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

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

OTP: October 2012-THE RACE: As Candidates Prep, Attention in DC split between politics and baseball

While President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney bone up in Nevada and Colorado for Wednesday’s opening debate, back in the nation’s capital attention is split between the hard-fought presidential race and baseball playoffs.

The Nationals won the first division baseball championship for a Washington team since 1933 by clinching the National League East race Monday night.

Washington, D.C., has the only ballpark where so many Cabinet members, politicians and other luminaries routinely gather and where fans now are openly rooting for a particular president — one who served more than a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt.

“Let Teddy Win” banners and buttons are everywhere. Fans like 2008 GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona say it’s time for Roosevelt’s 500-plus losing streak to end.

[...]

“Teddy, you are the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy by the commie pinko libs in this town,” McCain said in a video played in the stadium Monday night. “But you can overcome that.”

The October 2012 “OT: Politics” thread starts ... now.

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:14 PM | 6119 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nationals, 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 29 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 >  Last ›
   2801. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 17, 2012 at 05:46 PM (#4274649)
Nope. Waited until he was out of office before valuing his daughter above his Party. Good little Bolshevik, Dick.

Liar.
   2802. SteveF Posted: October 17, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4274650)
Liar.


Well, mistaken. I'm not sure it helps further discussion when we automatically view someone's commentary in the worst possible light. We should probably start from the standpoint that the poster is not delusional, moronic, or evil and interpret the words accordingly.
   2803. Morty Causa Posted: October 17, 2012 at 05:52 PM (#4274655)
   2804. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 17, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4274662)
Well, mistaken. I'm not sure it helps further discussion when we automatically view someone's commentary in the worst possible light. We should probably start from the standpoint that the poster is not delusional, moronic, or evil and interpret the words accordingly.

Unfamiliar with Sam "The Neck-Stabber" Hutcheson, huh?
   2805. formerly dp Posted: October 17, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4274664)
Oh, no, some anti-Catholic bigot doesn't like my political opinions.


I had a lot of hope that the Catholic church would modernize when they picked a new pope. Selecting Ratzinger, a guy who defended priests while they were raping little boys, shows that the institution is mangled beyond belief. And that's before we even get to their continued embrace of Dark Ages views on human sexuality and gender roles. I grew up Catholic, and I've watched the church push every member of my family away from it by its refusal to modernize.

But in any case, it's not your political views I'm criticizing, it's your inability to organize them into coherently-articulated thoughts and arguments.
   2806. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 17, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4274669)
But in any case, it's not your political views I'm criticizing, it's your inability to organize them into coherently-articulated thoughts and arguments.

My position couldn't be clearer: Obama flip-flopped on gay marriage in an election year to score points with liberal elites, fully confident that he'd suffer no repercussions from his black supporters for doing so. And he was correct: Not only did blacks not abandon Obama, but ~20 percent of them suddenly "evolved" on the issue of gay marriage themselves.
   2807. SteveF Posted: October 17, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4274672)
Unfamiliar with Sam "The Neck-Stabber" Hutcheson, huh?


Sam does schtick, but when you actually show him an interest in engaging him in a more substantive way, he delivers every time.
   2808. McCoy Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4274675)


Here is the VP of the USA and in an election year and all he did was pass the buck with the standard "state issue" cop out. Did he campaign for it in his homestate? Did he ever go on record as saying that he urged George Bush to come out in favor of same sex marriage? When he was in power did he ever try to do anything to try to make it so that freedom means freedom for everyone?

In fact he said he didn't speak up because it would have probably cost George Bush the election in 2000.
   2809. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:05 PM (#4274680)
And that's before we even get to their continued embrace of Dark Ages views on human sexuality and gender roles. I grew up Catholic, and I've watched the church push every member of my family away from it by its refusal to modernize.


So, the Church hasn't changed its positions, but its the one doing the pushing?

A religion that "modernizes" to meet the tastes of its members isn't worth anything. The only reason for a religion to exist is to show its members and the world what is the right way to live, and please God. Things don't cease to be sinful b/c a lot of people want to do them.
   2810. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4274682)
Here is the VP of the USA and in an election year and all he did was pass the buck with the standard "state issue" cop out. Did he campaign for it in his homestate? Did he ever go on record as saying that he urged George Bush to come out in favor of same sex marriage?

So when a right-wing VP broke from his party just two months from Election Day 2004, it was no big deal. But when Obama half-heartedly took the same position — not only eight years later, but as the standard-bearer of the Democrat party — he was a "leader" and a champion of gay rights. Comical.
   2811. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4274684)
A religion that "modernizes" to meet the tastes of its members isn't worth anything.


It must have been a great disappointment to you when they admitted that the Earth revolves around the sun, rather than the other way around.
   2812. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4274685)
So when a right-wing VP broke from his party just two months from Election Day, it was no big deal. But when Obama half-heartedly takes the same position — and did so not only eight years later, but as the standard-bearer of the Democrat party — he was a "leader." Comical.


The guy who actually leads is the one who gets credit for being a leader, Joe. Obama's administration has done a lot of things to advance the rights of GLBT people, and Cheney's didn't.
   2813. formerly dp Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4274687)
My position couldn't be clearer: Obama flip-flopped on gay marriage in an election year to score points with liberal elites, fully confident that he'd suffer no repercussions from his black supporters for doing so. And he was correct: Not only did blacks not abandon Obama, but ~20 percent of them suddenly "evolved" on the issue of gay marriage themselves.


Wait, so where's the "pathetic" come in? And again, why is it not similarly pathetic when whites change their position on the issue (which they have, in huge numbers), in large part because of a whole bunch of changes in the way that what it means to be "gay" was intentionally rebranded by those within the movement. but this is a level of nuance I'm not expecting you to think with.

And I think that phrase "liberal elites" does not mean what you think it does. You might not like it, but a lot of young people are voting on gay marriage in this election, because it's one of the only issue that they see as directly affecting them and those around them. It's one of the major injustices of their day, because they've had uncloseted gay friends for most of their lives, and this issue is denying those people rights they themselves have.

But when Obama half-heartedly took the same position — not only eight years later, but as the standard-bearer of the Democrat party — he was a "leader" and a champion of gay rights.


Who the #### has said this, the liberals in your head?
   2814. JL Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4274688)
So when a right-wing VP broke from his party just two months from Election Day 2004, it was no big deal. But when Obama half-heartedly took the same position — and did so not only eight years later, but as the standard-bearer of the Democrat party — he was a "leader." Comical.

Who is calling Obama a leader on this issue?
   2815. Tilden Katz Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4274692)
A religion that "modernizes" to meet the tastes of its members isn't worth anything. The only reason for a religion to exist is to show its members and the world what is the right way to live, and please God. Things don't cease to be sinful b/c a lot of people want to do them.


When was the last time the Church burned someone at the stake for heresy? Or imprisoned a scientist? Or engaged in an Inquisition? Were they wrong then or are they wrong now?
   2816. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4274694)
Michelle Obama says we're in a "huge recovery" but food stamp enrollment is trending higher and higher. What gives?


A large number of jobs these days don't pay enough to keep a family fed. Fortunately, there's a government program that keeps low-income workers from starving.

Maybe if we raised the minimum wage, that'd help. How 'bout it?
   2817. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4274695)
The guy who actually leads is the one who gets credit for being a leader, Joe. Obama's administration has done a lot of things to advance the rights of GLBT people, and Cheney's didn't.

LOL. Flip-flopping only after a "sea change" removes the possibility of political repercussions is the exact opposite of "leadership."
   2818. JL Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:14 PM (#4274699)
So, the Church hasn't changed its positions, but its the one doing the pushing?

A religion that "modernizes" to meet the tastes of its members isn't worth anything. The only reason for a religion to exist is to show its members and the world what is the right way to live, and please God. Things don't cease to be sinful b/c a lot of people want to do them.


Religion such as Christianity has changed a lot over the years, often due to popular opinion. To pretend otherwise, or to insist that the church hierarchy is the only source of truth and how to live is just silly.
   2819. formerly dp Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:16 PM (#4274709)
So, the Church hasn't changed its positions, but its the one doing the pushing?


Yes.

A religion that "modernizes" to meet the tastes of its members isn't worth anything. The only reason for a religion to exist is to show its members and the world what is the right way to live, and please God. Things don't cease to be sinful b/c a lot of people want to do them.


The church embraced the Enlightenment separation of church and state only after it was forced to. The church stopped killing people for exploring dangerous ideas only after it was prohibited from doing so. The church stopped letting its priests rape little boys only once it was forced to confront the problem by outside pressures. I don't expect you to understand this, because it's inconceivable to you that for most of its history, the church has worked actively to suppress free thinking. But that's how it is.
   2820. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:16 PM (#4274711)
Wait, so where's the "pathetic" come in? And again, why is it not similarly pathetic when whites change their position on the issue (which they have, in huge numbers), in large part because of a whole bunch of changes in the way that what it means to be "gay" was intentionally rebranded by those within the movement. but this is a level of nuance I'm not expecting you to think with.

Did ~20 percent of whites change their position overnight because Cheney or Limbaugh switched their position? No.

This whole business about "nuance" is just a silly attempt to explain away a shameless overnight flip-flop on the part of millions of blacks. They might be on the right side of the issue now, but they didn't cover themselves in glory getting there. "I'm in favor of gay marriage because Barack Obama is in favor of gay marriage" isn't much of a principled position.
   2821. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:23 PM (#4274727)
How's that Obama blowout coming?

don't know, never saw one coming, I always said it was 50/50, so go ask the ones who foresaw/see a blowout
   2822. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:24 PM (#4274728)
Sam does schtick . . .

No shortage of apologists for Sam Hutcheson's violent, eliminationist rhetoric.
   2823. McCoy Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:25 PM (#4274731)
LOL. Flip-flopping only after a "sea change" removes the possibility of political repercussions is the exact opposite of "leadership."

Yes, a leader must never change his mind. If you are against equality then you must always be against equality. Worked for George Bush should work for everyone else.
   2824. DA Baracus Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4274735)
No shortage of apologists for Sam Hutcheson's violent, eliminationist rhetoric.


Most of us limit the support to violence against umpires, child molestors and people who talk at the theatre.
   2825. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4274737)
Most of us limit the support to violence against umpires, child molestors and people who talk at the theatre.


Don't forget the seat recliners.
   2826. McCoy Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4274738)
Did ~20 percent of whites change their position overnight because Cheney or Limbaugh switched their position? No.

This whole business about "nuance" is just a silly attempt to explain away a shameless overnight flip-flop on the part of millions of blacks. They might be on the right side of the issue now, but they didn't cover themselves in glory getting there. "I'm in favor of gay marriage because Barack Obama is in favor of gay marriage" isn't much of a principled position.


Who gives an eff? This is pretty shameless distraction crap throwing here.
   2827. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4274740)
White people don't like Dick Cheney.


no one likes Dick Cheney, except oddly enough the guy he shot :-)

   2828. formerly dp Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:29 PM (#4274743)
Did ~20 percent of whites change their position overnight because Cheney or Limbaugh switched their position?


Cheney did as much as he could to not publicize his position-- to the point where you have to read tea leaves to figure out what it was. When Rand Paul says he believes it's a states' rights issue, you know he means "I have no way of reconciling my minimalist position on government with my anti-gay religious beliefs". When Cheney says it, it means something different.

This whole business about "nuance" is just a silly attempt to explain away a shameless overnight flip-flop on the part of millions of blacks. They might be on the right side of the issue now, but they didn't cover themselves in glory getting there. "I'm in favor of gay marriage because Barack Obama is in favor of gay marriage" isn't much of a principled position.


And this is where your thinking fails. The fact that they switched so easily should show you just how precisely calculated Obama's timing was. You're dismissing nuance solely because it's inconvenient for your reductive, partisan narrative. It's not "because Obama said so"-- it's "plus Obama said so". Obama may have been the tipping point, but he wasn't the reason. Remember when they used to use GWRBI as a stat? This is like that.
   2829. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:31 PM (#4274748)
My position couldn't be clearer: Obama flip-flopped on gay marriage in an election year to score points with liberal elites

yes, yes he did, I admit that was like;y one of his reasons

fully confident that he'd suffer no repercussions from his black supporters for doing so.

I suspect he was pretty confident

And he was correct: Not only did blacks not abandon Obama, but ~20 percent of them suddenly "evolved" on the issue of gay marriage themselves.


Yes, he was right, burns you up doesn't it?
   2830. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:33 PM (#4274753)
no one likes Dick Cheney, except oddly enough the guy he shot :-)

I love Dick Cheney.
   2831. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:34 PM (#4274755)
but when you actually show him an interest in engaging him in a more substantive way, he delivers every time.


"every time"
let's not exaggerate here, he can and has engaged in substantive discussions, but he'll go off the reservation even when someone else isn't trolling

personally I find him to be entertaining, but then I also thought Kevin was entertaining (most of the time... I drew the line at R. Base, he was just meanspirited and offensive).

   2832. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:34 PM (#4274756)
So, the Church hasn't changed its positions, but its the one doing the pushing?


When you try to build a dam across a constantly flowing river, the dam is the thing doing the "pushing" yes.
   2833. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4274757)
No shortage of apologists for Sam Hutcheson's violent, eliminationist rhetoric.


Don't forget the childish references to my sack.
   2834. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:36 PM (#4274761)
Cheney did as much as he could to not publicize his position-- to the point where you have to read tea leaves to figure out what it was.

Yeah, breaking from the administration's position two months from Election Day 2004 while at a heavily covered town-hall event was the height of secrecy.
   2835. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:36 PM (#4274762)
"every time"
let's not exaggerate here, he can and has engaged in substantive discussions, but he'll go off the reservation even when someone else isn't trolling


Can't go deep unless you swing for the fences.

I'm totally Adam Dunn.
   2836. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:38 PM (#4274770)
I love Dick Cheney.


In a non-lavender kind of way I presume?

Any snow up there yet, I don't mean to scare you, but I used to live in Buffalo, and you know what people in Buffalo say about Syracuse?

"They get more snow than us."
   2837. SteveF Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:39 PM (#4274773)
let's not exaggerate here,


I'll concede the point, though I think even in the trolling there's usually a substantive point being made even if it happens to be the exact opposite of what's being stated.

Frankly, the best trolls are pretty good at advancing discussion -- or would be if people took them both more and less seriously. You can't really be an effective troll without having a point to make.
   2838. McCoy Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:41 PM (#4274780)
Yeah, breaking from the administration's position two months from Election Day 2004 while at a heavily covered town-hall event was the height of secrecy.

Please find me another article about Cheney making clear his position on gay marriage that isn't about that one single interview.
   2839. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:42 PM (#4274781)
Any snow up there yet, I don't mean to scare you, but I used to live in Buffalo, and you know what people in Buffalo say about Syracuse?

Not yet, but it feels like it could happen any minute now. I'm hoping to hightail it back to Mexico before the snow flies.
   2840. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:42 PM (#4274783)
I love Dick Cheney.


I liked Dick Cheney when he was my boss. Not so much as Veep.
   2841. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:42 PM (#4274784)
You can't really be an effective troll without having a point to make.


Speaking of which, I think Captain Kirk could totally beat up Mel Reynolds from Firefly.
   2842. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#4274785)
Cheney did as much as he could to not publicize his position-- to the point where you have to read tea leaves to figure out what it was.


I'm not a Cheney fan, but Cheney did come "out" before the 20045 election, and it received a decent measure of publicity- and it was contrary to the bulk of his own party, and he's the Veep, someone who is really really really supposed to toe the party line.

Obama OTOH looked to me like he was maneuvered into his switch rather than running with the ball himself.
   2843. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4274787)
Speaking of which, I think Captain Kirk could totally beat up Mel Reynolds from Firefly.


winning that fight the way he did at the end of the movie was totally bogus, the only way he beats the Operative is with help...

   2844. McCoy Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:54 PM (#4274793)
I'm not a Cheney fan, but Cheney did come "out" before the 20045 election, and it received a decent measure of publicity- and it was contrary to the bulk of his own party, and he's the Veep, someone who is really really really supposed to toe the party line.

Geez, I think we all knew Cheney was an evil bastard but I don't think most us knew he was an immortal.
   2845. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:55 PM (#4274795)
winning that fight the way he did at the end of the movie was totally bogus, the only way he beats the Operative is with help..


Clearly. That was poorly done on Joss's part. The proper end to the Operative in that sequence if for Jayne or Zoe to put a hole in him from distance. Mal doesn't fight fair, because Mal knows there's no such thing as a fair fight.
   2846. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4274797)
Geez, I think we all knew Cheney was an evil bastard but I don't think most us knew he was an immortal.


He's actually Apophis.
   2847. DA Baracus Posted: October 17, 2012 at 06:58 PM (#4274799)
Clearly. That was poorly done on Joss's part. The proper end to the Operative in that sequence if for Jayne or Zoe to put a hole in him from distance.


Agreed, but that already happened in the series. And I guess it would be too cliche for River to do it.
   2848. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 17, 2012 at 07:05 PM (#4274802)
He's actually Apophis.


I was thinking Sokor
   2849. BDC Posted: October 17, 2012 at 07:05 PM (#4274803)
It may be too late to inject any nuance into the Obama-on-gay-marriage issue, but I'll try :) First of all, Obama was certainly not a leader on this issue. But as someone who worked to repeal DADT (a measure that Bill Clinton had totally caved in on), his actual sympathies were well-known; he was holding onto a position he clearly didn't believe in, and that no one else believed he believed in, because he was politically timid.

Did his support for gay marriage win him any votes? I think most gay-friendly Obama voters for whom marriage rights are an issue were giving him a pass anyway, particularly since any conceivable Republican alternative was going to be 1000 times worse. So as far as pandering to his base, the "flip-flop" was politics as usual: asserting support for a position that most of his consituency agrees with. Film at eleven, etc.

The timing, though, was hardly panderous. It came on the heels of the NC vote, and expressed support for the position that had lost miserably. That's a strange kind of pandering; it's like throwing rocks at the wheels of a bandwagon that's picking up speed. But by placing himself as an underdog in the debate, Obama seized the kind of issue that few incumbent Presidents get to seize: contested, and in doubt. Would it have been braver to do it before the NC vote? Yes, but it's not craven to do it afterwards.

And then the famous flip-flop by 20% African-Americans or whatever. What is this, one poll conducted the day after he changed the position, or something? Popular, yes, leader, expresses an opinion, and his constituency says, I like the guy and his position? Who on earth knows what the millions of African-Americans think about gay marriage on an ongoing, everyday basis. I reckon their opinions are diverse, personally inflected, and, well, nuanced.
   2850. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 17, 2012 at 07:07 PM (#4274805)
Agreed, but that already happened in the series. And I guess it would be too cliche for River to do it.


I was thinking they could have had a Reaver bust in and start chowing down on him- and have Mal save him... or something, the trouble was that the film pretty well established that Mal was simply not a match one on one versus that guy.

Or hell, they could have let that guy WIN, incapacitate Mal, and then watch the video to see what was on it...
   2851. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 17, 2012 at 07:12 PM (#4274809)
We throw that term "liar" around a lot here.

My 7-year-old daughter told me she was going to get a perfect score on her spelling test last week. She made sure to study, but she still missed one. It occurred to me when I saw the test was that someone on BBTF would have called her a liar.
   2852. DA Baracus Posted: October 17, 2012 at 07:24 PM (#4274816)
the trouble was that the film pretty well established that Mal was simply not a match one on one versus that guy.


Mal should have just outsmarted him once again. Outsmarting foes is what he always did and would be a fitting way to end it.
   2853. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 17, 2012 at 07:27 PM (#4274822)
Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim please stop being a liar about your daughters spelling ability :)

But yes it does annoy me also. I reserve the use of the word for the rare person who deserves it.
   2854. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 17, 2012 at 07:38 PM (#4274825)
We throw that term "liar" around a lot here.

According to Google, it's only been used by one Primate against another about six times in the last 115 pages of OT: Politics discussion (Sept. and Oct.), and it was used jokingly one or two of those times.
   2855. formerly dp Posted: October 17, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4274837)
#2849:
That's a nice summary, but I think undersells Obama's concern over support from people who ID gay. This is going from memory, but a lot of the issues I recall weren't so much around people who ID gay as a voting block, but more about their financial support and capacity to mobilize and be active for Obama.
   2856. Danny Posted: October 17, 2012 at 08:21 PM (#4274853)
But as someone who worked to repeal DADT (a measure that Bill Clinton had totally caved in on), his actual sympathies were well-known

Bill Clinton campaigned on and fought for the rights of gays to serve openly in the military at a time when a majority of the country--including many in his own party--and the military opposed it. He compromised only after Congress threatened to pass a bill completely banning gays from service. Obama campaigned for and signed--I don't think 'fought for' really applies--repeal of DADT at a time when 75% of the country supported repeal.

I don't see how Obama gets more cred on LGBT service than Clinton.
   2857. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 17, 2012 at 08:30 PM (#4274857)
According to Google, it's only been used by one Primate against another about six times in the last 115 pages of OT: Politics discussion (Sept. and Oct.), and it was used jokingly one or two of those times.
I guess that makes me a liar.
   2858. zonk Posted: October 17, 2012 at 09:27 PM (#4274922)
He's actually Apophis.



I was thinking Sokor


Clearly, you've forgotten your SG-1 because he's so obviously Anubis.
   2859. Lassus Posted: October 17, 2012 at 09:33 PM (#4274928)
winning that fight the way he did at the end of the movie was totally bogus, the only way he beats the Operative is with help..

I completely disagree. The Operative was all kinds of arrogant and loved his little move. I thought it was perfectly fitting and clever to have him smacked down like that in a fight he was shown to be winning.
   2860. Answer Guy Posted: October 17, 2012 at 10:24 PM (#4274962)
A huge issue that apparently gets no media attention. I've seen a thousand stories in which Dems bash the religious right for opposing gay marriage. I can't recall a single story about Dems looking within their party to bash blacks and Latinos. This is just basic politics, I'm sure, but it's incredibly dishonest. The average voter probably has no idea just how opposed blacks and Latinos have been when it comes to gay marriage.


It is true enough that the Democratic Party as an institution has not excoriated blacks and/or Hispanics as a group for opposing marriage equality despite the fact that, particularly if one limits one's sample to Democratic voters, the rates of marriage equality are far lower among those two groups than among whites. There are a lot of reasons for this, the most obvious one being that it's not fair to the many blacks and Hispanics who do support marriage equality to paint two huge groups of people with that broad a brush.

However, as the gay community's special envoy to BTF*, I can tell you that after Prop 8 in particular there were a lot of very angry message board posts by gay rights supporters directed specifically at those two populations on gay-oriented and general left-liberal websites. One could choose not to count this as "Democrats looking within their party" but would have be defining "Democrats" to mean the party as an institution, which is a narrower definition than is generally talked about.

* Yes, I'm kidding.
   2861. Steve Treder Posted: October 17, 2012 at 10:58 PM (#4274985)
However, as the gay community's special envoy to BTF*

We love you, Answer Guy. But have you cleared this with Sam M.?
   2862. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 17, 2012 at 11:40 PM (#4274995)
This whole business about "nuance" is just a silly attempt to explain away a shameless overnight flip-flop on the part of millions of blacks.


I'm not sure why you think having an important person make a statement (like Obama's) couldn't influence people without it being some "flip-flop" or strictly a racial following.

Sometimes people don't want to break away from the herd unless they see an example (or a statement) that changes their point of view.

A large portion of the American public's point of view about HIV/AIDS was immediately transformed when Magic Johnson announced he had contracted HIV.
Before then, to most people, it was a disease that happened only to gay/drug-using/unlucky-blood-recipient people.
After his announcement, I'm betting a LOT of people took it much more seriously.

Side note: Holy crap, that was 21 years ago next month. Excuse me while I go lay my old bones down before they snap.
   2863. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 17, 2012 at 11:44 PM (#4274996)
This whole business about "nuance" is just a silly attempt to explain away a shameless overnight flip-flop on the part of millions of blacks.
This coming from the guy who happily embraced Romney's flip-flops.
   2864. bobm Posted: October 17, 2012 at 11:53 PM (#4274999)
[2838]
Yeah, breaking from the administration's position two months from Election Day 2004 while at a heavily covered town-hall event was the height of secrecy.

Please find me another article about Cheney making clear his position on gay marriage that isn't about that one single interview.


Okay.

Transcript: Vice Presidential Debate
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
October 5, 2004

Text From FDCH E-Media, Inc.

Following is the transcript of the vice presidential debate between Vice President Cheney (R) and Sen. John Edwards (D). The moderator of the nationally televised debate was Gwen Ifill of PBS. ...

IFILL: The next question goes to you, Mr. Vice President.

I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: "Freedom means freedom for everybody." You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family's experience as a context for your remarks.

Can you describe then your administration's support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions?

CHENEY: Gwen, you're right, four years ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business.

That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships.

Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference.

In effect, what's happened is that in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the state of -- the legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage.

And the fact is that the president felt that it was important to make it clear that that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's concerned.

Now, he sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president.

IFILL: Senator Edwards, 90 seconds.

EDWARDS: ... Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy. ...

IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.

CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter.

I appreciate that very much.

IFILL: That's it?

CHENEY: That's it.

IFILL: OK, then we'll move on to the next question.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1005.html
   2865. bobm Posted: October 17, 2012 at 11:58 PM (#4275001)
From the 2000 VP debate:

MODERATOR: Senator, sexual orientation. Should a male who loves a male and a female who loves a female have all -- all the constitutional rights enjoyed by every American citizen?

LIEBERMAN: Very current and difficult question. I've been thinking about it. I want to explain what my thoughts have been. Maybe I should begin this answer by going back to the beginning of the country and the Declaration of Independence which says there at the outset that all of us are created equal and that we're endowed not by any bunch of politicians or philosophers, but by our Creator, with those inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. At the beginning of our history, that promise that ideal was not realized or experienced by all Americans, but over time since then we have extended the orbit of that promise. In our time at the frontier of that effort is extending those kinds of rights to gay and lesbian Americans who are citizens of this country and children of the same awesome God just as much as any of the rest of us are. That's why I have been an original co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which aims to prevent gay and lesbian Americans who are otherwise qualified from being discriminated against in the workplace. And I've sponsored other pieces of legislation and taken other actions that carry out that ideal. The question you pose is a difficult one for this reason. It confronts or challenges the traditional notion of marriage as being limited to a heterosexual couple, which I support. I must say I'm thinking about this, because I have friends who are in gay and lesbian partnerships who said to me, isn't it fair. We don't have legal rights to inheritance, visitation when one partner is ill, to health care benefits. That's why I'm thinking about it. My mind is open to taking some action that will address those elements of unfairness while respecting the traditional religious and civil institution of marriage.

MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary.

CHENEY: This is a tough one, Bernie. The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. We don't get to choose, and we shouldn't be able to choose and say you get to live free and you don't. That means people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's no one's business in terms of regulating behavior in that regard. The next step then, of course, is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction of the relationships or if these relationships should be treated the same as a traditional marriage. That's a tougher problem. That's not a slam dunk. The fact of the matter is that it is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area. I try to be open minded about it as much as I can and tolerant of those relationships. And like Joe, I'm also wrestling with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into.


http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=october-5-2000-debate-transcript
   2866. PerroX Posted: October 18, 2012 at 02:03 AM (#4275046)
As I watched Obama last night, I finally understood: the “person” is nowhere to be found. There simply is no person. After his disengaged performance in the first debate, some commentators wondered if Obama even wanted a second term, if he still wanted to be president at all. Democratic partisans and Obama supporters have taken heart from his more aggressive manner last night. They are reacting only to what is on the most superficial level. They cannot see (or they will not permit themselves to see) the enormous effort that was required for Obama to appear engaged and assertive, as I’ve described it above. They take solace in canned slogans and phrases, and they react to emotional signifiers devoid of content. Not only are those signifiers devoid of content: they are directly contradicted by Obama’s record in office. Those who choose to be deluded will continue to believe the lies Obama tells, and the lies they tell themselves.
   2867. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: October 18, 2012 at 02:08 AM (#4275047)
CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter.

I appreciate that very much.

IFILL: That's it?

CHENEY: That's it.

I admit it, this made me like Cheney a little.
It felt weird, sure, but I can't deny it happened.
   2868. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 18, 2012 at 07:52 AM (#4275086)
I admit it, this made me like Cheney a little.
It felt weird, sure, but I can't deny it happened.


I felt it a tiny bit to, but my main reaction was that was one of the last debates I actually watched. Pretty good debate I thought. generally the VP debates seem to be more entertaining than the Presidential ones. Not sure why.

And 2866 is a lovely little slice of crazy, but hey its a free world. I maintain that Obama is a left center pragmatic and technocratic president who gives good speeches and has a great biography, but is on many levels kind of boring. But people see what they see I guess.
   2869. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 18, 2012 at 08:18 AM (#4275097)
2866. Perros. w/Limbs Posted: October 18, 2012 at 02:03 AM (#4275046)
As I watched Obama last night, I finally understood: the “person” is nowhere to be found. There simply is no person. After his disengaged performance in the first debate, some commentators wondered if Obama even wanted a second term, if he still wanted to be president at all. Democratic partisans and Obama supporters have taken heart from his more aggressive manner last night. They are reacting only to what is on the most superficial level. They cannot see (or they will not permit themselves to see) the enormous effort that was required for Obama to appear engaged and assertive, as I’ve described it above. They take solace in canned slogans and phrases, and they react to emotional signifiers devoid of content. Not only are those signifiers devoid of content: they are directly contradicted by Obama’s record in office. Those who choose to be deluded will continue to believe the lies Obama tells, and the lies they tell themselves.


Thanks Perros. Its almost as if he's from Northeastern China or something (no, I'm not saying he's literally been programmed). His image is completely manufactured, which is easy to see when he doesn't have his teleprompter. His 2008 campaign was a complete fairy tale.

***Conspiracy alert***

If you Google - Ulsterman Report White House Insider - you will find a series of interviews that have been conducted and posted over the past couple of years, with a man purportedly a long-time Democrat campaign worker and part of Obama's White House staff. I've been following them for awhile, and many of the topics discussed eventually either come to light or come to pass. Some of course do not. It is clear that this alleged Obama staffer shares Perros's sentiments.
   2870. Non-Youkilidian Geometry Posted: October 18, 2012 at 09:28 AM (#4275138)
As I watched Obama last night, I finally understood: the “person” is nowhere to be found. There simply is no person. After his disengaged performance in the first debate, some commentators wondered if Obama even wanted a second term, if he still wanted to be president at all. Democratic partisans and Obama supporters have taken heart from his more aggressive manner last night. They are reacting only to what is on the most superficial level. They cannot see (or they will not permit themselves to see) the enormous effort that was required for Obama to appear engaged and assertive, as I’ve described it above. They take solace in canned slogans and phrases, and they react to emotional signifiers devoid of content. Not only are those signifiers devoid of content: they are directly contradicted by Obama’s record in office. Those who choose to be deluded will continue to believe the lies Obama tells, and the lies they tell themselves.


Not all of us are blessed with your remarkable ability to discern a man's true character and inner thoughts simply by watching him on TV.
   2871. Jay Z Posted: October 18, 2012 at 09:29 AM (#4275139)
Thanks Perros. Its almost as if he's from Northeastern China or something (no, I'm not saying he's literally been programmed). His image is completely manufactured, which is easy to see when he doesn't have his teleprompter. His 2008 campaign was a complete fairy tale.


If true, who cares.

IMO, he did some of the things he said he would do, and some things that have helped. That is what matters. Bush was see no evil. Clinton could wax on about any topic, but how much did he really care? Reagan lived in homily land, Nixon was driven by his own demons. Carter cared, and look how that worked out.

Mitt Romney, very authentic persona, by the way. I can't think of a single thing Team Romney says or hints the would do that I would like. Do you know how hard that is, to be wrong on every issue of substance?

In many respects the job favors detachment.
   2872. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 18, 2012 at 09:38 AM (#4275148)
I see Perros is on another bender.
   2873. flournoy Posted: October 18, 2012 at 09:42 AM (#4275154)
Do you know how hard that is, to be wrong on every issue of substance?


Isn't that the whole premise of the Green Party?
   2874. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 18, 2012 at 09:54 AM (#4275160)
If you Google - Ulsterman Report White House Insider - you will find a series of interviews that have been conducted and posted over the past couple of years, with a man purportedly a long-time Democrat campaign worker and part of Obama's White House staff. I've been following them for awhile, and many of the topics discussed eventually either come to light or come to pass. Some of course do not. It is clear that this alleged Obama staffer shares Perros's sentiments.

You sound like my friend who sends me links on HAARP rings and weather control.
   2875. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 18, 2012 at 09:57 AM (#4275162)
I admit it, this made me like Cheney a little.

Me too. Also, remember the time he shot his friend in the face? Those '00s were a crazy time, huh?
   2876. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 18, 2012 at 10:13 AM (#4275169)
weather control


I don't believe all I've read about HAARP, but weather control is not any kind of fringe belief. The Chinese implemented measures to control the weather for the Beijing Olympics, it is very well documented. Yes, even in the mainstream media. They employ 37,000 people to seed clouds with silver iodide.
   2877. Greg K Posted: October 18, 2012 at 10:15 AM (#4275171)
If you Google - Ulsterman Report White House Insider

My first google search came up with this (funny, my Chrome doesn't recognize "google" as a word)

   2878. JL Posted: October 18, 2012 at 10:18 AM (#4275172)
They cannot see (or they will not permit themselves to see) the enormous effort that was required for Obama to appear engaged and assertive, as I’ve described it above.

I know I saw it. An interesting article in Slate last week concluded that Obama is an introvert which causes him difficulting in some aspects of the political arena. I think I agree. From what I can see, it is work for him to do certain political acts (working a room, glad handing, etc.). Those activities don't energize him, like they seem to do for other politicians. Not sure that disqualifies him for the presidency, but YMMV.

Me too. Also, remember the time he shot his friend in the face? Those '00s were a crazy time, huh?


Which seems like the best reason not to like him, because if you do, you start talking to him. And if you start talking to him, you become his friend. When you become his friend, he invites you to go hunting. When he invites you do go hunting, you get shot in the face. Don't get shot in the face. Don't like Dick Cheney.
   2879. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 18, 2012 at 10:20 AM (#4275174)
The Chinese implemented measures to control the weather for the Beijing Olympics, it is very well documented. Yes, even in the mainstream media. They employ 37,000 people to seed clouds with silver iodide.


The U.S. did this sort of thing post-war through into the 70s. Cloud seeding != HAARP causing tornados and earthquakes.
   2880. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 18, 2012 at 10:20 AM (#4275175)
They take solace in canned slogans and phrases, and they react to emotional signifiers devoid of content. Not only are those signifiers devoid of content: they are directly contradicted by Obama’s record in office. Those who choose to be deluded will continue to believe the lies Obama tells, and the lies they tell themselves.
Fortunately, we have Romney as an alternative. A genuine truth-teller who is gifted with so many truths that he can contradict himself on almost every issue yet still be believed... at least, by Perros.
   2881. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 18, 2012 at 10:22 AM (#4275179)
If you Google - Ulsterman Report White House Insider

You'll quickly question the IQ level of anyone who would actually cite that as anything other than a Limbaugh Dittohead with too much time on his hands.
   2882. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 18, 2012 at 10:35 AM (#4275184)
A key to a good crazy rant is to build in the "anyone who can't see this believes lies and is incapable of seeing the truth" section right away. Then anyone who tries to refute the rant is in fact confirming it, because they are clearly incapable of seeing the truth. The circle is your friend, purveyors of crazy rants.

Did some cool research on HAARP rings though. I keep a weather eye out (pun intended) for good crazy theories to use as plot devices in RPG games. You can't go wrong with crazy conspiracy theories.
   2883. tshipman Posted: October 18, 2012 at 10:54 AM (#4275190)
Not only are those signifiers devoid of content: they are directly contradicted by Obama’s record in office. Those who choose to be deluded will continue to believe the lies Obama tells, and the lies they tell themselves.


I realize this is a tremendous waste of time, but the prose is even poor. I have no idea what lies are contradicted by Obama's term. It's really vague, terrible writing that is only meant to be read by people who already agree with you.
   2884. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 18, 2012 at 10:57 AM (#4275192)
I know I saw it. An interesting article in Slate last week concluded that Obama is an introvert which causes him difficulting in some aspects of the political arena. I think I agree. From what I can see, it is work for him to do certain political acts (working a room, glad handing, etc.). Those activities don't energize him, like they seem to do for other politicians. Not sure that disqualifies him for the presidency, but YMMV.


"Obama's just like every other politician; he's terrible!"

"Obama's not like other politicians; he's terrible!"
   2885. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 18, 2012 at 11:00 AM (#4275196)
You'll quickly question the IQ level of anyone


You might, but I don't. Not that it means much, but I'm comfortably above the 95th percentile in intelligence, so if you think a low IQ is a prerequisite for "falling for" conspiracy theories, you'll have to go back to the drawing board.

What I find amazing is that so many people immediately jump to the conclusion that anything not reported by the MSM must be a complete and total fabrication from the wildest reaches of someone's imagination. What's in it for them? Do you really think hundreds of people just sit around and one day decide "Gee, I'm going to start a website and make up a bunch of complete BS, post it online, and hope people stumble upon it"?

Do you have any faith in Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists, or do they just make stuff up too? Chris Hedges (former correspondent of your beloved NY Times) filed and won a lawsuit against the Obama administration against portions of the NDAA. The decision of Judge Katherine B. Forrest was later stayed by a higher court and is now awaiting appeal. Nary a word from the national mainstream media. Does that mean that this case never existed Andy? Did Reuters just make it up?
   2886. JL Posted: October 18, 2012 at 11:02 AM (#4275198)
"Obama's just like every other politician; he's terrible!"

"Obama's not like other politicians; he's terrible!"


I don't think it makes him a terrible politician, just that it is a weakness (or at least not a strength).
   2887. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 18, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4275199)
but the prose is even poor


I found it well written from an emotional and lyrical standpoint. The word flow is nice and structure is pretty clean and direct. Informationally it is a train wreck.

It's really vague


This is a feature and not a bug in a good rant. You want to hit emotional buttons, but leave it vague enough so that the reader can fill in the blanks with their preconceptions. So if the reader (for example) feels Obama has not followed through on Gay Rights or healing the Partisan Rift or whatever they can know that is what the author is talking about and nod in agreement. Calling out specific instances and examples runs the risk of the reader not agreeing or referencing actual facts.

I am not saying it is a great rant, but I thought it pretty good. Of course on the substance I agree with you 100% and it does read much better by those that already agree.
   2888. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: October 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM (#4275201)
Speaking of conspiracy theories and general nuttiness, Chuck Klosterman has a piece up at Grantland about a new documentary, Room 237, that I really want to see. It's about Stanley Kubrick's The Shining:


Still, the movie itself is fantastic. It approaches The Shining from the perspectives of five obsessive theorists (none of whom are ever shown onscreen — you only hear their voices). Two of the theories are really just deep critical readings of the film: One insists The Shining is about the Native American genocide and the other suggests The Shining is a metaphor for the Holocaust. The other three hypotheses are less reasonable, but more creative and inimitable: One person sees the entire film as Kubrick's unspoken confession that he faked the moon landing. Another focuses on secret images in the movie that involve the Greek myth of the Minotaur; the third is built around the premise of subtextual synchronicities that hinge on watching the film backward and forward simultaneously.


Here's a video piece put together by the guy who thinks The Shining reveals the truth about faked moon landings



   2889. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 18, 2012 at 11:09 AM (#4275205)
What I find amazing is that so many people immediately jump to the conclusion that anything not reported by the MSM must be a complete and total fabrication from the wildest reaches of someone's imagination. What's in it for them? Do you really think hundreds of people just sit around and one day decide "Gee, I'm going to start a website and make up a bunch of complete BS, post it online, and hope people stumble upon it"?


Many things not reported by the MSM are real. The MSM is driven by ratings and narrative. Anything that is not reported by the MSM which could drive ratings and has a great narrative is automatically suspect (though some things do slip through the cracks - international MSM with different biases can be your friend here).

Things not reported by the MSM which are uninteresting and/or have a terrible narrative and not likely to drive ratings are neither credible nor incredible, and require further research.

And yes, there are hundreds of people sitting around that launch into spewing bizarre crap from the wildest reaches of their feverish imagination. The crazy and attention whores are two common categories of people who do this, but I am sure there are others.
   2890. GregD Posted: October 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM (#4275208)
That Klosterman piece is great. I am kicking myself for missing the screening at the NYFF.
   2891. McCoy Posted: October 18, 2012 at 11:16 AM (#4275209)
I have first hand experience with dealing with the Obamas and I can say from experience that Obama does not like to work a room, does not like to mingle with the people, and is much more comfortable playing the professor lecturing to his students role. The difference between Obama and Clinton/Bush in this aspect is night and day.
   2892. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 18, 2012 at 11:18 AM (#4275210)
Things not reported by the MSM which are uninteresting and/or have a terrible narrative and not likely to drive ratings are neither credible nor incredible, and require further research.


You think a massively contoversial section of a massively controversial piece of legislation like the NDAA being overturned by a US court because it was ruled unconstitutional is not interesting or likely to drive ratings? If you think its not, then that is an admission that your country really is ###### beyond belief.
   2893. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM (#4275221)
That Klosterman piece is great.


Second. My favorite part which seems to fit the politics thread, for obvious reasons.


This is something I've decided to call "Immersion Criticism," because it can't really be done unless you watch a movie 10 or 100 or 1,000 times. It's based on the belief that symbolic, ancillary details inside a film are infinitely more important than the surface dialogue or the superficial narrative. And it's not just a matter of noticing things other people miss, because that can be done by anyone who's perceptive; it's a matter of noticing things that the director included to indicate his true, undisclosed intention. In other words, it's not an interpretive reading — it's an inflexible, clandestine reality that matters way more than anything else. And it's usually insane.
   2894. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 18, 2012 at 11:26 AM (#4275223)
If you Google - Ulsterman Report White House Insider


You'll quickly question the IQ level of anyone who would actually cite that as anything other than a Limbaugh Dittohead with too much time on his hands.

You might, but I don't.


Really? Please tell me what there is about the "Ulsterman Report White House Insider" that you find credible, considering that they've been shown to have invented stories from beginning to end and tried to pass them off as genuine.

Not that it means much, but I'm comfortably above the 95th percentile in intelligence, so if you think a low IQ is a prerequisite for "falling for" conspiracy theories, you'll have to go back to the drawing board.

That much I'll concede, but being a sucker for wacko conspiracy theories and bogus websites isn't exactly proof of a 95th percentile IQ.

What I find amazing is that so many people immediately jump to the conclusion that anything not reported by the MSM must be a complete and total fabrication from the wildest reaches of someone's imagination. What's in it for them? Do you really think hundreds of people just sit around and one day decide "Gee, I'm going to start a website and make up a bunch of complete BS, post it online, and hope people stumble upon it"?

That's a three card monte argument. Of course there are countless cases of stories not reported by the MSM that should have been. There are also many more cases of stories that originated outside the MSM that eventually get picked up by them. My old boss Izzy Stone was perhaps the gold standard in digging for stories like this, but he was hardly the only one, and there are many people today animated by the same vision, from all parts of the political spectrum.

But to steal the old Lloyd Bentsen line, I knew Izzy Stone, and "Ulsterman Report White House Insider", you're no Izzy Stone. "Ulsterman Report White House Insider" is about as credible as this.

Do you have any faith in Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists, or do they just make stuff up too? Chris Hedges (former correspondent of your beloved NY Times) filed and won a lawsuit against the Obama administration against portions of the NDAA. The decision of Judge Katherine B. Forrest was later stayed by a higher court and is now awaiting appeal. Nary a word from the national mainstream media. Does that mean that this case never existed Andy? Did Reuters just make it up?

I made a comment about a specific nutjob website that's been exposed as a fraud, and you somehow infer from this that I believe everything I read in the MSM, and discount everything that contradicts it. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
   2895. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 18, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4275230)
You think a massively contoversial section of a massively controversial piece of legislation like the NDAA being overturned by a US court because it was ruled unconstitutional is not interesting or likely to drive ratings? If you think its not, then that is an admission that your country really is ###### beyond belief.


I was making a general statement about the MSM, in response to your general statement. I was giving my rules of thumb in evaluating stories vis-a-vis the MSM. I know nothing about the specific example you seem to be talking about. Seriously nothing. The reason I wrote in general terms is because I have no basis of assigning attributes to the "story" you are talking about other than what I read in this thread.

But hey feel free to assign to me stuff I never said.
   2896. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 18, 2012 at 11:36 AM (#4275236)
Moon landing truthers are just terribly entertaining.
   2897. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 18, 2012 at 11:41 AM (#4275241)
Not all of us are blessed with your remarkable ability to discern a man's true character and inner thoughts simply by watching him on TV.


Indeed, his description of Obama is remarkably similar to what I suspect about Romney, except I don't print or broadcast it because unlike Perros I realize that such long distance opining on someone else's character without any connection to reality other than what is going on iside one's own skull is self indulgent and fatuous.

   2898. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM (#4275244)
After his disengaged performance in the first debate, some commentators wondered if Obama even wanted a second term, if he still wanted to be president at all.


Maybe he doesn't.
Think of it, don't virtually all Presidents seemingly age more years than actually pass while in office, it's like they are travelling at reverse relativistic speeds. To steal/paraphrase someone else's quote: except fro Nixon, he was getting younger until Watergate hit, he thrived on power like a vampire on blood.
   2899. GregD Posted: October 18, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4275247)
The Klosterman thing on immersion criticism is interesting but how exactly can we separate insane obsession from productive obsession, the guy who babbles to himself about Ulysses and the prof in his office rereading it for the hundredth time. The difference, I used to think, was in social interaction; no matter how eccentric scholars are, you have to put your work into a social community that responds to it. But, honestly, lots of private obsessives do the same; they just put it into different communities. I get that there's a difference--I am a productive obsessive, and not the least of it is that I get a check for my obsessions, which makes them somewhat rational--but the difference is hard to pin down.
   2900. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 18, 2012 at 11:50 AM (#4275255)
how exactly can we separate insane obsession from productive obsession


I am not sure there is a difference other than outcome based. If, after everything is done, a productive outcome or advancement happens it was productive obsession, else it was insane obsession. Many sceintific breakthroughs have come from insane obsession that ended up productive.

It is a very good question though. I am not completely happy with my answer and think there should be a way to distinguish them up front.
Page 29 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam S
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(859 - 11:54am, Oct 23)
Last: zonk

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3268 - 11:53am, Oct 23)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogNo, Ned Yost didn’t “out-manage” Bruce Bochy. His players played better | HardballTalk
(4 - 11:50am, Oct 23)
Last: Shibal

NewsblogStatcast: Posey out at the plate
(15 - 11:43am, Oct 23)
Last: The Polish Sausage Racer

Newsblog‘Marlins Man’ puts Miami front and center at World Series | The Miami Herald
(9 - 11:36am, Oct 23)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogSalvador Perez, Hunter Strickland Exchange Words In World Series (GIF) | MLB | NESN.com
(11 - 11:36am, Oct 23)
Last: Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(878 - 11:31am, Oct 23)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogMartino: Michael Cuddyer is a perfect free agent fit for NY Mets, who like him
(10 - 11:28am, Oct 23)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogI hope this doesn't get me fired. | FOX Sports
(5 - 11:23am, Oct 23)
Last: Topher

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(34 - 11:08am, Oct 23)
Last: Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc

NewsblogHow Wall Street Strangled the Life out of Sabermetrics | VICE Sports
(17 - 10:55am, Oct 23)
Last: AROM

NewsblogMcSweeneys: NEW BASEBALL STATISTICS.
(23 - 10:10am, Oct 23)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-23-2014
(7 - 10:00am, Oct 23)
Last: steagles

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(183 - 8:19am, Oct 23)
Last: BDC

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(66 - 7:12am, Oct 23)
Last: McCoy

Page rendered in 1.1999 seconds
52 querie(s) executed