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 0.6704 seconds
53 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.
Here they have polling places in all of the public library branches; which is a good thing as they have drastically cut back on the number of places where you can vote on election day. I was going to the library on the way home from work so it was a no brainer for me.
6 years for failing to predict the future.
Yikes.
No idea what that is, but it sounds like a great reality TV show. Drop all the primary candidates in a jungle with nothing but a machete and a canteen and whoever gets out first wins!
It's disquieting to think of what those things did to a human body for people living through the First World War to stop and say, "whoa, that's over the line mate".
My uncle did some work on a weather forecasting system for the Italian Army in the 60s. Hopefully he doesn't get extradited back there for a bad lightning storm.
He also gains two and now leads the RV model, 48-47.
Ras still holding at R +4.
2 tributes from each district, one Republican, one Democrat.
I had it lean R until Mourdock's latest (and seriously, the guy has been shooting himself in the foot with his mouth ever since the primary... this is just the first time he's gone viral).
Indiana generally doesn't like bomb throwers - sure, sure, it's a red state and certain congressional districts have given us jackasses like Dan Burton - but at a state level, I'm just not sure Mourdouck plays...
Internal polls are internal polls, of course - but I do think it's telling that the Donnelly campaign hasn't been shy about releasing their internal polls, while I don't know that I've seen any released from Mourdouck or the RSCC... not saying I believe Donnelly is 5 pts up - just that generally, if you don't have any objective polling, the side that's quiet about its own internals isn't doing as well as the side that tends to trumpet and broadcast its own.
Make it a bayonet instead of a machete, and I think we'd all watch.
EDIT: I'd also never heard the term "jungle primaries" before now. I'd heard them called nonpartisan open primaries and other such milquetoast things.
My favorite is the "take the Grand Canyon back for locals!" prop.
AZ is seriously contesting the AR and MS as ground zero for the stupid.
I don't really like these top two situations -- they're extremely easy for a well-organized party to game... while Florida doesn't have such a thing, I just think of the nonsense that likely-soon-to-be-indicted David Rivera pulled (essentially, running a phantom primary candidate against his likely D opponent and doing a lot of shady cash-stuffed envelop transfers to fund it).
I don't think you end up with moderates either -- because moderates don't tend to inspire many people... and primaries are about inspired people -- hence, I think you end up with nutty and nutter more often than not because you only need to win a top 2 plurality spot, and in a race flooded with candidates -- the nuts simply tend to turn out in bigger numbers. Moderates have 'support' that's a mile long, but inch deep -- in primaries, that's just often not enough.
It can make for interesting debates, though -- as this D on D action in a California congressional debate (CA has 'jungle primaries') shows...
EDIT: sip of coke to Fern... though, I've got the debate scuffle in my link!
Huh, Nate Silver may have even more on the line than I thought...
Heh.
This has been presented as this, but they were actually charged with making false statements the other way. Basically the head of the group made the bonehead statement that small shocks will prevent a big earthquake, leading (allegedly) to a false sense of security.
It's still ridiculous, but it's not so ridiculous as people are making it out to be.
It's disquieting to think of what those things did to a human body for people living through the First World War to stop and say, "whoa, that's over the line mate".
I believe even by the start of WWI saw-bladed bayonets were extremely rare. 1 in 20 were of that variety and Germany pulled them all out in 1917. As a tool the saw was pretty useless and as you mentioned a wound by one of these was pretty gruesome. There was a lot of "contraband" weapons that if you were found with on your possession could get you killed or severely beaten. Don't be a machine gunner and don't have spiked brass knuckles on you when you get captured.
Already seen a number of "Why is the NY Times silent on the biggest presidential coverup of all times??? on social media today. Apparently nobody is old enough to remember Iran-Contra anymore.
The general gist of the way I've seen it reported, (and it's hard to find anything definitive) is that the 6 scientists had a meeting with local civil officials and said something along the lines of "we think that the smaller quakes make a larger quake unlikely, but we can't guarantee that with any certainty" and then the "government official" who was also convicted went out and had a presser where he doubled down on the former and mostly left out the latter.
Ironically, there is a quote in it about how the bayonet is obsolete, or so I recall.
I thought "Fast and Furious" was the biggest presidential coverup of all time. Well, I mean, it was a couple of months ago.
This is a big part of the reason I stated above that I automatically vote no on all of these (except for the amendment in 2006 which would change the requirement for future constitutional amendments to 60% approval instead of just 50%, I voted for that and it did pass). I have to leave for work but if this is still being discussed when I get home I'll elaborate a bit more on I'm so against them.
Are liberals here still pretending that America has not been moving to the left?
Dude, you can't pull off a complete Kenyan Muslim Anti-Colonialist Socialist makeover in 3.5 years without like, a new cover-up every week.
Or, alternatively, the wingnuts continue to throw #### at the wall in the hopes that something sticks.
Speaking of wingnuts, Kehoskie has been notably absent since the Wiki counterpunch.
The former should be a basic Libertarian position. And at least one lib here (Dan) should strongly support the latter.
Socially, yes. Economically, no. With regard to foreign policy, absolutely not.
The world, she is complex, Ray. You need to update your processing parameters.
Shhh. If you say his name two more times he'll appear.
Are liberals here still pretending that America has not been moving to the left?
As Sam rightly says, socially it has been, but OTOH you might also have noted that same sex marriage has so far been defeated in every state where it's been on the ballot. Once again your capacity for selective information ingestion never ceases to be on display.
In fact, the _reactionary lurch rightward_ is a direct response to the feeling of powerlessness the throwbacks feel in the face of basic human progress.
It's a complicated world, man.
Precisely...
Nothing would please me more than to "admit" America is moving to the left... in fact, I wish it were so. I just see the sorts of things being proposed by one of the two parties -- and see the fact that rather than losing their pants, they're still competitive despite things like eliminating well-liked programs like Medicare and Social Security.
What social issues have moved to the right? With the possible exception of 2nd Amendment rights...
I wonder how Monday's joint press conference on how the President was making mostly correct foreign policy decisions has affected that thought process.
I'd also wonder how Romney supporters process the sudden change, but I know that answer.
I think it would be fair to say that a lot of birth control and abortion legislation has moved rightward -- it certainly hasn't gone leftward.
Privacy rights. Reproductive issues. Drug/Alcohol use. Employer/Employee relationships. . . .
Did it have anywhere to go on the left? Serious question.
Separation of church and state. 24th Amendment.
Good point, although I mostly see this stemming from technological changes rather than ideological ones.
Not sure, but then abortion as a political issue bores me. My only beef with abortion is that I can't choose who gets one.
Mixed bag. MADD is doing their level best to bring back Prohibition, but medical marijuana has made great strides over the past 20 years.
I don't see how this hasn't moved to the left.
Daniel-san.
Absolutely. More controversially, abortion-on-demand. Abortions covered as part of standard insurance claims (i.e. vasectomies.) Less controversially, but still to the left of anything the US has managed, "morning after pills" are available OTC in most western nations.
Like I said before the world is complicated. For every step we take to the left on something we then take a step to the right on something else.
Yeah, thought so, but didn't trust my memory.
Daniel-san.
Guess that last debate pushed him back into the ranks of the uncommitted
Sure, I think so -- if you're not religious and believe "life" begins at birth, not conception -- I suspect that there are those who would say that any limit on the practice of 'abortions' leaves the issue far from what they'd call optimal.
I suppose a lot depends, too, on whether the 'drift' needs to be explicit or not... there's been a lot of state and local legislation that hasn't even mentioned abortion, but was designed to limit it. For example, Mississippi legislature, I believe, passed a law that required physicians to be part of a hospital group... no MS hospitals will admit physicians who practice abortion procedures, hence, an end-around the underlying issue.
On reproductive rights generally - I guess I would also look at things like the Blunt amendment (which didn't pass, granted, but came awfully darn close), the attacks on Planned Parenthood, etc.
On a cynical level - both "parties" want to keep abortion/reproductive rights alive as an issue because it helps juice both their bases... but it seems like, for the past decade or so, one base has been a lot more effective at inching towards their ultimate goal, while the other base really hasn't moved their own needle.
"The Wikipedia attack?" Talk about "over the top." The man put up a Wiki page that was in clear violation of Wiki's policies. That page became public knowledge in the midst of a political thread here where he trolled his way into the doghouse of various users. Someone notified Wiki of the violation of their terms. That's not an attack, you git.
Maybe. I don't know what Dan's current position might be. I do know that if Romney's pivot LEFT in the FP debate made someone thing he was suddenly less bad than Obama... Well, that's an odd thought.
While I think it should pass, my basic position is that marriage is none of the government's business. I don't see any reason why, from the point-of-view of government, a contract between Harry and Barry to cohabitate and pool their financial resources should be considered at all different than Harry's contract with his cell-phone or cable provider.
And at least one lib here (Dan) should strongly support the latter.
From a pragmatic standpoint, I would, though there are other things involved here than my unlimited pro-immigration belief. I'm generally staying out of these political threads, especially since I've added to my ignore list the people I personally dislike enough to be motivated to get into a knock-down, drag-out political brawl with. But to reiterate my immigration belief for those unaware, I don't believe that me or you have any more inherent right to enjoy personal freedoms that are mostly protected in this country any more than a farmer in Gabon or a peasant in China.
This works for me, though-
Since 'marriage' - as defined by the government - does have impacts on things from taxes to inheritance rights to medical to others, I don't think I'd compare it to a cell phone contract. So long as everything from the IRC to HIPAA to other things reserves certain rights/privileges/whatever for people of a certain "contract", I would say that the government does need to issue or at least accept that contract... Civil Unions for everyone -- let churches decide whatever they want to do with their more traditional/ceremonial blessings works for me.
It's incorrect to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
I don't trust Republicans any more than Democrats on the issue, but personally, when given a choice, I'll always go with the guy who is likely to violate civil rights over the guy who already is.
And more to the point, I historically have voted for Democrats when they protect specific civil rights and in spite of other views that I disagree with. If a Democrat isn't a civil libertarian, then they're absolutely pointless to me. To me, that's like drinking a mass-market non-alcoholic beer. Yeah, other things are mass-market and don't have alcohol, too. But if I'm going to drink a crappy beer, it sure as hell better have alcohol in it.
Patriot Act?
I would. I see no reason why marriages should get any different tax treatment - that's a construct of government. Don't like the $100,000 the two of you make result in more taxes being paid filing jointly than the $50,000 you each made filing separately? Too bad, so sad, you're the ones that made the contractual decision to pool your resources to your mutual advantage.
There's nothing else here that can't be done contractually. Want to get married? Fine. Either negotiate a contract before entering into the marriage or have every asset the two (or three or four, I couldn't care less, it's none of my business) of you own split right down the middle upon dissolution of the agreement.
So, when a Republican is in office, you'll vote for the Democrat, and vice versa?
After Roe v. Wade? Pretty much no.
What about a surviving spouse inheriting the deceased's IRA vs another beneficiary? Or SS and pension suvivorship benefits? Or an non-working spouse eligible to receive medicare benefits after the working spouse dies? I know you don't think any of those things should exist, but since they do, clearly there has to be some sort of differentiation.
I wholeheartedly agree that the root here is in technological changes... but that said, the courts really haven't done a very good job sifting through the changes and translating precedent from antiquated technology to new. In their defense, the legislatures have done an even worse job defining it.
The point is that I think technology has created new dimensions of "privacy" that were previously unaddressed (and really, before said technology, didn't actually exist). Without legislation to define and protect these rights -- if one feels they exist, you'll find plenty of people who don't think they do -- we're just ceding them by default.
This is essentially Mark Zuckerberg's philosophy -- our virtual and 'real' selves are inevitably going to merge and you eventually will not be able to 'hide' online... there are actually some interesting, non-partisan I think, debates to be had on that topic.
To me, personally, I don't think it's cut-and-dry... how far does my right to digital "privacy" extend? Can I pretend to be someone else? At all? Only if not for illegal means? Can I read about, say... where to find a pot hookup online without fear of it being used in a possession trial?
Is anyone liable for spilling personal beans about me? There was a Facebook (surprise, surprise) issue that snagged a couple of UT students who had joined the LGBT chorus on campus... the group's sponsor had unwittingly sent them an invite to the group. They accepted... unbeknownst to them, all their other FB friends received notification that they had joined this new group -- including their parents. Is anyone at fault for revealing that private detail of their lives they wished to keep private?
One thing that I think about regarding online/digital privacy.... I tend to (try at least) to only say things online that I wouldn't mind people hearing me say in person just because I know how this #### works... BUT - I also know that my "information" -- which sites I visit, what I buy, etc has a fair bit of value to all sorts of commercial interests. I would be more than happy to "sell" this information of mine - even up to and including allowing someone to 'track' me, what stores I visit, etc. However - until statutes codify that this 'information' is private and belongs to me, I can't really 'sell' it when it's much easier and cheaper for people to surreptitiously acquire it.
Somebody else here will probably know better, but I believe this was once an option in France (and may still be): either marry under community-property arrangements, or under the "séparation de biens" where property remains individual. My source for this is simply reading a lot of novels, so I could be very mistaken :)
But such reorganization of the basic nature of marriage is extremely unlikely here in the US. There's a patchwork of state laws (several states assume community property unless otherwise contracted, like Texas), and there are weird structural implications to tax laws and all kinds of things that are vestiges of who-knows-what ancient common or even Roman-law understandings of the nature of marriage. Far, far simpler and fairer to let same-sex couples marry and then think about the essence of marriage later on, if anyone ever gets interested in doing so.
Only incumbent president I ever voted for was Bill Clinton. 2012 will be the first time I vote a Republican for president. Actually "was the first time," since I've already early-voted as an Ohio resident.
Sure - but I was thinking more of the benefits (as Miserlou points out in 4575)... and while sure, it may also be true that many of these things can be done without a 'marriage' -- the fact remains that a lot of them are automatic with a marriage.
Now... if you want to repeal all of that out of the tax code, etc - OK - then I guess I don't even care if the government issues civil unions... but from an equal treatment perspective, I think it behooves the government to have a mechanism that applies equally to M/F, F/F, and M/M partnerships.
Weird and interesting. I've been voting since 1977, and this year is the first time I've cast a vote for an incumbent President.
Not really. Keeping with my milieu, it's just a line from a song.
I have no doubt it would be enormously difficult to implement in the United States. Don't forget, I'm simply answering a couple questions here about what my beliefs are. I have no illusion that fixing the governmental-marital complex is realistically possible at any time in the near future.
Dan's a libertarian who often voted Dem, foreign policy issues being one major reason- having a Dem admin run a neo-Con light foreign policy operation and making no effort to roll back the Dubya era security state (and even expanding same) basically removed a reason for him to vote Dem, tipping him into the GOP column.
I refuse to believe that Dan of all people actually thinks that Romney would run a less hawkish foreign policy regime than Obama... though there are people out there on the internet who do (or did)
QFT.
They're not interested in keeping people alive & well, they're interested in keeping people from drinking.
You can tell by the laws they've encouraged & supported (drunk driving... on a horse? Yes. On a bicycle? Yes.) vs. laws they don't care about ("distracted" driving, which is equally dangerous and much more common, but gets a wrist-slap).
Guys, if you don't have some kind of password on your phone, PLEASE put some kind of security on there. Even if you think you have nothing to hide, from anyone, ever.
Sure - but I was thinking more of the benefits (as Miserlou points out in 4575)... and while sure, it may also be true that many of these things can be done without a 'marriage' -- the fact remains that a lot of them are automatic with a marriage.
Remember, I don't see any of that as my business either. If Joe's Software wants to offer additional benefits within employment contracts to Roman Catholics only, or gay couples only, or blondes only, or non-Poles only, or people who can dunk a basketball only. Actions taken between consenting adults are their business and my rights to interfere in those situations are no more than my simple freedom of expression.
(Sorry, but you guys did essentially ask me what I thought)
You contradict yourself here
1: you say "I see no reason why marriages should get any different tax treatment- that's a construct of government."
ok
then you say: " Don't like the $100,000 the two of you make result in more taxes being paid filing jointly than the $50,000 you each made filing separately? Too bad, so sad"
so 1st you say that marriages shouldn't get different tax treatment, and then turn 180 degrees noting that marriages do get different tax treatment and saying, "too bad"
That's cool. I probably basically agree with you.
I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about tax breaks and government benefits bestowed upon surviving spouses. Should a 70 year old woman who never worked because she raised 8 kids lose her medicare benefits because her husband died? Should she have to cash in his IRA within 5 years of his death and thus pay a hefty tax bill?
But the contract of 'citizenship' - if you want to call it that; the fact that I can't just choose not to contract with the government for certain things - isn't one we voluntary enter into.
I suppose you can go full bore independent individual here and say that it should be - but it's not and won't be any time soon... so long as the government does have a say in things like inheritances, various program benefits, and proscriptions about things like medical decision making in the absence of a living will, etc -- the gordian solution seems to me to be to be "civil unions for all and this entitles you all the responsibilities and benefits of what we used to call 'marriage'"
That's where the logic of it breaks down in my mind - I can understand not voting for one, but then to vote for the other that is either worse (pre-Monday) or the same (Monday)... Well, maybe by next Monday there will be a 3rd version.
Yeah, I don't really expect him to be less hawkish when it comes down to it. I do kinda expect Romney to be generally half-hearted about that stuff when he's not trying to bring out his base to vote.
I tend to think that the Moderate Romney is closer to his core beliefs than Conservative Romney. To me at least, it seems pretty obvious how much more natural and heartfelt he is when he's playing the former and how awkward and stilted he comes off trying to affect the latter. That being said, if it looked like the Republicans were going to get enough Senators that they could get 60 votes easily, I'd probably vote for Obama, simply out of practicality. That, in essence, is why I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 (I actually voted for nobody).
Again, I was specifically asked about my beliefs, not what is. I also think I should have a billion dollars. I do not think I actually do.
/iJest
Understood - but would you really see it to be 'workable' or a good idea if citizenship was essentially 'optional'? Say... something like the way the Catholic church does 'confirmation' or the like?
Turn 18 (or whatever) and 'decide' whether you want to be a US (or that of any other nation) citizen or not?
I suppose it ultimately comes down to whether you think citizenship is a right, a privilege, or a forced burden...
EDIT: Of course Dan's made an appearance. I should have predicted that he'd also invoke the issue of known vs probable position WRT to drone strikes. (And in case anybody's doubtful, I agree with Dan on the point in general. It's just that in this particular case I'm unusually confident of what a Romney administration's position would be)
Dan's a poopyhead.
I also wonder whether the multiple versions of Romney is at all disconcerting to those voting for him. I expect not.
Ironically, it probably is so only to the base that's probably most committed to voting for him (or more accurately, voting against Obama).
I don't think Republicans are all that awesome on free speech anyway. But it takes away one of the typical reasons I have voted for Democrats in the past.
When it comes down to it, if there are two realistic candidates and I can't pick one of them based on free speech and I can't pick one of them based on not feeling he has the right to push a button and decide that somebody deserves to die, I might as well pick one based on likelihood of them not interfering with my life otherwise.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main