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

Monday, September 01, 2014

OT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney

Lester Rodney was a crusader for equality and instrumental in integrating baseball as sports editor with the Daily Worker in the 1930s, says ESPN in a recent video on its website. The Daily Worker is the predecessor to this news website, peoplesworld.org.

At the time African American players were banned from the major leagues, says the mini-documentary. It was Lester Rodney that had a “simple but seemingly impossible dream” - to end more than a half-century of segregation in the big leagues, says ESPN’s Outside The Lines program. For Black History Month, OTL reported on this white Communist sportswriter who “crusaded for baseball integration a decade before Jackie Robinson broke the color line.”

He was at the center in the fight for baseballs integration, said sports historian Larry Lester in the video.

“There was no one in the main stream press promoting the integration of baseball like Lester Rodney was,” he said. “He was a soldier and the press was his sword and he was able to galvanize masses of people.”

At age 25 Rodney was hired as the Daily Worker’s first sports editor. He immediately launched a relentless campaign to end the Jim Crow policy that kept baseball segregated….

Rodney, the Daily Worker and supporters led petition drives, rallies and demonstrations for baseball’s integration. Rodney reported about white players and managers who also admitted it was time to integrate. In the face of skepticism Rodney persisted and millions joined the cause….

Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 01, 2014 at 10:52 AM | 4087 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 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 4 of 41 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›
   301. Lassus Posted: September 02, 2014 at 06:59 PM (#4784138)
If I give you a student evaluation form and a fake student# can you write this down and submit it to the dean?

Wait, well, not ANY topic. Some of that stuff in the movie thread did not make me smarter.
   302. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 02, 2014 at 07:03 PM (#4784140)
If I give you a student evaluation form and a fake student# can you write this down and submit it to the dean?

You could submit your BBTF posts to the Dean as part of your "published" scholarly work - perhaps in the educating the unwashed masses category. No one reads scholarly journals, some people read BBTF.
   303. kthejoker Posted: September 02, 2014 at 07:06 PM (#4784146)
1) THe perpetrators were private citizens acting privately.
2) The imams of the local mosques condemned those publicly.
3) The actual people in charge of the government in Rotherham are, for the most part, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.


And 4) It is a scandal, like it should be. It wouldn't be a scandal in many conservative countries, but in Modern Liberal UK it is a scandal. Thus it is all The Liberal's fault.


And not to downplay even a single incident of child sex abuse, but the actual report itself is very dry and kind of wishy-washy and simply doesn't read as salaciously as TGF and others in the media would have it. It is (obviously by the posts here) an emotionally charged subject, though, and is being used to further people's agendas on both sides of the aisle.

I'm not saying it's fabricated, but it's a lot like the McDonald's coffee lady - I still don't feel I've heard a fair representation of the FACTS of the matter, merely hearsay and generalization and hysteria. (I am so sorry for bringing up the McDonald's coffee lady again.)
   304. Greg K Posted: September 02, 2014 at 07:10 PM (#4784149)
Wait, well, not ANY topic. Some of that stuff in the movie thread did not make me smarter.

That's only because I haven't gotten to my analysis of Spice World yet.
   305. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 02, 2014 at 07:11 PM (#4784151)
Well I am defending Islam as in general a perfectly OK religion practiced peacefully by millions. There are clearly bad apples like there are in any group.

Really? Just a few "bad apples"? That's more than a bit of understatement. There is a radical faction of Islam that embraces terrorism, barbarism, misogyny, violent homophobia, brutal intolerance, and mass murder. That there are millions and millions of Muslims peacefully practicing their religion doesn't change the fact that there is a significant movement that is not at all peaceful.

EDITED for clarity.
   306. Lassus Posted: September 02, 2014 at 07:14 PM (#4784152)
...and is being used to further people's agendas on both sides of the aisle.

I've heard a lot of the conservative's agenda, but I'm not sure which agenda the liberals are furthering from this event. Not the defense agenda, but the offense agenda. I don't know what that is here. "Women aren't believed about rape charges enough"?


There is a radical faction of Islam that embraces terrorism, barbarism, misogyny, violent homophobia, brutal intolerance, and mass murder. That there are millions and millions of Muslims peacefully practicing their religion doesn't change the fact that their is a significant movement that is not at all peaceful.

I'll divert from BM here, although in fairness to YC, a lot of that is my overall distaste for any religion, but it puts me closer to him than BM here.
   307. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 02, 2014 at 07:16 PM (#4784154)
There is a radical faction of Islam that embraces terrorism, barbarism, misogyny, violent homophobia, brutal intolerance, and mass murder.


There are people who embrace terrorism, barbarism, misogyny, violent homophobia, brutal intolerance, and mass murder. All of them are loathsome and some of them are Muslim.

Islam is not causing them to be that way and pretending it is (or perhaps ignorantly believing it is) is harmful and not helpful.

EDIT: Put another way, they are Fanatical and Fundamentalist, but as far as I can tell it doesn't matter what religion follows those two adjectives, bad news in any event. I prefer to focus on the fact they are loathsome because of what they do and not focus on a religion some of them share with millions and millions of wonderful people.
   308. zonk Posted: September 02, 2014 at 07:18 PM (#4784156)
FWIW, I'm Roman Catholic, but I honestly did not know that papist was a slur...

I've heard mackeral smacker and all of the various Virgin Mary based ones, but while I've heard 'papist' before - I honestly never knew it was a slur.

But I'm allowed to use the word, right?
   309. Greg K Posted: September 02, 2014 at 07:20 PM (#4784157)
FWIW, I'm Roman Catholic, but I honestly did not know that papist was a slur...

I think it's mostly an archaic one these days. But not a word you'd want to throw around in the 17th century.
   310. BDC Posted: September 02, 2014 at 08:12 PM (#4784175)
Looks like Cowboys will sign Michael Sam to the practice squad. At their rate of injury attrition he should be starting at linebacker by Sunday.
   311. zonk Posted: September 02, 2014 at 08:19 PM (#4784177)
So, I know it's quite a bit of stretch to hold the father's words against the son... and lord knows, there's probably no realistic Republican I'd prefer to run against in 2016 besides Ted Cruz - but it really seems like Ted's dad would be a real problem in a Presidential campaign.

It has echoes of a Rand Paul event at (Grambling?) about a year ago where he essentially tried to lecture the audience about the party alignments 30 years before any of the audience were born.

Far be it for me to impart any advice to conservatives - but generally speaking, the gambit of trying to convince someone that your policy prescriptions are plainly the best for you because other side's are a presciption for dependency, but you're just too addled to see it doesn't tend to get you very far.

We ought to call it the Cliven Bundy problem... old white guys telling AAs to vote Republican because 50 years ago, a bunch of Democrats who left the party 40+ years ago (and died 10-20 years ago) were virulent racists.
   312. BDC Posted: September 02, 2014 at 08:22 PM (#4784182)
It takes a heap of explaining to get across to anyone why minimum wage laws are bad. Hasn't worked on me yet, though doubtless someone will try :)
   313. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 02, 2014 at 08:58 PM (#4784192)
Unless you think it'd be acceptable if a poster used "kike", I'd request (again I think) that you stop using that.


Ah,that mean words were all that I had to worry about in my cultural identity! What a wonderful world that would be!

I'd prefer "sheeny", the archaic tone soothes my ear much better. I sure wish they were just hurling invective at the Israelis right now. I bet the Israelis would prefer it too.
   314. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 02, 2014 at 09:02 PM (#4784195)
FWIW, I'm Roman Catholic, but I honestly did not know that papist was a slur...

I think it's mostly an archaic one these days. But not a word you'd want to throw around in the 17th century.


Well sure, because back then the Inquisition was still in effect. Religion of peace my squinty Heeb eye.
   315. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: September 02, 2014 at 09:14 PM (#4784202)
Said the Christ-killer.
   316. Howie Menckel Posted: September 02, 2014 at 09:51 PM (#4784222)

gay athlete Twitter bingo

https://twitter.com/BurkieYCP/status/506980470287261696/photo/1

   317. Howie Menckel Posted: September 02, 2014 at 10:13 PM (#4784239)
bonus

poll on Redskins name, fewer Americans seem married to the name

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11451964/redskins-poll-most-favor-keeping-name-dissent-growing

"Nearly three-fourths of Americans favor letting the Washington Redskins keep their nickname, but the percentage who think it should be changed has tripled in the past two decades, according to a poll conducted by Langer Research for "Outside the Lines."

Nearly a quarter (23 percent) of Americans surveyed now think the name should be changed, up from 8 percent in 1992 and up 9 percentage points in the past year alone.

The poll of 1,019 Americans, conducted on landlines and cellphones between Aug. 20 and Aug. 24, found that 71 percent favor keeping the nickname -- but that's down from 89 percent when the question was first asked 22 years ago. It also found that 68 percent of people responding think the nickname is not disrespectful of Native Americans, compared to just 9 percent who say it is "a lot" disrespectful."

   318. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 02, 2014 at 10:47 PM (#4784254)
It is a terrible racist name, but for a team with a glorious tradition and non-racist fan base (and a terrible owner). Eventually the name will be changed and life will go on, pretty much the same, but a tiny bit better (and think of the jersey sales!).

It is not much in the grander scheme of things, but progress happens in small ways as well as large, even with a fair number of yahoos trying to stand athwart history yelling stop.
   319. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 02, 2014 at 11:53 PM (#4784291)
And not to downplay even a single incident of child sex abuse, but the actual report itself is very dry and kind of wishy-washy and simply doesn't read as salaciously as TGF and others in the media would have it.

Not sure what "media" is being referred to, but this article purports to quote from the report:
It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated. There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone. Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators.

How is that wishy-washy? Or dry? Or something to be minimized?

Those hand-waving away the political aspect of the authorities willful blindness may want to consider this paragraph from the same article:
Since the Labour Party dominates these formerly industrial working-class areas and needs to hold on to those seats if it wants to win general elections, there’s little incentive for politicians to take a stand on an issue that appears to break down along racial lines. Labour politicians don’t want to be accused of being anti-Asian, nor do they want to attract the attention of racist political parties. Take what happened to Labour’s Ann Cryer: In 2002, Cryer, who at the time represented Keighley, a town about 50 miles from Rotherham, spoke out about “young Asian lads” grooming white girls in her constituency. She said the police “found constant excuses not to do anything,” and that she was “shunned by elements of her party” for speaking out. Her attempts to get local imams to intervene with the men failed; she was called a racist; and the leader of the white supremacist British National Party contested her seat, claiming that she “didn’t do enough to protect those white girls.” When 1,400 young girls are being trafficked and raped, you’d think a politician’s stance would be clear, but apparently it’s not.

I'm generally fine with first generation (or later) immigrants hanging on to their cultural attachments to "the old country", it's a common pattern, but not when it comes to practicing female circumcision, polygamy, forced marriage, honor killing or child-rape. It is the shame of Britain that the authorities appear to have failed so miserably in protecting those most vulnerable to attack.
   320. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 03, 2014 at 12:02 AM (#4784295)
It is a terrible racist name,


Yawn.
   321. kthejoker Posted: September 03, 2014 at 12:29 AM (#4784305)
#319: That is a quote from the report, I can attest. I guess what I meant is the overall tone of the report is more like this:

Further progress was recommended in the integration and training of professionals in the identification and prevention of CSE, within the overall embrace of the Safeguarding Board. Multi-agency working called for the removal of barriers that were based on stereotypical viewpoints of police, health and social care. Engagement with young people and their families required a different approach from traditional policing and social work methods, and different operational processes.

3.45 The report noted that an inter-agency communications strategy was being devised. It called for further improvements in the analysis of information relating to the victim, the offender and the location; and for staff training to ensure that the system worked effectively. The outreach work should be expanded to become more clearly targeted, more assertive, and more directed towards early intervention. The report listed the services in health and education that should contribute to this process. Through a ‘train the trainer’ approach, training should be extended to all faith groups and communities including the business community


And so on and so forth.

My *real* problem is that the word "Asian" appears 20 times in the 153 page report, the word "ethnic" 42 times, the word "Muslim" 5 times (4 times about a report from the Muslim Women's Network about overall child abuse in England) and the section entitled "Issues of ethnicity" is 5 pages long - again in a 153 page report. And it is in fact very UNobvious while reading what percentage of the "conservative" estimate of 1,400 CSE reports are being perpetrated by Afghans and Pakistanis against English white girls. The only two relevant passages in the entire report are these:

In a large number of the historic cases in particular, most of the victims in the cases we sampled were white British children, and the majority of the perpetrators were from minority ethnic communities.


So, "most" and "majority."

As has been stated many times before, there is no simple link between race and child sexual exploitation, and across the UK the greatest numbers of perpetrators of CSE are white men. The second largest category, according to the Children's Commissioner's report, are those from a minority ethnic background, particularly minority ethnic background, particularly those recorded as 'Asian'. In Rotherham, the majority of known perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage including the five men convicted in 2010. The file reading carried out by the Inquiry also confirmed that the ethnic origin of many perpetrators was ‘Asian’.


So, "the majority" of "known" perpetrators (no numbers, just words.) The file reading was a sampled reading of 66 case files, and again, just "many" perpetrators - no numbers.

I guess I as the good modern liberal simply see a much more general and widespread problem in the report, which is poverty and general societal abandonment of these children. If it wasn't the Afghan taxi driver, it'd be the Roma or some druggie with a fix.

Link to the Report
   322. Howie Menckel Posted: September 03, 2014 at 12:37 AM (#4784306)

muckraker Al Sharpton

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/US_Rep_Chaka_Fattah_gets_pass_from_Rev_Al_Sharpton_on_MSNBC.html

   323. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 03, 2014 at 12:40 AM (#4784308)
More details from this senseless and idiotic death, including audio of the 911 call:

New 911 audio tapes reveal frantic scene at Arizona gun range where 9-year-old girl shot instructor with Uzi

The child said the automatic weapon's recoil hurt her shoulder. Family members said they were focused on the girl and didn’t realize the gun range teacher had been shot, according to police reports. Newly released 911 audio captures the scene immediately after the shooting.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/girl-9-killed-instructor-uzi-gun-article-1.1924845#ixzz3CDyHsYrQ

   324. greenback calls it soccer Posted: September 03, 2014 at 12:45 AM (#4784311)
More details from this senseless and idiotic death, including audio of the 911 call:

Get over it, Ray. She's innocent.
   325. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 03, 2014 at 07:24 AM (#4784351)
Doubt it; I'm sticking with my planned assassination theory.
   326. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 03, 2014 at 07:49 AM (#4784353)
a lot of that is my overall distaste for any religion


Hey, personally I find religion ridiculous and dumb, but there are millions of great religious people. Just like mayo is vile, but plenty of great people like mayo. Just because some people don't recognize their spiritual condiment is nasty glop doesn't make them bad people.

I have met plenty of horrible religious and non-religious people and great religious and non-religious people - I think it is the people and not the religion.
   327. Lassus Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:10 AM (#4784359)
I have met plenty of horrible religious and non-religious people and great religious and non-religious people - I think it is the people and not the religion.

Likewise. I find Christianity and Islam equally pointless, and both to be an overall detriment to humanity's progress. I'm just not sure I can get around fact that a greater percentage of the latter are willing to kill me for saying so than the former. People are not independent from their chosen worship, christians and muslims alike.
   328. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:14 AM (#4784361)
Doubt it; I'm sticking with my planned assassination theory.


Arya, as a Faceless Man, in the desert with a sub-machine.
   329. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:18 AM (#4784363)
I find Christianity and Islam equally pointless, and both to be an overall detriment to humanity's progress. I'm just not sure I can get around fact that a greater percentage of the latter are willing to kill me for saying so than the former.


The former had the planning skills to generate 1000 years earlier than the latter, and thus their great war(s) or violent reformation, in direct conflict with modernity, happened before modernity hit the "massive killing tech" phases.
   330. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:20 AM (#4784364)
Today's random link:

Half of Viking raiding parties were female.

Previously, researchers had misidentified skeletons as male simply because they were buried with their swords and shields. (Female remains were identified by their oval brooches, and not much else.) By studying osteological signs of gender within the bones themselves, researchers discovered that approximately half of the remains were actually female warriors, given a proper burial with their weapons.


History is not what you think it is.
   331. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:22 AM (#4784365)
People are not independent from their chosen worship, christians and muslims alike.


Are you handling the snake, or is the snake handling you?
   332. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:28 AM (#4784367)
The former had the planning skills to generate 1000 years earlier than the latter, and thus their great war(s) or violent reformation, in direct conflict with modernity, happened before modernity hit the "massive killing tech" phases.

More that the cultures in which Christianity found home base were ultimately sophisticated and advanced enough to transcend Christianity, which is clearly not the case in most of the cultures comprising Islam's home base. It's also quite possible if not likely that the nature of Islamism makes it more difficult for secular culture/society to domesticate than Christianism was.
   333. BDC Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:32 AM (#4784369)
Well, perhaps half of all Viking ceremonial burials were female. Does not necessarily mean half the folks actively pillaging Celts were women.
   334. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:32 AM (#4784370)
So, "most" and "majority."

Probably euphemisms.
   335. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:37 AM (#4784372)
Hey, personally I find religion ridiculous and dumb, but there are millions of great religious people. Just like mayo is vile, but plenty of great people like mayo. Just because some people don't recognize their spiritual condiment is nasty glop doesn't make them bad people.


I'm sorry but this great nation of ours was founded by men who loved mayo with every fiber of their being. Now stand still and hold this funnel, hippie.
   336. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:38 AM (#4784373)
More that the cultures in which Christianity found home base were ultimately sophisticated and advanced enough to transcend Christianity, which is clearly not the case in most of the cultures comprising Islam's home base. It's also quite possible if not likely that the nature of Islamism makes it more difficult for secular culture/society to domesticate than Christianism was.


I love when you get all metaphysical and spiritual like this. It's so...quaint.

The two religions differ in two notable ways; first, the founder of the former was a roving hippie-rabbi doing 'shrooms in the Judean desert, while the founder of the latter was a war lord running raids out of the Arabian desert. Second, the former came "of age," and by that we mean went through their terrible twos tantrums of "BUT I DON'T WANNA EAT MY MODERNITY!!!" before the mecha-tech singularity of killing efficiency that was the "Long War" (which, by the way, came out of Christendom's heartland.) For a guy so loud and boisterous in his claims to just look at "empirical" reality, you sure to fold up shop on the material conditions of history and dive headlong into the religious impulse, dressed up as "cultures", where folks "transcend" to higher levels because of Jesus and reasons and stuff.

The primary distinction between Christianity's history and Islam's history is the offset of 750 years, pushing Islam's ongoing wars of Reformation and blowback against modernity into the "one truly crazy ###### with a large enough bank account can kill thousands if not millions at a single go" epoch. Drop high explosive suicide vests and AK-47s into the Thirty Years war and see what happens.
   337. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:42 AM (#4784376)
Well, perhaps half of all Viking ceremonial burials were female. Does not necessarily mean half the folks actively pillaging Celts were women.


From the same article:

The presence of female warriors also has researchers now wondering just how accurate the stereotypes of raping and pillaging actually are:

Women may have accompanied male Vikings in those early invasions of England, in much greater numbers than scholars earlier supposed, (Researcher) McLeod concludes. Rather than the ravaging rovers of legend, the Vikings arrived as marriage-minded colonists.


It bears consideration that most of our narrative about the blood-thirsty Viking marauders come to rape and pillage the good Celts and Angles come from Celt/Anglo sources.
   338. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:44 AM (#4784379)
The primary distinction between Christianity's history and Islam's history is the offset of 750 years, pushing Islam's ongoing wars of Reformation and blowback against modernity into the "one truly crazy ###### with a large enough bank account can kill thousands if not millions at a single go" epoch. Drop high explosive suicide vests and AK-47s into the Thirty Years war and see what happens.

The West is no longer "Christian." It transcended Christianity. Get in the 21st century, old timer.

Nor is your "Give it time" prescription remotely persuasive. Modernity is losing ground to Islamism in Islam's homelands. The trendline is going in the wrong direction. Nor is there some Iron Law of Historical Development by which religion, as a matter of nature at all times and in all places, eventually gives way to secularism.
   339. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:48 AM (#4784381)
People are not independent from their chosen worship, christians and muslims alike.


People are not independent of many things - their race, religion, socioeconomic background, gender, preferences and so on. Some of it is genetics, some environment, some pure choice. Very little in the world is purely independent. I just think judging people on their religion is not terribly useful. How they act in relation to their religion is, but which religion, which religious tradition they were raised in and are thus more often then not stuck with, not so much.
   340. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:49 AM (#4784382)
where folks "transcend" to higher levels because of Jesus and reasons and stuff.

Huh? Jesus was transcended. How could Jesus be transcended because of Jesus? You're babbling again.
   341. zonk Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:55 AM (#4784384)

I'm sorry but this great nation of ours was founded by men who loved mayo with every fiber of their being. Now stand still and hold this funnel, hippie.


Technically, Ben Franklin didn't really like mayo - but being the shrewd businessman he was, he always had mayo AND ketchup AND mustard AND salsa AND BBQ sauce on hand and depending on his audience, claimed each was his favorite.
   342. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:55 AM (#4784385)
It transcended Christianity.


I'm just going to leave this hear, because you apparently don't realize that your language of "transcending" gives away the fact that you're still running that same religious hope-and-pray game.
   343. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:56 AM (#4784388)
Nor is your "Give it time" prescription remotely persuasive.


I don't believe I've actually offered anything resembling a "give it time" prescription. I've simply described the world as it is. I haven't prescribed anything about it so far. But hey, keep trying. You might catch up one day, kiddo.
   344. Lassus Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:56 AM (#4784389)
The former had the planning skills to generate 1000 years earlier than the latter, and thus their great war(s) or violent reformation, in direct conflict with modernity, happened before modernity hit the "massive killing tech" phases.

Wouldn't deny a word of this or any indictment of Christianity for its killing ways.


Probably euphemisms.

From our own Grand Proclamator Prime I find this pretty amusing.
   345. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 03, 2014 at 08:57 AM (#4784390)
Are you handling the snake, or is the snake handling you?
Well, in your case, the former, at least if I remember my Jungle Book correctly.
   346. The Good Face Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:04 AM (#4784392)
That is an outright lie, posted by an outright liar.

You are normally so honest and forthright in debate here I can totally understand your outrage when someone willfully seems to misinterpret what you are saying and then uses that to say terrible things about you.


The next lie I get caught in here will be the first one.

Speaking of, I think I figured out what you were saying as far as me shifting responsibility for the Rotherham rapes, as you couldn't be bothered to explain WTF you were talking about with that claim when asked. You meant I was shifting responsibility for the rapes from liberals to the actual rapists, didn't you?


Swing and a miss. The responsibility for the rapes is shared between the rapists, the liberals who imported the rapists and unleashed them on the community, and the liberal ideology that advocates open immigration. The responsibility for the cover-up (and failure to pursue/arrest/prevent) belongs to the liberal authorities in local law enforcement/government AND to the liberal/multicultural ideology that would rather ignore the gang rapes of children than risk being called "racist".
   347. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:08 AM (#4784394)
The responsibility for the rapes is shared between the rapists, the liberals who imported the rapists and unleashed them on the community, and the liberal ideology that advocates open immigration.


Note the undertones here, where TGF, who is TOTALLY NOT A RACIST BY THE WAY, speaks of non-white, non-European immigrants in terms of violent, wild animals being imported in cages.
   348. The Good Face Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:08 AM (#4784395)
I guess I as the good modern liberal simply see a much more general and widespread problem in the report, which is poverty and general societal abandonment of these children. If it wasn't the Afghan taxi driver, it'd be the Roma or some druggie with a fix.


Somebody was bound to rape those kids anyway, so why get worked up about it? This is what you're going with?
   349. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:09 AM (#4784397)
because you apparently don't realize that your language of "transcending" gives away the fact that you're still running that same religious hope-and-pray game.

Wow, that's breathtakingly dense. Do you know the definition of "transcend"?
   350. The Good Face Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:12 AM (#4784398)
Note the undertones here, where TGF, who is TOTALLY NOT A RACIST BY THE WAY, speaks of non-white, non-European immigrants in terms of violent, wild animals being imported in cages.


I didn't mention the race or national origin of the immigrants in question. Nor was there any mention of violence, wild animals or cages. You're paranoid and hysterical. I'd offer you some cocoa and perhaps a cookie, but you look like you've had enough cookies.

And just FYI, we're discussing rapists here. Child rapists. But your tender concern for their feelings is well noted.
   351. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:17 AM (#4784400)
Wow, that's breathtakingly dense. Do you know the definition of "transcend"?


Intimately. Do you?
   352. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:18 AM (#4784401)
I didn't mention the race or national origin of the immigrants in question.


Your subtext is showing, Sailor.
   353. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:18 AM (#4784402)
The responsibility for the rapes is shared between the rapists, the liberals who imported the rapists and unleashed them on the community, and the liberal ideology that advocates open immigration.


Such a sad person you are and so unwilling to assign blame where it actually lies. People who commit crimes are guilty of them. But the bottom line is you are desperately and pathetically (still) trying to score cheap political points from a tragedy. Which is why you are a sad person, because if you had a real ideology you could score actual real points for it and not be reduced to trying to score off of tragedy in England.
   354. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:19 AM (#4784403)
Intimately. Do you?

Of course, and I used it in the correct and proper sense. Your reading of religion and Jesus into it is downright bizarre.
   355. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:20 AM (#4784405)
Your subtext is showing, Sailor.

Yes, what's most important isn't that the people are child rapists; what's most important is that we do everything possible to not be "racist" in describing them. That's the critical thing here. Because when you get right down to it, nothing but nothing is more important than the modern liberal project of protecting the world from "racists" and "racism." Nothing can be allowed to get into the way of that oh-so-important project. If a few hundred girls have to be raped, so be it. It's not as if they're in grad school or minorities or anything, anyway.
   356. Lassus Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:23 AM (#4784408)
Swing and a miss. The responsibility for the rapes is shared between the rapists, the liberals who imported the rapists and unleashed them on the community, and the liberal ideology that advocates open immigration. The responsibility for the cover-up (and failure to pursue/arrest/prevent) belongs to the liberal authorities in local law enforcement/government AND to the liberal/multicultural ideology that would rather ignore the gang rapes of children than risk being called "racist".

Well, whatever, you're allowed your sad opinions. Although you say in #167 about liberals: "They certainly caused these rapes in question, yes", so I guess you've decided to open up the responsibility a little more than previous by actually including the rapists now.

However, this still doesn't explain WTF you meant in #178 when you said about me:
Says the guy trying to shift responsibility for these child rapes.
To where was I trying to shift responsibility?
   357. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:23 AM (#4784410)
That's the critical thing here.


Scoring cheap political points seems to be the most important thing here for some of you, the racism just seems to be a bonus for you guys.
   358. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:24 AM (#4784411)
Scoring cheap political points seems to be the most important thing here for some of you

Got projection?
   359. The Good Face Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:32 AM (#4784415)
Your subtext is showing, Sailor.


Your crazed paranoia is showing. It's interesting how solicitous you are of the feelings of child rapists though. Is there something you need to tell us Sam?

Such a sad person you are and so unwilling to assign blame where it actually lies. People who commit crimes are guilty of them. But the bottom line is you are desperately and pathetically (still) trying to score cheap political points from a tragedy. Which is why you are a sad person, because if you had a real ideology you could score actual real points for it and not be reduced to trying to score off of tragedy in England.


That is some incoherent writing even by BM standards.

Anyway, if we're going to assign blame, why should we not look at root causes? Because that would make this harder for liberals to sweep this atrocity under the rug? These crimes, and the subsequent cover-up of them, were the result of an ideology. Since an ideology cannot be indicted, one must indict its adherents until they either give up the ideology or change it such that it will no longer create such results. It's telling how BM will excuse the gang rapes of children rather than permit his ideology to be threatened.
   360. Greg K Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:32 AM (#4784417)
Re: the Vikings

The popular image of Vikings (as always) is probably a bit misleading. I'd like to know more about this particular archaeological find, but it's worth noting that the Vikings were a very flexible and adaptable people. Where they butted up against strong states like Byzantium and the Arab Caliphate they quickly abandoned raiding and adopted trading as a strategy and set up very lucrative trading posts (which became the fist organized states in Russia). In Iceland and Greenland, where there was little to raid, they became accomplished colonists and explorers. In England and Ireland they encountered fairly weak states, and more or less unguarded, wealthy monasteries so raiding was cool. But by the period this dig appears to cover (the great armies of the 860s) the "raid and pillage" phase of the Viking strategy in England was mostly over. In the 850s they began "over-wintering" (previously raids had been a seasonal thing that you did in the summer before returning home). By the 860s they seem to have switched gears into outright conquest and colonization (which, obviously, you need women for). Women accompanying men on raids is probably not an accurate representation (it may have happened, but I'm not sure this evidence suggests it)...but this is likely evidence that the Vikings made a conscious effort to change their policy with regards to England sometime in the 850s-860s and they were no longer raiding per se.
   361. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:37 AM (#4784418)
Anyway, if we're going to assign blame, why should we not look at root causes? Because that would make this harder for liberals to sweep this atrocity under the rug? These crimes, and the subsequent cover-up of them, were the result of an ideology. Since an ideology cannot be indicted, one must indict its adherents until they either give up the ideology or change it such that it will no longer create such results. It's telling how BM will excuse the gang rapes of children rather than permit his ideology to be threatened.

Unless the victimization of virtually all white girls was pure coincidence -- highly unlikely -- the rapists were not only rapists but racist rapists. But what's really important here is that we not be "racist" in describing or investigating the racist rapists. Because nothing but nothing can be allowed to get in the way of the modern liberal project of protecting the racist rapists from "racism." That's the critical thing here.
   362. The Good Face Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:38 AM (#4784420)
However, this still doesn't explain WTF you meant in #178 when you said about me:

Says the guy trying to shift responsibility for these child rapes.

To where was I trying to shift responsibility?


You're attempting to shift all responsibility to the rapists, while keeping none for the people who brought the rapists into the community and covered up their crimes.

You're essentially the guy who pushed somebody off a cliff, and when asked if you killed the victim, you replied, "I didn't kill him. The ground killed him." Here it's, "We liberals aren't responsible for the rapes. The rapists we imported and refuse to hold accountable for their crimes are 100% responsible!"
   363. Greg K Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:40 AM (#4784421)
Sam's point about the Anglo-Saxon chronicle being our source for a lot of Viking material is a significant one too. I think we're seeing more and more co-operation between historians and archaeologists here. Similarly, studies of the "barbarian" invaders of Rome, where we have relied on Roman sources for a long time - archaeology is now allowing us to round out our knowledge of them.
   364. Mefisto Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:50 AM (#4784422)
I believe that the Viking report says that half of the burials were female, not half of the warriors. That's Greg's point in 360. Also, it was a very small sample (13 bodies IIRC), so I'd be reluctant to draw too many conclusions.
   365. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:53 AM (#4784425)
Anyway, if we're going to assign blame, why should we not look at root causes?


Sure, let's look. Liberals are the anti-rape ideology. There is a reason it is the main sponsor of such legislation, a reason it is overwhelmingly supported by women (at least in the US, I am not as sure in UK I admit). One group is talking about "rape culture" and how to stop it.

So yeah let's look at the root cause of rape and let's try to eradicate it. Let's change our culture which suggests it is OK and she was asking for it and how no means yes and all that other crap that helps lead to rape. There is an ideology that is working on those root causes and trying to confront the issue and change things. That would be Liberals.

If you want to score points off of an ideology which is fighting all that, then you need to look in the other direction. So be my guest, but I don't think you really want to do that. What you want to do is try top score cheap political points, it is what you have been doing non-stop (with a side of racism and extra helping of personal attacks), so I don't expect you to stop now.
   366. Ron J2 Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:54 AM (#4784426)
#336 I agree that the thought of the 30 Years War with better weaponry is pretty horrific. Though it would be tough to "improve" on (say) the sack of Magdeburg with more modern technology.

But the 30 Years War is not best thought of as a religious war. It defies convenient description but in my opinion it's best thought of as a dynastic war. Yes, there were designated champions of both faiths, but the Swedes had plenty of Catholic allies (and financial backers -- very important)
   367. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:57 AM (#4784428)
One group is talking about "rape culture" and how to stop it.

Yeah, they sure do a lot of talking about it and running their imaginations. Yet they perpetrated an actual rape culture in the UK. Go figure.

So yeah let's look at the root cause of rape and let's try to eradicate it. Let's change our culture which suggests it is OK and she was asking for it and how no means yes and all that other crap that helps lead to rape. There is an ideology that is working on those root causes and trying to confront the issue and change things. That would be Liberals.

None of this tripe has anything to do with the issues at hand.
   368. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: September 03, 2014 at 09:57 AM (#4784429)
So, I know it's quite a bit of stretch to hold the father's words against the son... and lord knows, there's probably no realistic Republican I'd prefer to run against in 2016 besides Ted Cruz - but it really seems like Ted's dad would be a real problem in a Presidential campaign.


The stuff in that article is no different than what you here some libertarians here say (ok, one of them) and you'll see be spouted by some garden variety wingnuts now and then, where Rafael Cruz goes off the rails is, well, basically he's a Domininist.
   369. Lassus Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:01 AM (#4784433)
You're attempting to shift all responsibility to the rapists, while keeping none for the people who brought the rapists into the community and covered up their crimes.

Actually, what you mean is my LACK of shifting responsibility of the rapes, but I'm beginning to think your trolling is affecting your basic grasp of grammar. And yes, I will not shift responsibility for the rapes off the rapists ("says the guy trying to shift responsibility for these child rapes")

In my attempt to be even-handed and accurate - and as you pointed out - I was not clear or strong enough in my statement regarding responsibility for the lack of investigation and accountability of the authorities. They should be held to the utmost accountability allowed by the law, up to and including prison. If all they can be is fired, so be it, if it's prison, more power to England. But that prosecution is not for the rapes, it's for the cover-up and liability.


You're essentially the guy who pushed somebody off a cliff, and when asked if you killed the victim, you replied, "I didn't kill him. The ground killed him."

Here is where your credibility flatlines to absolute zero. What a joke of an analogy.


Here it's, "We liberals aren't responsible for the rapes. The rapists we imported and refuse to hold accountable for their crimes are 100% responsible!"

If you say so. You're entitled to your pointless opinion.
   370. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:06 AM (#4784438)
None of this tripe has anything to do with the issues at hand.


The issue at hand is the root cause of rape. If you don't think attitudes towards women is linked to that then you are dumber than even I thought.
   371. The Good Face Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:17 AM (#4784442)
One group is talking about "rape culture" and how to stop it.

Yeah, they sure do a lot of talking about it and running their imaginations. Yet they perpetrated an actual rape culture in the UK. Go figure.


Yep. In the real world, liberal ideology wound up creating and perpetuating a REAL rape culture. Even if we accept that liberal intentions are good, the results are horrific. And BM's plan is to double down on the behavior that created the Rotherham atrocities.

If you want to score points off of an ideology which is fighting all that, then you need to look in the other direction. So be my guest, but I don't think you really want to do that.


I want to score points against the people and the ideology that caused and covered-up thousands of child rapes. Let's not forgot that the cover-ups and failures to investigate/arrest/prosecute CAUSED more rapes. The rapists realized they could act with impunity and did so. That's YOUR ideology at work.

Here it's, "We liberals aren't responsible for the rapes. The rapists we imported and refuse to hold accountable for their crimes are 100% responsible!"

If you say so. You're entitled to your pointless opinion.


It's factually accurate in every way. I certainly don't see you offering any refutation.
   372. GordonShumway Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:18 AM (#4784443)
So, I know it's quite a bit of stretch to hold the father's words against the son... and lord knows, there's probably no realistic Republican I'd prefer to run against in 2016 besides Ted Cruz - but it really seems like Ted's dad would be a real problem in a Presidential campaign.

It has echoes of a Rand Paul event at (Grambling?) about a year ago where he essentially tried to lecture the audience about the party alignments 30 years before any of the audience were born.

Far be it for me to impart any advice to conservatives - but generally speaking, the gambit of trying to convince someone that your policy prescriptions are plainly the best for you because other side's are a presciption for dependency, but you're just too addled to see it doesn't tend to get you very far.

We ought to call it the Cliven Bundy problem... old white guys telling AAs to vote Republican because 50 years ago, a bunch of Democrats who left the party 40+ years ago (and died 10-20 years ago) were virulent racists.


The bigger problem I think, is that Papa Cruz is saying anything at all. Cruz's youth is a major liability for him in the GOP POTUS primary, and having daddy speak for him like that makes him look like a child.
   373. Lassus Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:32 AM (#4784447)
I want to score points against the people and the ideology that caused and covered-up thousands of child rapes.

And yet your silence on the endless discussions in the past of priests and little boys was entirely a coincidence. You were away those days. (Not that you wouldn't have blamed liberals anyhow, so.)


It's factually accurate in every way. I certainly don't see you offering any refutation.

My refutation is as follows:

a.) You're a hypocrite - see above
b.) As mentioned somewhere previous, fringe atrocity is bad science as far as proving absolute cause/effect.
c.) Refuting ideology on a personal level is impossible and, yes, a trap. (I have no problem prosecuting everyone, so what?)
d.) Immigration = child rapes is fanciful and child-like logic.

That's all I really have time for at the moment. It goes on, and I'm sure you don't care.
   374. BrianBrianson Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:35 AM (#4784451)
Unless the victimization of virtually all white girls was pure coincidence


It's not a coincidence, it's not even true. A significant number of the victims were brown Hindu and Sikh girls

It's also not really true that the rapists were immigrants, either, or that the immigration was the work of liberals per se. They're mostly children/grandchildren of people brought in after WWII to work in northern factories, replacing all the young British chaps who'd gotten themselves killed on the continent in a little scrap. But, of course, if your goal is to score political points in an internet argument, don't let the facts stand in your way when you dash off to gloat about a bunch of girls getting raped.
   375. A Fatty Cow That Need Two Seats Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:38 AM (#4784453)
I believe that the Viking report says that half of the burials were female, not half of the warriors. That's Greg's point in 360. Also, it was a very small sample (13 bodies IIRC), so I'd be reluctant to draw too many conclusions.


History is not what you think it is.
   376. zonk Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:39 AM (#4784454)
Was just thinking that actually, it seems pretty rare that a major party candidate has a parent around for a Presidential campaign...

Bush II, of course, had HW and Bar' -- but as long-time public figures, they were of course quite adept at ensuring nothing controversial was said.

Both of Obama's parents were dead -- and as much as I'm sure I'd have agreed with a lot of what his mom would have said if she hadn't passed from cancer, it sounds like she would likely said some controversial things.

Romney's parents were both gone (again - though, like Bush II, his dad knew how to be publicly consumable/non-controversial).

McCain's parents were both dead.

I think Kerry's were both dead.

Bill Clinton's parents were passed, right?

Reagan certainly... Dole certainly (at least, I'm guessing as he was rather aged when he ran). Bush I....

It's kind of an odd thing, I guess....

Heck, I think that both Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would run into some problems... Oh sure - some of what both would say will pump up the base, but I would easily see multiple 'damage control' news cycles. I mean, how do you tell dad "Stop saying those things out loud!"? It's an odd situation...
   377. The Good Face Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:42 AM (#4784457)
And yet your silence on the endless discussions in the past of priests and little boys was entirely a coincidence. You were away those days. (Not that you wouldn't have blamed liberals anyhow, so.)


I'm not accusing anyone here of being "silent". Rather, I'm calling out the people who are spinning and defending the role liberal ideology played in the Rotherham atrocities. If you and your ilk retreated to shamed silence on the matter, I'd consider that real progress.

a.) You're a hypocrite - see above


Tu quoque is a silly argument, but addressed above.

As mentioned somewhere previous, fringe atrocity is bad science as far as proving absolute cause/effect.


What? Again in English please?

c.) Refuting ideology on a personal level is impossible and, yes, a trap.


Oh noes, it's a tarp! This is a nonsensical response. If you adhere to and advocate an ideology that produces horrific results in the real world, you should expect people to challenge both the tenets of that ideology AND your adherence to it.

d.) Immigration = child rapes is fanciful and child-like logic.


Then why are you struggling with it? The causality in the Rotherham case is quite clear. The rapes were perpetrated by immigrants (or their children), and the immigrant presence in that community was due to the efforts of liberals. That does not mean that all immigrants will wind up raping children, but in THIS case, we have 1400 (at least) little girls who were raped and trafficked. How many more children need to be raped before this becomes a problem to you?
   378. BDC Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:47 AM (#4784461)
Historically, and just from an amused spectator's POV, has having a bothersome relative been a factor in Presidential elections? Joe Kennedy Sr. was hardly a wallflower, but I get the impression that he restrained himself and let JFK get all the attention. He was also in failing health by the time his son ran for President, IIRC. I remember that Nixon had a brother – I looked it up, his name was Don – who was the focus of a minor scandal. Billy Carter was an idiot, but in some ways any publicity was good publicity in his case.
   379. The Good Face Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:47 AM (#4784462)
It's not a coincidence, it's not even true. A significant number of the victims were brown Hindu and Sikh girls


The NYT says otherwise.

The victims identified in the report were all white, while the perpetrators were mostly of Pakistani heritage


But, of course, if your goal is to score political points in an internet argument, don't let the facts stand in your way when you dash off to gloat about a bunch of girls getting raped.


What about people whose goal is to spin and deflect responsibility for the gang rape of children?
   380. BDC Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:50 AM (#4784468)
Bill Clinton's mother lived to see him become President. She was a strong, colorful character and on the whole an asset to his image, I think. Miss Lillian Carter was analogous. Strong Presidential mothers are not infrequent, going back to Sara Delano.
   381. BDC Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:51 AM (#4784469)
Correction to #378: I looked that up too, Joe Kennedy did not have the stroke that disabled him till 1961.
   382. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:53 AM (#4784470)
The issue at hand is the root cause of rape.

No, the issues at hand are (1) an extraordinarily high, barbaric, number of pre-adult rapes, likely racially-based -- i.e. hate crimes; (2) by immigrants; (3) not properly investigated, and therefore abetted, because of an absurd fealty to modern liberal ideas about "racism" and fears of modern liberal hissy fits about "racism."

Those are the issues. The "root cause of rape" has nothing to do with anything. You want the "root cause of rape" to be the issue, because the actual issues make modern liberalism look as absurd as it is.
   383. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:54 AM (#4784472)
Tu quoque is a silly argument


The humor of GF saying this is priceless. Truly no sense of shame at all.
   384. Lassus Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:56 AM (#4784474)
Then why are you struggling with it?

Well, I'm not actually struggling with it at all. Your premise is based on faulty logic, as immigration does not cause rape. Stop driving your car, murderer, they kill people all the time, and you support that, obviously. (NOTE: I consider that logic as faulty, in case you misunderstand.)


I consider this basically played out at this point. Declare victory on your merits, or weep for the loss of not convincing me that I'm a child rapist. Either way, probably both.


   385. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:57 AM (#4784476)
The victims identified in the report were all white

IOW, as suspected, "most" and "majority" were euphemisms.
   386. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:58 AM (#4784478)
Billy Carter was an idiot, but in some ways any publicity was good publicity in his case.


Billy's issues went beyond being merely an idiot...

Roger Clinton's secret service nickname/codename was 'headache"

Conservatives were very uncomfortable with Ron Reagan Jr. (Which was unfair, Ron was no conservative but he was very loyal to his father, Patti Davis OTOH...)

   387. BDC Posted: September 03, 2014 at 10:59 AM (#4784479)
Roger Clinton's secret service nickname/codename was 'headache"

Ah, yes, another good example. Thanks!
   388. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 03, 2014 at 11:08 AM (#4784484)
If you adhere to and advocate an ideology that produces horrific results in the real world, you should expect people to challenge both the tenets of that ideology AND your adherence to it.


For example, if you attempt to hide your basic fascism behind a rhetorical veil of "neo-reactionary analytics" you should be called on it early and often. Tell us again how you're not basically a Putinite?
   389. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 03, 2014 at 11:09 AM (#4784485)
The "root cause of rape" has nothing to do with anything.


Well except rape of course, but you don't actually care about that.
   390. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 03, 2014 at 11:10 AM (#4784487)
Well except rape of course, but you don't actually care about that.

The so-called root causes of rape are irrelevant to rapes that have already occurred. They may be relevant to preventing future rapes, but that's not relevant to the modern liberal failures with respect to the rapes that have already occurred and that modern liberalism apparently abetted.

Nor are the so-called root causes of rape relevant to the apparently racially-based rapes at issue here. A primary cause of those appears to have been racism.
   391. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 03, 2014 at 11:15 AM (#4784488)
The so-called root causes of rape are irrelevant to rapes that have already occurred. They may be relevant to preventing future rapes, but that's not relevant to the modern liberal failures with respect to the rapes that have already occurred and that modern liberalism apparently abetted.


Your empiricism is malfunctioning again. Per Branson's posts, try going and reading the actual report. (Oh, that's right, when reality doesn't conform to your preferred myth-narrative, you write it off as "probably euphemisms." Empiricist, my ass.
   392. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 03, 2014 at 11:18 AM (#4784489)
Per Branson's posts, try going and reading the actual report. (Oh, that's right, when reality doesn't conform to your preferred myth-narrative, you write it off as "probably euphemisms." Empiricist, my ass.

I'll stick with the NYT, thanks. It's more of a side issue anyway, though a large number of the rapes were likely racially-motivated hate crimes.
   393. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 03, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4784492)
They may be relevant to preventing future rapes


Which is something rational human beings care about and what liberalism has been doing for the past few decades (at least), working to prevent future rapes.

Some people want to score points off of tragedy, others want to prevent future tragedies. Thanks for showcasing which side you and yours on on.
   394. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 03, 2014 at 11:22 AM (#4784493)
Which is something rational human beings care about and what liberalism has been doing for the past few decades (at least), working to prevent future rapes.

In your imagination. In the real world, modern liberalism just abetted and sheltered a massive rape culture.

And we're of course discussing actual rapes that have already happened. They can no longer be prevented and thus the means by which future rapes may be prevented are irrelevant.
   395. GordonShumway Posted: September 03, 2014 at 11:29 AM (#4784499)
Was just thinking that actually, it seems pretty rare that a major party candidate has a parent around for a Presidential campaign...

Bush II, of course, had HW and Bar' -- but as long-time public figures, they were of course quite adept at ensuring nothing controversial was said.

Both of Obama's parents were dead -- and as much as I'm sure I'd have agreed with a lot of what his mom would have said if she hadn't passed from cancer, it sounds like she would likely said some controversial things.

Romney's parents were both gone (again - though, like Bush II, his dad knew how to be publicly consumable/non-controversial).

McCain's parents were both dead.

I think Kerry's were both dead.

Bill Clinton's parents were passed, right?

Reagan certainly... Dole certainly (at least, I'm guessing as he was rather aged when he ran). Bush I....

It's kind of an odd thing, I guess....

Heck, I think that both Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would run into some problems... Oh sure - some of what both would say will pump up the base, but I would easily see multiple 'damage control' news cycles. I mean, how do you tell dad "Stop saying those things out loud!"? It's an odd situation...


It seems almost all modern Presidents have experienced early deaths in the family. To add to your list:

1.) G HW Bush's eldest daughter, GWB's sister, died of leukemia when she was 4 years old.

2.) Reagan, in his marriage to Jane Wyman, had a stillborn child.

3.) Carter's father died when Carter was in his late 20s from cancer; and Carter's family has a had a lot of people die early from pancreatic cancer.

4.) Nixon had two older brothers who were sickly throughout their youths, and died before they were 21.

5.) LBJ's father died at age 50.

6.) JFK's older brother died in the war, and one of his sisters died in a plane crash in the late forties. JFK, of course, was seriously ill for most of his life and was administered the Last Rites on at least 4 different occasions.
   396. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 03, 2014 at 11:32 AM (#4784501)
Saw some dispute this morning on 6th Ave (NYC) between a biker and a pedestrian. Biker almost hit him after running a red and blowing through the crosswalk, and the pedestrian was pissed, and the biker shouted back at him "Come and get me, a$$hole!!" and the dude -- dressed in a suit -- took off running after the biker.

I trailed for a block or so but they were soon past my vision. Biker was in trouble though judging from the state of the lights.... I think the guy was going to catch him.
   397. The Good Face Posted: September 03, 2014 at 11:33 AM (#4784502)
Your premise is based on faulty logic, as immigration does not cause rape.


It sure caused those 1400 children (that we know of) to be raped. Or do you want to join the loathsome legion of lefties who are going with the "Those kids would have been raped anyway, so meh." response?

For example, if you attempt to hide your basic fascism behind a rhetorical veil of "neo-reactionary analytics" you should be called on it early and often. Tell us again how you're not basically a Putinite?


Sam, in order to identify fascism, one must have an understanding of what it is. You're the guy who dropped out of school because he was too stupid to write a paper on the subject. So I'm not really buying what you're selling. If you could point out how my beliefs (my actual beliefs, not the ones you've made up in your head) correspond with the tenets of fascism, you might get somewhere. But that'll never happen because you don't understand fascism and you most certainly don't understand my beliefs.

Also, WTF is a Putinite?

Your empiricism is malfunctioning again. Per Branson's posts, try going and reading the actual report. (Oh, that's right, when reality doesn't conform to your preferred myth-narrative, you write it off as "probably euphemisms." Empiricist, my ass.


I read the report and quoted from it in last month's thread. It did its best to soft sell the atrocity and was STILL incredibly damning.
   398. Manny Coon Posted: September 03, 2014 at 11:33 AM (#4784503)
not properly investigated, and therefore abetted, because of an absurd fealty to modern liberal ideas about "racism" and fears of modern liberal hissy fits about "racism."


I don't know if this is true, from the article:

Some officers and local officials told the investigation that they did not act for fear of being accused of racism. But Ms. Jay said that for years there was an undeniable culture of institutional sexism. Her investigation heard that police referred to victims as “tarts” and to the girls’ abuse as a “lifestyle choice.”

In the minutes of a meeting about a girl who had been raped by five men, a police detective refused to put her into the sexual abuse category, saying he knew she had been “100 percent consensual.” She was 12.


This sounds more like misogyny and slut shaming by the police, with the police trying to cover their asses by blaming fear of reverse racism; I really doubt any significant group in wants police to cover up rapes, Pakistani leaders in England have already spoken out against it.
   399. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 03, 2014 at 11:38 AM (#4784512)
what liberalism has been doing for the past few decades (at least), working to prevent future rapes.

Yes and no. Speaking in the area of date/acquaintance rape (which is the only kind of rape that's preventable by means other than standard anti-crime tactics), liberals have done some good work publicizing the issue, but, they pointedly refuse to address the cultural milieu that enables these rapists, and often descend into cartoonish radical feminism disatribes where any man who doesn't get a signed consent form at every stage of a sexual encounter is decreed a rapist.

If you actually cared about significantly reducing these rapes (and other negative sexual experiences) you'd condemn the sexual free-for-all that enables it. You tell men it's not OK to pick up random women in bars for the sole purpose of sex. You'd tell women it's not smart to get stinking drunk, and pick up men in bars, and it's a terrible idea to be alone (and drunk, and often in a state of semi-undress) with men with whom you have no relationship. "Date rape", and "date rapists" thrives because of inebriated casual sex, and the practice of divorcing sex from any meaningful relationship context.

   400. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 03, 2014 at 11:38 AM (#4784513)
6.) JFK's older brother died in the war, and one of his sisters died in a plane crash in the late forties. JFK, of course, was seriously ill for most of his life and was administered the Last Rites on at least 4 different occasions.

Another of JFK's sisters was lobotomized, Jackie had a stillborn child, a child who lived only two days, and a child who died in a plane crash. Caroline is the only Kennedy child still living.
Page 4 of 41 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Eugene Freedman
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(31 - 9:50am, Oct 23)
Last: Scientist guy

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3229 - 9:47am, Oct 23)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogMartino: Michael Cuddyer is a perfect free agent fit for NY Mets, who like him
(6 - 9:45am, Oct 23)
Last: billyshears

NewsblogMcSweeneys: NEW BASEBALL STATISTICS.
(20 - 9:43am, Oct 23)
Last: fra paolo

Newsblog‘Marlins Man’ puts Miami front and center at World Series | The Miami Herald
(6 - 9:39am, Oct 23)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-23-2014
(6 - 9:30am, Oct 23)
Last: Ned Garvin: Male Prostitute

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

NewsblogHow Wall Street Strangled the Life out of Sabermetrics | VICE Sports
(16 - 7:16am, Oct 23)
Last: Arbitol Dijaler

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

NewsblogJay set for surgery — and for CF in 2015 : Sports
(6 - 6:54am, Oct 23)
Last: cv2002

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(353 - 6:27am, Oct 23)
Last: steagles

NewsblogAd Week: What Is Madeleine Albright Doing on the Wheaties Box?
(10 - 5:56am, Oct 23)
Last: CraigK

NewsblogHunter Pence responds to Royals fan signs with monster Game 1 | MLB.com
(55 - 3:53am, Oct 23)
Last: Shibal

NewsblogJerome Williams re-signs with Phils
(10 - 2:11am, Oct 23)
Last: boteman

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 2 OMNICHATTER
(534 - 12:25am, Oct 23)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

Page rendered in 1.2679 seconds
53 querie(s) executed