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 0.6341 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.
Ever see Taxi Driver?
It's perfectly reasonable to ask Romney about his position on the Church, especially prior to 1978. It's perfectly reasonable to ask about Romney's association. It's absolutely reasonable to point out the double standard here. However, Sullivan isn't just doing those things.
Sullivan trolling Romney's Mormonism is exactly what was wrong about the Right's reaction to Wright and done in a remarkably similar fashion. This is about creating some framework to insinuate Romney supported Mormon Church racism in some fashion beyond being a member of the Church he was born into. There is absolutely nothing to that effect. Sullivan himself is a cafeteria Catholic*, and he should afford Romney a similar benefit of the doubt wrt free will. This is a hit piece, plain and simple.
*I think that's the right term?
Mormonism is, theologically speaking, roughly as closely related to Christianity as Islam is to Christianity, or Christianity is to Judaism...
No. I have odd gaps in my movie watching. I just saw Dr. Strangelove this past weekend in fact.
I think the only reasonable use of Romney's Mormonism is as a rebuttal to those remaining lunkheads who want to harp about Jeremiah Wright...
Golly, amazing how everyone in the librulmedia seems to have learned their lesson from the overzealous pursuit of that negro church! And just in time too!
Surely there's nothing in their scripture supporting any inherent inferiority of the negro, right?
Medical Marijuana? Drones? Are those the real policy beefs? It's really hard to differentiate between people who actually have policy disagreements and people who are upset that we're in a recession.
I don't know; I was a McGovern volunteer in 1972 (yes, I was young and idealistic) and there were plenty of single women around. Of course 90-95% of them were hippies who didn't shave their legs or under their arms.
Yeah. You hammer the body blows to FL even if you plan on delivering the knock-out hook to OH.
It seems to me that this election is too close to give up anywhere if you have the money and people to keep active there. Run through the fricking bag, boys.
Yeah, I'm telling ya'...
A couple friends and I were serious Deaniacs in 2003/4 -- so we held a couple 'events', which consisted entirely of setting out an envelope for checks, posting printouts of the Dean website position papers on the wall, and then proceeding to have a #####-and-moan about Bush session with about 30-40 people who had always voted Democratic, were absolutely going to vote Democratic this cycle, and had zero idea how to do anything more... but we also had snacks and drinks, and while 'socializing' --
It was seriously the most amazing thing I'd ever seen - the single ladies absolutely zero in any guy not wearing a ring and if you can manage to communicate without drooling on yourself, you're pretty much golden.
I have zero idea if it works the same way on both sides of the aisle, but it's pretty clear that you've got a mix of ladies that are 1)not shy about expressing opinions and being forward about their intentions, and 2) rather interested in guys that demonstrate an interest in anything besides xbox...
They key though - you've got to find yourself a poorly run campaign ;-)
Tight operations like the Obama one are a bit more Foxconn-ish -- not that someone's standing over you with a whip, but there's not much wandering around and socializing.
For me (small sample size alert):
* General Hawkishness ... drones and so on.
* Mediocre of civil rights ... Everything from Gitmo to Gay Marriage (the late conversion helps on this a bit)
* General Centrism ... Love of Grand Bargains, negotiating with himself and so on
* Lack of Partisanship (similar to above) ... More about the Obama brand than the D by his name, post partisan nonsense, and so on
All in all some promises not kept and some squishy centrist post partisan obsession with negotiating with the Republicans to the point of hurting the economy, along with a bit more hawkishness than I prefer.
Note: I am an Obama supporter, I don't think he is the lesser evil, because I don't think he is evil at all - just not perfect. He is a very good politician and strategist and has seveal times suprised me with various political maneauvers (good outcomes when I thought there were none to be had). Overall I would give him a B+ (partly grading on a curve with bonus points for the crap he inherited and the fabulous Congress he has had to work with - queue Joe K and his but for 181 days and 7 minutes silliness).
EDIT: I am not all that left, but I am to the left of Obama I think, who as I have said before is a Center Left pragmatist.
Crap. No drooling you say. I will work on that for next election I guess.
War on Drugs, drones, and the like.
There are legitimate policy points of conflict for plenty of folks on the left. I even sympathize with lots of them - I just believe that slow and steady slides are the way things work rather than abrupt changes in policy.
He didn't validate their feelings quickly enough, and now everything is ruined forever.
It's perfectly reasonable to ask Romney about his position on the Church, especially prior to 1978. It's perfectly reasonable to ask about Romney's association. It's absolutely reasonable to point out the double standard here. However, Sullivan isn't just doing those things.
Sullivan trolling Romney's Mormonism is exactly what was wrong about the Right's reaction to Wright and done in a remarkably similar fashion. This is about creating some framework to insinuate Romney supported Mormon Church racism in some fashion beyond being a member of the Church he was born into. There is absolutely nothing to that effect. Sullivan himself is a cafeteria Catholic*, and he should afford Romney a similar benefit of the doubt wrt free will. This is a hit piece, plain and simple.
I'd think that Sullivan's comments could be fairly equated to the Wright obsessors if he kept it up for more than one or two more posts. That was what truly distinguished the Wright obsessors----They kept raising "questions" that had been answered over and over to anyone not looking to convert a question into a neverending obsession. It remains to be seen whether Sullivan will fall into that, but I wouldn't assume it before it happens.
--------------------------------------
I think the only reasonable use of Romney's Mormonism is as a rebuttal to those remaining lunkheads who want to harp about Jeremiah Wright...
Maybe on a forum like this, but the last thing either candidate needs to do at this point is to get sidetracked into Breitbart/Drudge/Hannity types of trolling.
These, + Afghanistan, the war on drugs, some immigration stuff and some stuff Duncan is doing for me.
As far as enthusiasm re. bunyon's comment, I am seeing the same thing. Basically, people don't like losing. A lot of the American left is not thrilled with Obama, but the idea of his losing to a guy like Romney is, uhh, less thrilling than Obama himself is. So I think the "enthusiasm" is actually "We don't want to lose" more than a second honeymoon with Obama.
Obama has been almost exactly what I expected, however.
If he beats Romney and the Right foams at the mouth and gets all Tea Party on the bit then I and many on the Left will in fact be willing to give Obama a second honeymoon (Schadenfraude and all that).
Maybe. But I think it will be a short one.
Once more: There were no remaining "questions" about Obama/Wright that were needed to form a judgment. The necessary questions had been asked and answered: Obama sat in Wright's church for 20 years and listened to him - and by Obama's own admission heard "controversial" things - and, still more, heaped praise onto Wright.
No more "questions" were needed to conclude that Obama's association with Wright in and of itself was a problem, any more than we need to know whether Rose bet against the Reds to declare Rose unfit for MLB. We didn't need to know whether Obama subscribed to Wright's views. That was always the red herring you threw up.
And so I guess there are also no remaining "questions" about Romney's continuing membership in a racist church. I guess that's all you need to know about Romney, unless you think that for the first 31 years of his life Romney was completely unaware of his church's racist history and doctrine, even as he was doing missionary work for them in France.
But then I guess that's different. Not sure why, but I'm sure you'll come up with an explanation. You've always got plenty of explanations for every occasion.
What a lovely construct you have there. If he truly liked Rev. Wright, enjoyed the experience and in 20 years heard two controversial things - then that is a "problem".
My goodness he failed to criticise his religious leader and even praised him, has he no shame! Everyone else in America, certainly every politician, completely owns everything his or her religious leader says until and unless the explicitly denounce them and/or their controversial views.
As I said, neat construct, too bad it has nothing to do with reality.
EDIT: I need to think faster or type faster, especially when an old coot like Andy beats me to it. Oh well to the swift go the spoils, so have a coke on me.
And from the comments:
This argument fails on its own weight. Obama didn't say, "Hey, I like Wright and I enjoyed the experience even though I heard controversial things, so go scratch." He said, "I am cutting ties with Wright."
What planet are you posting from? He did criticize Wright. And then he cut Wright loose.
It's near Kolob. Don't know where that is? Maybe you could ask Romney if this is one of the controversial statements he heard in his church.
Completely agree on all counts.
------------------------------------------------
This argument fails on its own weight. Obama didn't say, "Hey, I like Wright and I enjoyed the experience even though I heard controversial things, so go scratch." He said, "I am cutting ties with Wright."
And so we both agree that (a) it was crazy to obsess over Wright once Obama made his Philadelphia speech, and (b) it would be equally crazy to obsess over Romney's Mormonism during the first 31 years of his life. That certainly works for me.
If the Gallup numbers are right, I assume many will accuse Silver of allowing bias to undermine his work.
Silver might have a lot on the line, but it won't be from the Breitbart troglodytes who think, among other things, that Marxist liberals will be voting twice or that the President can cancel the election with an Executive Order.
I mean, this stuff is sort of amazing, when you think about it. What a strange, terrifying worldview that must be.
####### Eric Holder. What are you doing touring the Midwest when we need cigarettes and vodka in California????
I imagine that if Obama wins, the claim will be in the fever swamps that he won due to voter fraud.
I was referring more to the Gallup numbers; I would guess, however, that many reasonable people on the right now think that Romney is going to win, so if a liberal running a projections blog for the NYT calls it for Obama and is correct, well, that will be a pretty big deal for Silver, particularly if outfits like Gallup and Rasmussen get it wrong.
I find this stuff fascinating. There are batshit crazy morons on all sides of course, but the stuff that is said about Obama is particularly out there.
Much the same for Bush's second inauguration, DC, 2004, except "the ladies" really REALLY wanted to be told what to do. Total fiends for a daddy/boss type.
Just wear a flag lapel pin and talk about the need to support our Commander in Chief, and the Stepford Hotties would line right up.
If you were hypothetically a bad person, you didn't even need to believe what you were saying. You just had to say it with conviction.
Eh, a lot of lefties said the same thing about Bush, pretending to be worried he'd declare some kind of "constitutional emergency" and refuse to leave office.
Carlton Fisk clearly got in some early voting the other night.
Agreed - I could quote folks on Democratuc Underground who think Bain is going to control the election by buying up voting machines and that they hold sway over CNN's post-debate coverage, too, but some of the Obama-specific stuff - man, it really makes you wonder.
Bush would have gotten away with it since he and many high ranking members of the government are reptilian shape shifting Illuminati.
Obama wants to do it because he's a secret Muslim.
I don't know if "a lot" is really the right amount, but (obviously) they were idiots as well.
The Hook brings you back.
The first I heard this type of nonsense was late summer 2000 with Bush leading Gore in the Polls, started seeing stuff about how Clinton was gonna declare marshal law so he could stay on...
Regarding 2008- maybe if Cheney was President :-), but I think Dubya just wanted to get the hell out of Dodge and decompress
OK, there's this leftie on record as doubting the coup-propensity of George W. But perhaps I am a pretty sane lefty :)
The context, BTW, was a review of a book about Richard Nixon. Now that guy was worth worrying about.
Odds of Clinton's declarations:
Marsha Law: 45%
Marshmallow Law: 37%
Marshall's Law (cheap socks for everyone!): 11%
Marichal Law (Outlaw handguns, mandate bat ownership): 7%
Marital Law: 1%
Martial Law: no line.
well take this
:-)
I was going with your statement of the "problem".
I know Obama cut him loose. It was a political decision. Now you want to hold him to the standard of having been with him for 20 whole years and heaping praise AND then blame him for cutting him loose. Your bizarre construct is getting even better.
In the real world no one should have cared about Rev. Wright, since no one cares about the religious leaders of any other politicians. And also in the real world politicians cut ties with people who are political problems. Neither him being in the church nor him cutting Wright loose are big deals in the slightest, except in the fever swamps.
Grandma praises Obama's diction and stuff just gets out of hand :)
He merely "offered" to stay on if the city needed him...
Well.....
Did this nuttiness get posted yet?
I thought Obama had admitted long ago to using cocaine as a teenager, although since I don't care whether he did I haven't followed the details.
Pushing would of course be a different story, not that I would care about that either.
I guess you can help turn out your own base, but again 2004 shows that ain't always enough.
A scandal about a recent event, that would be a different story.
Pretty much, yes.
I would think folks would re-examine the difficulty of getting an accurate poll with only 8% responding, and look at whether non-responders tilt toward either party.
That's what I recall
yes, yes it would...
Radaronline also claims that Allred's "October Surprise" is the attempt to unseal testimony given by Romney in an old case- apparently it's in a Probate/Family court-
digging around I've seen sites that claim it's a "family court matter" than involved Romney and others that it's a probate court matter- either way I suspect that this may involve the gross invasion of someone's privacy by the media (Of course I couldn't care less about Romney's or Obama's privacy at this point)
I hooked up with a girl at whatever 1989 Inaugural Ball had Kid Creole and the Coconuts playing at it. Don't judge me - Kid Creole! Never went to another Inaugural Ball again - it would only suffer in comparison.
Then don't be a jerk and post with your real name.
I'm not sure how it is misleading when I've been talking about registered dems and reps requesting ballots or going to the booth early. Nowhere in my statement did I say that was a vote total.
What I'd expect the story to turn out to be:
18- or 19-year-old Barry Obama is in college. Enjoys some cocaine with a small group of friends. One of those friends later says, "Hey, Barry, can I buy a little cocaine off you?" Barry says, "Sure, I'll hook you up" and sells the friend some small amount of cocaine.
It sounds a lot worse when it's Barack Hussein the Pusherman, but dollars to powdered donuts the true story is a lot more like this, than like that.
Who could hate on Kid Creole? Even Endicott had to admit that he was dope.
I don't think anyone should be punished for posting whatever here. There is a tiny bit of funny that it would be the guy insisting those who publish under their real name have greater credibility (or whatever it was real name posters have - honestly I tuned out that sub-thread as much as I could) get hurt because he used his real name, but I am still against it. Not just because I like Joe and having him around (as annoying as it can be sometimes).
Anyway, I agree that even if that were true (which of course we have zero particular reason to believe), pretty much everyone has already formed their opinion of Obama by now and will issue a pass or condemnation accordingly. Also, Trump has beclowned himself so thoroughly that Obama could have been Tony Montana North and I don't think anyone would believe Trump if he proved it.
Pretty sure that would just about seal the deal.
Again, the guy already said (before 2008) he tried cocaine and not only tried pot, HE INHALED ("That was kind of the point" is one of my favorite things he's ever said).
Obama voters not only don't care, they see no dissonance whatsoever between the President's behavior and his continuation & expansion of the War on (some) Drugs.
IIRC, there was a last-minute drunk-driving story about W in 2000, but it didn't deflect his momentum very much. Nor should it have; I will sound like an idiot if history reveals that 43 was soused throughout his Presidency, but the official version, unchallenged except by imaginary tabloid stories, is that he's a sobered alcoholic (as was his predecessor as Governor, Ann Richards). Good for him.
I don't care as long as he's clean now (see #4372), and dissonance or not, I think that the War on Drugs is a terrible idea, and that Obama deserves plentiful criticism for it. But I voted for Obama because I can't imagine Mitt Romney having a saner position on the Drug War.
The argument is usually about tone and civility. You'll tend to make your points in a more civil manner if you cannot post anonymously.
In my experience, civility tends to be contagious. If you respond to people being uncivil to you in a civil fashion, they tend to alter their approach out of embarrassment/reciprocity unless they are genuinely trolling.
Oh, I see the dissonance, I just don't really care. The medical marijuana industry is problematic because what people really want is legalization, and MM is used as a weird backdoor. All the guys on the street corner smoking pot have a card. It's well-known who you can go to in order to get one. The medicinal marijuana groups don't really care about medicinal. If they did, they'd police it more carefully.
Now, I think it's a damn shame that the feds have ratcheted up enforcement. However, the fact that people can't smoke pot in peace is really not high on my list of concerns.
Unless it was truly egregious, I don't think people would care one way or another. The Obamas are a good couple. Lots of good couples go through rough patches, especially when money is tight. Not a big deal.
So long as the BBTF snark stays. It is half the reason I come here.
I agree - I wish we had a sarcasm tag.
I suspect that if anyone is worried about Trump pulling crap now, it's Romneys' people who are more worried than Obama's, Trump may actually engender sympathy for Obama or feed the perception that rightwingers are batshit insane
Or people could have just assumed you're not a moron.
Infidelity, well, I do think a lot of people would feel personally devastated by that news. But Clinton's sky-high approval ratings in the aftermath of Monicagate would suggest that the public wouldn't factor it in. The election figures to be close enough, though, that I couldn't entirely rule out a meaningful effect. It would in fact be a last-minute surprise, so the public might not have reached the "forgiveness" stage yet at election time... and I think people currently view Obama as having more personal integrity than they did Clinton pre-Monica. Say more black women and/or women in general than expected decide to stay home on Election Day; that would in fact hurt Obama.
Simply not getting along (and the article says it was Michelle filing because she didn't like Barack's House run in 2000) would obviously be nothing.
Ehh, I'm totally falling into Trump's trap here by giving air time to all these crazy scenarios with no basis in fact. Is this how word got around that Jeff Bagwell used steroids? (And are we still trying to do it for Jack Morris?)
The third party debate is coming up at 9 PM EST! I think it's on CSPAN, and of course the world-renowned Ora TV.
Participants are the Libertarian Party's Gary Johnson, the Justice Party's Rocky Anderson, the Green Party's Jill Stein, and the Constitution Party's Virgil Goode. I guess the Green Party has split, as Ralph Nader endorses Anderson, while Noam Chomsky endorses Stein. Anderson seems to me like the better alternative of the two. He has held an actual meaningful government post for one thing (mayor of Salt Lake City), and his platform is single-payer health care, campaign finance regulation, abolishing corporate personhood, ending the War on Drugs, and all that other green stuff.
Moderated by Larry King, who probably doesn't know anything and even when he does likes to act like he doesn't... always a potent combination. Yes, Larry King has a "show" on "Ora TV". Apparently that is a thing.
God help us all.
It is at times like this that I really miss Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf.
Heh.
Romney's people absolutely want Trump to shut up. With a month to the election, the last thing they need is for people going off on their own. I imagine their preferred scenario would be for Trump to bring (whatever he's got) directly to them, and then they'd decide how to deploy it. But in Trump's hands, most of the message is going to be "HEY! LOOKIT ME!"
Even if he's got something real, it's going to get tainted by coming out of Donald Trump's mouth.
I swear to god I read this as "Larry King has a show on Ova TV" and almost had some kind of twitchy stroke.
Why did Romney get in bed with any of the crazy wingers he got in bed with this campaign? He thought he'd be able to get out of bed later without suffering any serious repercussions. Duh.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main