonus of having played a role in causing it.

The alternative to being rid of Gaddafi was probably 10s of thousands of dead Libyans, and given Gaddafi's colorful past -- probably an even more paranoid and dangerous Gaddafi.


There's no way of knowing that, but what happens in Libya is quite properly the province of Libyans. The Obama adminstration meddled in a civil war and it bears the responsibility for what emerged from that conflict; a failed state. And what of the deaths that are ongoing in the chaos that is Libya now? And what of the consequences for Libya's neighbors and the rest of the world? Failed states rarely keep their problems within their borders.
   970. zenbitz Posted: May 09, 2014 at 12:00 PM (#4703452)
I give the "democrats invented lying in politics" a 3/10 for troll quality. I mean it has that essential nugget of petard hoisting, but is too preposterous a point to address.
   971. zonk Posted: May 09, 2014 at 12:06 PM (#4703456)
An uprised fomented in part by US action.


No - the uprising in Libya was a spread of the uprising that took down the Tunisian and Egyptian governments, and still yields a civil war in Syria.


There's no way of knowing that, but what happens in Libya is quite properly the province of Libyans. The Obama adminstration meddled in a civil war and it bears the responsibility for what emerged from that conflict; a failed state. And what of the deaths that are ongoing in the chaos that is Libya now? And what of the consequences for Libya's neighbors and the rest of the world? Failed states rarely keep their problems within their borders.


So where's the line? Is it a certain number of people or certain type of people? Or - just a certain manner to their death? The plain fact is that it was relatively cheap and easy for the US/international community to stop a column of tanks bearing down on a city that against a (relatively speaking) modern military, was defenseless. Should the world have stopped there? Turn back the Libyan mercenary army... and then? Create a no-fly zone ala Iraq pre-Messopotamia? I would consider that as a valid alternative... financially, it would have cost more and put the US (and others) in a situation of continuing that safety zone safe. But I would say that's a reasonable alternative to then smashing Gaddafi's military to the point that the uprising could dispose of him.... Is that what you're suggesting?
   972. The Good Face Posted: May 09, 2014 at 12:17 PM (#4703473)
Is that what you're suggesting?


I've been quite clear on this. We should have done nothing. USG got involved and wound up with pretty much the worst case scenario; a civil war followed by a failed state. It's possible that would have happened anyway, but at least we wouldn't bear the responsibility for it.

No - the uprising in Libya was a spread of the uprising that took down the Tunisian and Egyptian governments, and still yields a civil war in Syria.


And you believe that such uprisings weren't at least partially fomented and encouraged by USG actions? We provided substantial military support to the rebels in Libya; without it they couldn't have "won". The prospect of receiving that support certainly influenced their decision making.
   973. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 09, 2014 at 12:18 PM (#4703474)
On Benghazi: If the conservatives here would explain to me what Obama and/or Hillary should have done differently -- and not with 20/20 hindsight -- I'd give the issue another look. But as it is, it's not clear to me what their responsibilities were and what they didn't do that they should have done, and exactly how much they should be involved in directing military operations, anyway. Or even beefing up security there. I know Obama is CIC but clearly we don't want him literally devising military strategy ("approach at this hour from this direction with these weapons") as opposed to just giving abstract orders to protect the embassy, or beef up security, or respond to the attack in a direct way, etc. And maybe that's what people wanted Obama to do and he didn't do it. But unless I hear exactly what they wanted him to do before the fact, in specific terms, I can't criticize him or Hillary for it.

Four Dead Americans is a talking point, not a serious attempt at analysis of what went wrong.
   974. Morty Causa Posted: May 09, 2014 at 12:19 PM (#4703475)
967:

I like it when there is a clear demarcation where the Peter Principle kicks in. For you, the line is where you abandon the law and politics and set yourself up as a universal moral arbiter. You strangely forget yourself, Wooster.
   975. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 12:23 PM (#4703481)
967:

I like it when there is a clear demarcation where the Peter Principle kicks in. For you, the line is where you abandon the law and politics and set yourself up as a universal moral arbiter. You strangely forget yourself, Wooster.


The allegations against Nixon were somewhat worse, but that difference alone isn't close to enough to explain the widely divergent reactions. For that, we need other factors -- which certainly include certainly cultural change and change in accepted political tactics. Both of those changes are indicia of decline.
   976. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 09, 2014 at 12:35 PM (#4703491)
The allegations against Nixon were somewhat worse

Yes, mistakes were somewhat more made during Watergate.
   977. Ron J2 Posted: May 09, 2014 at 12:37 PM (#4703496)
As I speculated earlier, Rob Ford has upped his game. At least there's supposedly another video coming out showing Ford at his best.

He's still running second in the polls despite taking a leave of absence to (supposedly) go to rehab. I say (supposedly) because a pretty fair number of people don't believe that he is in fact in rehab.
   978. McCoy Posted: May 09, 2014 at 12:42 PM (#4703499)
Failed states rarely keep their problems within their borders.

When don't they?
   979. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 12:55 PM (#4703508)
Yes, mistakes were somewhat more made during Watergate.

Yes, we know -- it's catechismic among aging lefty baby boomers that Watergate was The Worst Thing that Ever Happened (TM).

Of course these are the same people that assured us that multiple perjuries and obstruction of justice were just "about sex" and "between Bill and Hillary," but be that as it may ....
   980. McCoy Posted: May 09, 2014 at 01:02 PM (#4703512)
I'm not an aging lefty baby boomer so I can't say what they think but I would say that Watergate wasn't the worth thing that ever happened but the discovery of it and the eventual punishment dished out to the POTUS was rather important and probably help lower the chances of THE WORST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED from happening. Watergate happened during a period of history in which the government was drastically out of touch with the American people and was horribly corrupt and abusive.
   981. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4703519)
Watergate happened during a period of history in which the government was drastically out of touch with the American people and was horribly corrupt and abusive.

Which is why Nixon was re-elected in a massive landslide in 1972?
   982. zonk Posted: May 09, 2014 at 01:16 PM (#4703523)
I've been quite clear on this. We should have done nothing. USG got involved and wound up with pretty much the worst case scenario; a civil war followed by a failed state. It's possible that would have happened anyway, but at least we wouldn't bear the responsibility for it.


Come on...

Any nation - post-violent uprising is going to be a "failed state" through that lens. The United States was a failed state for near a decade after it threw off the yoke of the government it didn't want... British evacuation of loyalists saved a lot of bloodshed, but there were plenty of reprisals, several (bloodless, sure) uprisings, until finally a new constitution that gave the nation a chance to establish itself before the finality of the Civil War. Give the former British colonists on the American shores automatic weapons, advanced explosives, etc and I'm not so certain the immediate post-Revolution story is as much rancorous turf wars, non-true believers losing property/being tarred and feathered, a few rebellions largely relegated to footnotes, and a bunch of noble men embarking on a grand experiment.

Like I said, there's really not a lot of difference between Libya and Iraq -- except the number of dead and significant trillions spent. If anything - a failed state Libya is probably better than a failed state Iraq if only because, paper tiger though he was, a Baath Iraq did serve as a counterweight against a rising Iran, if you want to put it in geopolitical chess terms... The 'luxury' of a failed state Libya is that Gaddafi wasn't really a bulwark against any nation of particular international concern.
   983. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 09, 2014 at 01:25 PM (#4703526)
The allegations against Nixon were somewhat worse

Yes, mistakes were somewhat more made during Watergate.

Yes, we know -- it's catechismic among aging lefty baby boomers that Watergate was The Worst Thing that Ever Happened (TM).


Over the course of this aging War Baby's lifetime, Watergate would rank around 103rd in terms of what I held against Nixon, who began his career as world class demagogue and ended it in a deliciously appropriate manner, slithering out of the White House with his tail tucked between his legs.

As for Clinton's perjury, both the Senate and the public spoke the final word on that, though there will always be a few Ken Starr wannabees who will want to carry on his crusade.
   984. The Good Face Posted: May 09, 2014 at 01:28 PM (#4703529)
Like I said, there's really not a lot of difference between Libya and Iraq -- except the number of dead and significant trillions spent. If anything - a failed state Libya is probably better than a failed state Iraq if only because, paper tiger though he was, a Baath Iraq did serve as a counterweight against a rising Iran, if you want to put it in geopolitical chess terms... The 'luxury' of a failed state Libya is that Gaddafi wasn't really a bulwark against any nation of particular international concern.


Obama's Libya; like Bush's Iraq, but cheaper! That's your selling point? USG made a hash of things in Iraq and we did the same in Libya, but for even less good reason. ####### things up on the cheap is probably better than spending a fortune to do it, but at the end of the day, you've still ###### things up. Perhaps USG's foreign policy should focus on NOT turning countries into lawless maelstroms of chaos and anarchy?

Libya is much closer to Somalia or Afghanistan now than it is to post revolution America. A collection of local militias and warlords exercising absolute power as they see fit within their domains. We are not succeeding. That is not success. And the Obama adminstration owns it. It didn't just happen on their watch, they actively went out of their way to bring it about.
   985. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 09, 2014 at 01:31 PM (#4703531)
Yes, we know -- it's catechismic among aging lefty baby boomers that Watergate was The Worst Thing that Ever Happened (TM).


People latch onto things that happen in the prime of their political lives as the Best/Worst Thing that Ever Happened. It takes real effort to pry one's self out of this trap. This is why some segments of the population can't get beyond Woodstock, or Watergate, and others can't get beyond the POTUS ####### an intern, and others are trapped in a self-terrorizing cycle where every passing airplane is about to bring an office tower crashing down on their heads. If we're even more honest, we can apply this same rubric to Israeli politics, American support of resulting policies, and the Holocaust.
   986. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 09, 2014 at 01:40 PM (#4703537)
People latch onto things that happen in the prime of their political lives as the Best/Worst Thing that Ever Happened. It takes real effort to pry one's self out of this trap. This is why some segments of the population can't get beyond Woodstock, or Watergate, and others can't get beyond the POTUS ####### and intern, and others are trapped in a self-terrorizing cycle where every passing airplane is about to bring an office tower crashing down on their heads. If we're even more honest, we can apply this same rubric to Israeli politics, American support of resulting policies, and the Holocaust.

Yeah, and I've got the sneaking suspicion that Sugar Blanks got his first piece of ##### in 1979, and it's all been downhill for him ever since.
   987. zonk Posted: May 09, 2014 at 01:47 PM (#4703540)

Obama's Libya; like Bush's Iraq, but cheaper! That's your selling point? USG made a hash of things in Iraq and we did the same in Libya, but for even less good reason. ####### things up on the cheap is probably better than spending a fortune to do it, but at the end of the day, you've still ###### things up. Perhaps USG's foreign policy should focus on NOT turning countries into lawless maelstroms of chaos and anarchy?

Libya is much closer to Somalia or Afghanistan now than it is to post revolution America. A collection of local militias and warlords exercising absolute power as they see fit within their domains. We are not succeeding. That is not success. And the Obama adminstration owns it. It didn't just happen on their watch, they actively went out of their way to bring it about.


It's not a "selling point" -- the US action in Libya was in response to events beyond its control and I think the response was the right one. It wasn't an architected plan to get rid of Gaddafi, it was a response a series of events.
   988. Greg K Posted: May 09, 2014 at 01:47 PM (#4703541)
People latch onto things that happen in the prime of their political lives as the Best/Worst Thing that Ever Happened. It takes real effort to pry one's self out of this trap.

I'm not sure what mine is...I remember in grade 5 speech arts wanting to do a presidential debate in which I simultaneously played Bush, Clinton, and Perot...but I don't think I actually knew anything about politics. I was just a big Monty Python fan and saw an opportunity to be absurd. In the end I chickened out and did a monologue on how awesome Rickey Henderson is.

It's probably the 1995 Quebec Referendum, which I do still tend to think of as "a big deal". I do remember the 1992 attempt to amend the Canadian constitution (the Charlottetown Accord), but I mostly just remember it happening, specifically sitting in the Sky Dome watching game seven of the World Series in Atlanta on the jumbotron and seeing ads about how passing (or not passing) the according would doom Canada's aboriginal population. I was only 10 so I don't think I had any opinions on it.
   989. zonk Posted: May 09, 2014 at 02:01 PM (#4703547)
Heh... this is amusing...

The Bundy set has gone hippie!

“Teach people how to raise their own food and animals, solar and wind power generation,” Payne said. “Here’s your community. Now learn to live together."
   990. The Good Face Posted: May 09, 2014 at 02:20 PM (#4703559)
It's not a "selling point" -- the US action in Libya was in response to events beyond its control


If events are truly beyond one's control, the wise thing to do is stop trying to control them. USG failed to understand and/or follow that advice in Libya.

I think the response was the right one.


The response that resulted in a civil war followed by a collapse into a failed state? THAT was the best move in your eyes? The course of action that led to the worst case scenario was the right response?

It wasn't an architected plan to get rid of Gaddafi, it was a response a series of events.


Not really. The moment USG saw an opportunity, they nurtured and protected the anti-Gaddafi militias, and enabled them to "succeed". The events occurred because USG action caused them to occur. A plan gone horribly right.
   991. Rob_Wood Posted: May 09, 2014 at 02:20 PM (#4703560)

How ignorant does one have to be to not understand what Nixon did and stood for? I lived through that time but do not consider it necessary. Watergate isn't even the tip of some proverbial iceberg. Nixon did hundreds of things related or unrelated to Watergate which were much worse. He caused a permanent distrust of government to settle on the American soul.
   992. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4703564)
People latch onto things that happen in the prime of their political lives as the Best/Worst Thing that Ever Happened

Yeah, and I've got the sneaking suspicion that Sugar Blanks got his first piece of ##### in 1979, and it's all been downhill for him ever since.

Except that the late Carter years were seen as a joke when they were going on, and were soundly rejected by contemporary observers. Only in retrospect are they properly seen as the peak.

My commentary on the decline is an historical analysis, using the tools of history -- in much the same way as the author of the recent book on 1979, Thatcher, etc., previously discussed herein.
   993. CrosbyBird Posted: May 09, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4703565)
"Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal."

I wonder if that's an homage to Swift, who said that man was "not a rational animal, but an animal capable of reason."
   994. zenbitz Posted: May 09, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4703567)

I would have gone with Clinton Bombing that Aspirin Factory in the Sudan over "He made Lies the Political Currency of Choice"
   995. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 09, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4703568)
If we're even more honest, we can apply this same rubric to Israeli politics, American support of resulting policies, and the Holocaust.

Yes, it's only an unwillingness to face unpleasant truths that keeps us from identifying "Jewish fascism" for what it really is.
   996. Publius Publicola Posted: May 09, 2014 at 02:36 PM (#4703571)
Nice column by Timothy Egan today:

Can the Kochs Hold Back History?
The Kochs, whose industries are among the nation’s biggest corporate polluters, are currently funding stealth campaigns to roll back incentives for clean energy. What they’re running up against are American do-it-yourselfers. The future of solar is now, with every homeowner tinkering on a roof, every company looking for tomorrow technology, every market improvement that brings the cost down and effectiveness up.

With their fight against health care, the Kochs are bumping into another wall of inconvenient truths. Not only has Obamacare exceeded expectations for sign-ups in the first year, but it’s projected now to cover more people over 10 years — 25 million — and cost $104 billion less than previously forecast, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

A study by the Annals of Internal Medicine found, in looking at the Massachusetts model for Obamacare, that expanding health insurance appeared to save many lives. Duh. But extrapolated from this report for the nation as a whole, you can make a case that the Affordable Care Act will prevent 24,000 deaths a year. Put another way, about 6,000 people a year will die in red states that refuse to expand Medicaid under Obamacare. There are your death panels .
   997. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 09, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4703572)
I'm not sure what mine is...I remember in grade 5 speech arts wanting to do a presidential debate in which I simultaneously played Bush, Clinton, and Perot...but I don't think I actually knew anything about politics. I was just a big Monty Python fan and saw an opportunity to be absurd. In the end I chickened out and did a monologue on how awesome Rickey Henderson is.

It's probably the 1995 Quebec Referendum, which I do still tend to think of as "a big deal". I do remember the 1992 attempt to amend the Canadian constitution (the Charlottetown Accord), but I mostly just remember it happening, specifically sitting in the Sky Dome watching game seven of the World Series in Atlanta on the jumbotron and seeing ads about how passing (or not passing) the according would doom Canada's aboriginal population. I was only 10 so I don't think I had any opinions on it.


I am of that odd generation where the political identity is probably most calcified around not having a political identity. Culturally, from the grade school era, there was the Cold War and the lingering fear of nuclear annihilation, but even that was being undermined somewhat (for grade schoolers at least) by St. Ronnie and His Happy Happy Joy Joy band of "Morning In America" Singers. Probably the single most notable "holy ####\" cultural moment for me and my schoolmates was the Challenger disaster, live broadcast into our school rooms. But there again, there's not a lot of political will to come out of that aside from "maybe I don't want to be an astronaut after all." We came of age politically during Bush I and Clinton I and the "peace dividend" and Fukiyama's "End of History." We were already set in our ways for the most part by the time Intern Knobjobber Gate blew past, and I honestly don't know that I know anyone aside from Neiporent who changed their political allegiances over that sequence.
   998. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 09, 2014 at 02:39 PM (#4703573)
How ignorant does one have to be to not understand what Nixon did and stood for? I lived through that time but do not consider it necessary. Watergate isn't even the tip of some proverbial iceberg. Nixon did hundreds of things related or unrelated to Watergate which were much worse.


Cambodia. Far worse than Watergate.
   999. CrosbyBird Posted: May 09, 2014 at 02:39 PM (#4703575)
How ignorant does one have to be to not understand what Nixon did and stood for? I lived through that time but do not consider it necessary. Watergate isn't even the tip of some proverbial iceberg. Nixon did hundreds of things related or unrelated to Watergate which were much worse. He caused a permanent distrust of government to settle on the American soul.

That last sentence might be a little much. I don't think Nixon was the worst or most corrupt president, but he might have been the worst or most corrupt president in terms of what we know he did. I'm pretty sure the standard for corruption in politics has been "what can I get away with?" pretty much since the beginning.
   1000. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 09, 2014 at 02:40 PM (#4703576)
Yes, it's only an unwillingness to face unpleasant truths that keeps us from identifying "Jewish fascism" for what it really is.


True.
Page 10 of 45 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Downtown Bookie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 2 OMNICHATTER
(1 - 10:06am, Oct 22)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2909 - 10:04am, Oct 22)
Last: Ron J2

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2014 Discussion
(22 - 10:04am, Oct 22)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogJerome Williams re-signs with Phils
(3 - 9:57am, Oct 22)
Last: zonk

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(321 - 9:55am, Oct 22)
Last: Spivey

NewsblogMike Scioscia, Matt Williams voted top managers
(31 - 9:52am, Oct 22)
Last: Non-Youkilidian Geometry

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-22-2014
(2 - 9:49am, Oct 22)
Last: Batman

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(122 - 9:47am, Oct 22)
Last: Ron J2

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Ballot
(6 - 9:42am, Oct 22)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogHunter Pence responds to Royals fan signs with monster Game 1 | MLB.com
(8 - 9:40am, Oct 22)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogAs Focus Faded and Losses Piled Up, Royals Change Their Game
(9 - 9:39am, Oct 22)
Last: Dan Lee is some pumkins

NewsblogPace-Of-Play Initiatives Get Mixed Reviews In AFL - BaseballAmerica.com
(4 - 9:34am, Oct 22)
Last: BDC

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(108 - 9:22am, Oct 22)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(61 - 8:44am, Oct 22)
Last: Misirlou's been working for the drug squad

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 1 OMNICHATTER
(603 - 5:01am, Oct 22)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

Page rendered in 1.8576 seconds
52 querie(s) executed