User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6042 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
What sort of precision do you think chain gun has from "hundreds of meters" away"? I am really going to enjoy this.
No they can't. A gunship is moving at over 200 mph and at a 1000 feet or so it is zipping past targets. You need to stop.
No rebuttal to Ia Drang?
Of course they advocate for peace, that's their role.
But there has been no change in Catholic Just War doctrine, nor in the doctrine allowing killing in self-defense or defense of others. No one sins by killing in the line of duty, in the military, when directed by a legal national gov't.
In the Belgrade incident, the misdirected fire involved large buildings. In something like what you're proposing for Benghazi, snapper, the fire would have to be orders of magnitude more precise, and directed not at big immobile things but at individual humans in a shifting crowd. I don't understand.
He can't. The idea that Obama specifically held back John Wayne and the cavalry from coming over the hill and saving the day is central to the current argument.
Not that precisely, not by a long shot. But than I'm just a former Air force pilot, so what do I know?
Forget it, he's on a roll.
Hmm. . . . a gunship firing thousands of rounds of lead into a city to protect two human lives. . . .
Well, you should brush up on the principle of double effect. If you target the attackers, and other people are harmed as an unintended consequence, you are morally in the clear.
A good personal analogy is an ectopic pregnancy; It is morally permissable to remove the diseased fallopian tube, which will kill the baby, because the intent is not to kill the baby, it is to fix the medical condition.
If they are burning buildings and killing people? Certainly you can fire on them. The "Riot Act" has been in force for centuries.
You order the crowd to disperse, you fire warning shots, and then if they still persist in violence, you fire on the crowd.
So, nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Hmm. . . . a gunship firing thousands of rounds of lead into a city to protect two human lives. . . .
So if 3 people in the crowd are persisting in violence you get to slaughter them all? The people trying to help others, the people trying to flee the scene, the people trying to fend off those committing violence, the people protesting, all of them get to be gunned down?
Crispus Attucks really was lawfully killed then.
OK, if you know, what's the margin of error?
Well, you need to brush up on the meaning of "unintended consequences."
Crispus Attucks really was lawfully killed then.
Yes, he was. The jury acquitted the British soldiers, defended by John Adams.
As long as you target those committing the violence, and have a reasonable chance of stopping them, you are morally in the clear.
We had to destroy the village in order to save it. And hey, how bout them Tigers!
No. It would be far better for Obama if he had "sent in the cavalry". Americans always rally around the flag.
From a narrow political calculation, I would prefer they did what they did, nothing. But, that would be wrong. I'd rather we had tried to save American lives, even if it hurt my political side.
Well, you need to brush up on the meaning of "unintended consequences."
Let me make this crystal clear to you.
One person in a crowd of 1000 is shooting at you. You return fire in self-defense, targeting the shooter. You are completely in the clear morally, for anyone who is inadvertently hit.
Even if you know innocents will be hit, you are still allowed to defend yourself, and are morally justified as long as you do not intend to shoot the innocents.
What's an acceptable ratio? If I hit 20 innocents but only one rioter, is that okay? What if I don't hit any attackers at all but hit innocents? Is that okay since I targeted them?
Which is what most people think would happen. Which is why that position isn't popular, which is why not going that route won't hurt Obama politically, which is what I'm trying to tell you.
EDIT:I don't think these are popular stances either.
I'm sure they killed some "innocent civilians" (who just like to hang out at a fire-fight) too.
Eh, you're all ridiculous, I'm going outside.
I thought you had a Catholic education.
Who are you, The Illusive Man?
Not as ridiculous as someone suggesting we could precisely target fire from a gunship to rescue our boys, but enjoy your walk.
All they needed was to clear an area around the consulate. That's what those plains were designed to do.
Even if they couldn't hit anything, but would just scare people, it would be worth trying. They mere presence of US aircraft would likely scare off most of the attackers.
Just CCD unfortunately. 33AD is the "traditional" year of the Crucifixion/Ressurection. The Church dates from Pentecost of that year.
Better to try and fail, than not to try.
Regardless of consequence or odds of success.
No. Can you recognize that there is an entire universe of difference between one man with a gun and an airborne gunship? What if the only weapon at hand was a nuke? Would it still be moral to flatten the entire city?
One person in a crowd of 1000 is shooting at you. You return fire in self-defense, targeting the shooter. You are completely in the clear morally, for anyone who is inadvertently hit.
Even if you know innocents will be hit, you are still allowed to defend yourself, and are morally justified as long as you do not intend to shoot the innocents.
Not according to the two christian views you've mentioned.
Unbelivable. Firing on a crowd in front of the consulate would guarantee significant fire on the consulate itself, and almost certainly result in the deaths of large numbers of people inside the building - you know, the folks we are trying to save. You really have no idea what you are talking about. To hit someone within a few meters of a building would generate literally thousands of rounds in the immediate surrounding area - measured in the thousands of square meters. Ducking behind a wall like they do in the movies doesn't work - the wall is disintegrated and things behind it shot to literal pieces.
Not at something like this. If we massacred a bunch of civilians and saved the besieged Americans, we'd lose all kinds of international support, and give our enemies just the evidence they want to send recruitment skyrocketing, to encourage more riots of other embassies and installations. We would make the world overseas more dangerous for American servicemen, diplomats and staff, and ex-pats.
Now imagine we failed. We get all of the above plus the deaths of the Americans under attack, plus whatever casualties are likely to come out of the failed mission. Obama's political career is toast (and he probably can't go overseas for fears of being arrested and tried as a war criminal), and President Romney has to win back international support so we can maintain our overseas interests, and deal with increased terror activity.
Tactically, strategically, politically, geo-politically, morally, ethically -- going in there guns a-blazing is a dead-end. There's no "win" there.
I get the feeling that snapper would have cheered on the Ohio National Guard at Kent State, and might have been disappointed that so few students were killed.
First, let's clarify, because you're not doing it for us. For pretty much everyone else in this discussion, and pretty much everyone else on the planet, actually, there's a huge gulf of difference between people in the compound using small arms fire in response to the attack, vs. sending in an AC-130 to mow down city blocks. (I know you want to claim that the AC-130 is capable of "precise" targeting* but you are simply factually incorrect in that belief. AC-130s are not precise weaponry systems, and you really should defer to the folks who know what they're talking about in this regard.)
Second, you are using a pie-in-the-sky, highly theoretical concept of "just war doctrine" to justify moral abnegation. This is one of those times your tendency to kneel and declare the will of the Authority to rule over all is making you make a fool out of yourself.
*The overstating of our military's ability to be "precise" is one of the greatest moral failings of our people, particularly our militarist folks on the right.
It's the CSI syndrome. Teevee has created the notion that a computer database and a "scientific tests" montage with appropriate science background music will generate unassailable results in thirty seconds. Same thing for military strikes - pinpoint accuracy delivered on split second notice is the rule, not the exception.
But Ambassador Stevens died a hero - a hero to many Libyans. His death ignited a significant amount of anger among Libyans against those responsible. There was a later demonstration in Benghazi that resulted in the burning of the headquarters of the militia that might have been responsible and the exile of that militia from the city.
Meanwhile in Tripoli, Libyans are struggling to put together a government. They recently dismissed a prime minister - a political act by a parliament empowered to so dismiss him. The possibility of changing governments by political acts is a good thing, but democracy is messy. Having the U.S. direct massive force against Libyan in the street would not tend to steer the political situation towards better outcomes. As it is, I think Libya has a chance to become a better nation than it has been. We need to keep that larger picture in mind.
And penumbrae, no less.
*compared to other combat systems
I never saw anyone vote for him.
Indeed, very few people did. More people probably listened to your average Ernie Harwell broadcast.
IIRC, I haven't said a word on this topic. I'm simply reporting what I read in my morning paper.
The fact that your morning paper is the New York Post may be your first problem. They were Fox News before there was Fox News.
Agreed on all points. Compared to a tactical nuke strike, pretty much all systems are "accurate." Compared to lobbing cruise missiles from a carrier group parked in the Medi, AC-130s are "accurate." But they're not *precise* in the way people banging this "why didn't Obama send in air support!?!" want them to be precise. Even at best, with a tactical deployment of Marines on the ground to guide the fire, they're still imprecise. In the real situation of Benghazi that night? You'd be sending in airborne tanks to chain-gun down city blocks. The idea that doing that, in a crowded urban environment, is the *moral* act (because two Americans were in danger somewhere in that mess...)
Well, that's the sort of thing that only Snapper seems capable of coming up with and defending with any passion. Even JoeK seems to be passing on this one, because he probably recognizes the fact that these ex post facto demands that the admin should have done something that it didn't do is little more than petty partisan politics played as a dancing jig on four brave patriot graves.
The U.S. military has repeatedly shown the ability to direct artillery and air support fire within 10 meters of besieged US personnel, with no harm to the Americans.
Read up on the battle of the Ia Drang valley if you want an example.
This is crazy talk. Artillery fire is incredibly accurate but only after observations and corrections. The first shot is always called in and corrected for, before firing for effect. They don't just start blasting away from the first shot, especially when there is the potential for friendly fire. The first round is often smoke, rather than a lethal round.
The called in the really close support at Ia Drang only because they were being overrun. There were plenty of friendly fire casualties in that battle because they had to call it in so close. It is dangerous.
My uncle actually won a Silver Star in Korea because he called in a artillery strike on his position. They were being overrun by Chinese. You don't get a Silver Star for doing that if it were safe.
Being as how they've both got the same Daddy, that shouldn't be too surprising.
But what's really weird are these two tracking polls:
Gallup: Romney +7, tied for his largest lead yet
Investors Business Daily / TIPP: Obama +6, his largest lead yet
I await Joe's deconstruction of this with bated breath.....
You know you were raised by a Polish family when even though you're an atheist you know the full name of Karol Jozef Wojtyla.
Gallup: Romney +7, tied for his largest lead yet
Investors Business Daily / TIPP: Obama +6, his largest lead yet
Also noteworthy, the race is tied, 47-47, in the NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll, erasing a 3-point Obama lead from before the debates. I believe this is the first time Obama has not held a lead in the NBC/WSJ Poll.
As for tracking polls, Rasmussen continues to have Romney up 2%. Seems like those that have been most off-base here were those insisting that race was over in September (or earlier!).
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
A bunch of states colored red and blue. But that's not important right now.
The constant name calling really adds a lot to the thread.
I apologize.
And establishment DC finds it unseemly:
The constant name calling really adds a lot to the thread.
I apologize.
As you should. Coming from a man as learned as you, tautology is well nigh unforgivable.
How is that any different than the willingness of numerous Washington Post writers, not all of them opinion bloggers like Rubin, to reflexively defend Obama. Wasn't there a Media Matters e-mail indicating that Greg Sargent "would write anything you give him"? Seems like selective outrage based on which candidate/party you favor - which is much of this thread, too.
And yet national polls are?
What's funny about that is that the Beltway press corps is just noticing this "tarnishing the Post's brand" now. Fred Hiatt's been making a laughingstock of the Post's editorial pages for years; he hired Marc Thiessen, for chrissakes.
Rubin's bias isn't mostly mythical?
I was paraphrasing Airplane.
Anyone that missed the Airplane reference should have to take a week long time-out from the thread.
(Anyone too young to get the Airplane reference shouldn't be allowed to vote anyway.)
The liberals here are beyond parody. Yesterday I got bashed for calling "formerly dp" a coward for hiding behind an alias, and now today he and his buddies spent 100 comments defending Obama's complete passivity in response to the Benghazi attack, as if the lives of Libyan rioters were more important than those of U.S. personnel. The extent to which liberals can invent phony moral equivalence would be impressive if it weren't so pathetic — and cowardly.
***
Well, Nate Silver insists that state-level polls are much more important than the national trackers, and Romney seems to be making gains at the state level. Aside from big leads in North Carolina and Missouri, RCP has Romney leading in Florida, leading in Colorado, leading in New Hampshire, and tied in Virginia, while Romney is down just 2.1 in Ohio, just 2.4 in Iowa, and just 2.8 in Wisconsin. Romney's momentum might have slowed, but I don't see any evidence that Romney's momentum has been "reversed," as Treder seems to be claiming.
Surely, you must be joking!
In other words, Dems have gone from a Dem+20 advantage in 2008 to a Dem+7 advantage in 2012. I'm sure McCoy will be along any minute to explain how a decrease from Dem+20 to Dem+7 isn't, in fact, evidence of declining Dem enthusiasm in Ohio.
Don't call me Shirley.
I was trying to convey my belief that from a religious standpoint, I think they are. But I'm not religious myself, so I backed out of that part of the conversation to a more general position that the police should not fire machine guns into crowds, even if the crowds are rioting.
Sorry if that's pathetic and cowardly.
(EDIT: Well, I think the lives of people are supposed to be equal in God's eyes, regardless of what country they're from)
According to snapper, not if they don't pray to a god with the same name, or hold land that people REALLY want.
Um, how are % evidence of a decline in enthusiasm? Roughly the same amount of Dems are doing absentee and early balloting this year as they did in 2008. The difference is that this year more Reps are getting those ballots as opposed to 2008.
Kehoskie is an idiot and should be put on ignore immediately, until such time as he takes his troll act elsewhere.
Snapper is a quality member of this community with some abhorrent beliefs on occasion.
I assure you that if a crowd of religious zealots marched on the Iranian embassy in DC and Iranian forces fired into a the crowd Snapper and the idiot would change their tunes quickly.
There isn't a standoff weapon in the US arsenal that doesn't have a zone of lethality >10m. Even if perfectly aimed every time, concussion, shrapnel, and ricochet will kill you far further away than that, and I assure you even weapons fired from point blank are not perfectly aimed every time. You have zero knowledge of how ordnance works to say this. I mean, this is such a flat lie or show of ignorance, your "military history" books must consist of Sgt. Rock comics.
Hasn't it been determined that there wasn't a protest at the consulate?
This liberal agrees (figured I'd note the occasion for posterity up front).
This race looks pretty close to a tossup to me. Obama has more potential paths to victory, particularly if he can win Ohio or claw his way back in Florida, so I suppose he's got a slight edge overall given the parity on the national level, but there's a good eight states where anything could happen (yes, state polls are ultimately where the action is, but Romney's tightening the race in state polls seems to bear out the axiom [espoused by Silver and others], that state polls tend to increasingly fall in line with national polling with time).
My nightmare scenario is that in which Romney becomes the first R to win the White House without winning Ohio, which seems more plausible than it once did.
There is no bigger troll anywhere than Sam Hutcheson, yet he wants to ban others?
Oh, so "marching" is all they did in Libya. Who knew? I guess Amb. Stevens & Co. were "marched" to death rather than assaulted with RPGs and other weapons.
No. One assumes the "send in the AC130s" crowd means send them into the second compound. I assume they don't think ACs could have been magically transported to the first compound in the first hour or two of the attack.
Your inability to read is duly noted.
The possibility of Romney winning Wisconsin does open up some non-Ohio opportunities for victory. Winning Iowa & Nevada might also do the trick, assuming other states break as needed. Still, Ohio is likely the key state for both campaigns at this point.
McGovern got 29 million votes in 1972, and I bet everyone who voted for him were proud they did. And stayed proud. Richard Nixon got over 47 million votes, and I've never heard anyone admit they voted for him--certainly not without gulping. And I say that because I was one.
Well, Florida more so for the Romney campaign, if you're talking sine qua non; there's pretty much no way Romney wins without Florida. Ohio's slightly less crucial for the reasons you stated (and of course it's got fewer EVs).
Instead, we have the usual sniping.
I'm not interested at all in hurling insults. If I wanted to do that, there are far better sites for it.
In my case, I've ratcheted up the level of snark I use here — and by "here" I mean the politics threads and not BBTF in general — in response to the amount of opprobrium hurled my way. I don't like the tone of these threads, but I'm not a pacifist. If people throw rocks at me, I'll throw rocks back at them. Hell, given that non-liberals are outnumbered here by about 10 to 1, I might even throw hand grenades back at them occasionally.
Bottom line, it's absurd for the liberals here to hurl vitriol day after day — and to sit by quietly while Sam threatens neck-stabbings and "double taps to the forehead" — and then whine because the non-liberals don't talk like U.S. senators. I doubt anyone on this site has had more crap thrown at them than Ray, David, and snapper, and yet it's the liberals who whine when someone says "typical liberal" or "typical Obama supporter." Physicians, heal thyselves.
I agree that Obama's campaigning in NC is a waste of time and money--he's not winning NC unless he's performing a lot better nationally than he is now, and it's not likely to be a decisive state for either candidate.
If you had a time machine, I'd tell you to go back to when David and RETARDO were viciously attacking each other all over the place. But as it is, you can either take my word for it or try to find the specific threads with Google.
LOL. That's your position? I'm embarrassed for you.
(And, while I'm sure you're right about snapper and Ray, I'm not entirely sure David gets a lot of actual ABUSE from anyone but Sam.)
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main