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

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

OTP- August 2012: The Leader Post: New stadium won’t have same appeal, says Bill ‘Spaceman’ Lee

“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”

The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.

“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”

With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.

“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”

Guess what, its the new OT politics thread!

Tripon Posted: August 01, 2012 at 12:04 AM | 5975 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: boston, 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 31 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 >  Last ›
   3001. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4212891)
When has either party -- even if you go back to before the birth of the modern two parties -- ever been much a civil liberties champion when they had the power to do so?


The Republicans in the 1860s-70s and the Dems in the 1960s, SCOTUS under Warren,

that's pretty much all I've got.
   3002. ASmitty Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4212892)
I prefer to use my wealth for awesome instead of good.
   3003. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4212893)
So, I didn't realize how pressing the Akin thing is. Apparently if he doesn't resign either today or tomorrow, the state GOP would be stuck with him on their ballot line, with no option to list an alternate.

Source: ABC News.

In general, the national Republican Party is really, really good at politics, and I expect them to get enough pressure on Akin to force him out. The NRCC is basically saying they'll cut him off, and that should be enough to get him to withdraw unless he's an O'Donnell level crazyperson.
   3004. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:25 PM (#4212902)
he NRCC is basically saying they'll cut him off, and that should be enough to get him to withdraw unless he's an O'Donnell level crazyperson.

Did O'Donnell ever say anything as crazy as what Akin did? Akin would need to rehab his image *down* to bat-#### crazy.
   3005. Steve Treder Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:26 PM (#4212906)
Well, I understand from watching other people who’ve made mistakes that, you know, nobody wants to own your mistake. And I don’t think anybody should. And that’s why I’m apologizing for what I did wrong. And so, on the other hand, there are certain basic principles that we believe in, and that I’m just completely committed to, and that is the fact that people and that life are teremendously valuable. That’s what’s made America such unique country — it’s because we believe that life is something that comes from our Creator. We’re made in his image, and all across America you see Americans that have a respect for life. It’s not a political debate, it’s not words, it’s how they live their lives.

I remember September 11th, the rescue workers running into the buildings that’s about to collapse, grab somebody in a wheelchair, pick em up – they don’t check their IDs to see whether they’re important or not - they just take them to safety and run back for more. They by their lives speak as Americans of what we think about the value of human beings and how much respect we hold people with and also people who’ve been victimized, how we hurt with them and try to care for them and try to love them. And that’s the very special thing about our country. That’s what we have at risk right now. And that’s what – we have to defend that.


Wow. Just ... wow.
   3006. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4212907)
The NRCC is basically saying they'll cut him off, and that should be enough to get him to withdraw unless he's an O'Donnell level crazyperson.


The problem is that the NRCC is bluffing- if he stays in and IF the race stays competitive- no way are they cutting him off (from money)- OTOH they may still have the problem that no other GOper will want to be seen with him
   3007. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:28 PM (#4212911)
TPM's take:
Whether Todd Akin stays or goes comes down to how much money the grassroots of the conservative wing of the Republican Party throws his way in the next 12-24 hours. Establishment Republicans and the national party committees have yanked their support, and for a time earlier this afternoon that looked like it would be enough to shove Akin out of the Senate race. But Akin says he’s in it to win it — and, oh, send me money. The only thing propping up Akin, even in his own mind, is the notion that the grassroots can supply enough cash to sustain a campaign. But he needs more than a notion. He needs to see real results and fast. I wouldn’t rule it out. Rogue Republicans were a hallmark of the 2010 campaign. The main difference between Akin and Sharron Angle or Christine O’Donnell is that he’s a sitting member of Congress. Less rogue, perhaps, but also less easy to dismiss. How much money can he raise in the next 24 hours — and how much of it will come from self-interested Dems trying to keep him in the race?
   3008. GregD Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4212920)
When has either party -- even if you go back to before the birth of the modern two parties -- ever been much a civil liberties champion when they had the power to do so?


The Republicans in the 1860s-70s
I love me some 1860s Republicans and you can count emancipation as civil liberties issue, but Republicans were constantly critiqued as tyrants for their willingness to sign off on Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and his acquiescence to imprisonment of northern editors and to the exile of a sitting US Senator. I think those things are justified in wartime, and Lincoln accepted but didn't exult in them, but still it's hard to call them civil liberties purists like Izzy Stone or something.
   3009. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4212921)
Well, I understand from watching other people who’ve made mistakes that, you know, nobody wants to own your mistake.


ok so far.
And I don’t think anybody should.


????

And that’s why I’m apologizing for what I did wrong.

Ok, I don't seem how the prior 2 sentences lead in, but ok.

And so, on the other hand, there are certain basic principles that we believe in, and that I’m just completely committed to, and that is the fact that people and that life are teremendously valuable.

Ok now you are backing off your apology, which is fine because if you really don't believe you said anything to apologize for, don't apologize.
I remember September 11th, the rescue workers running into the buildings that’s about to collapse, grab somebody in a wheelchair, pick em up – they don’t check their IDs to see whether they’re important or not - they just take them to safety and run back for more. They by their lives speak as Americans of what we think about the value of human beings

Some say that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, some say its' the first- first second last I dunno, what I do know now is that Akins is a scoundrel.
   3010. smileyy Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4212923)

It's also meant to distinguish it from "she said no but meant yes" and "she wanted it then decided to call it rape afterwards".


Just when I thought Akin was giving me a pass on all those paternity claims. Guess I'm gonna have to be a lot less likeable to the ladies, so they won't want it to begin with.
   3011. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:34 PM (#4212927)
but still it's hard to call them civil liberties purists


I didn't call them civil liberties purists, but at the time there was a rather rare situation going on where the temporary suppression of the liberty of some lead to an overall increase in liberty- plus there was a war going on.
   3012. GregD Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4212933)
I didn't call them civil liberties purists, but at the time there was a rather rare situation going on where the temporary suppression of the liberty of some lead to an overall increase in liberty- plus there was a war going on.
Fair enough. On those terms, you'd get some more groups included, including politicians who pushed to lift coverture in the 19th century.
   3013. zonk Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:39 PM (#4212938)
but still it's hard to call them civil liberties purists




I didn't call them civil liberties purists, but at the time there was a rather rare situation going on where the temporary suppression of the liberty of some lead to an overall increase in liberty- plus there was a war going on.


I think that in the context of pre-Emanicipation America it's hard to see slavery through a civil liberties lens... don't get me wrong, I understand academically why it is, but the concept of civil liberties was sort of a hidden subtext to "slavery, the issue" I think. In other words, I've got to agree with GregD. I suppose you could say the Warren court - but that was a court, not "truly" a political body.
   3014. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4212945)
I think that in the context of pre-Emanicipation America it's hard to see slavery through a civil liberties lens... don't get me wrong, I understand academically why it is, but the concept of civil liberties was sort of a hidden subtext to "slavery, the issue" I think.
The language of the radical republicans was all "freedom" all the time. The notions of "free soil" and "free states" are in great part what converted enough Northern whites to the Republican cause. I think that separating this from questions of liberty is historically inaccurate.
   3015. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4212950)
Did O'Donnell ever say anything as crazy as what Akin did? Akin would need to rehab his image *down* to bat-#### crazy.
"i'm not a witch, i'm you"

also, there was the whole thing with bill maher and masturbation.
   3016. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4212959)
also, there was the whole thing with bill maher and masturbation.


That was a while ago.

The difference between an O'Donnell and an Akin is that O'Donnell is always a bit crazy, but Akin was generally mainstream until he said something that was absolutely insane.
   3017. zonk Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4212960)
Did O'Donnell ever say anything as crazy as what Akin did? Akin would need to rehab his image *down* to bat-#### crazy.


Well, there was that "I'm not a witch" ad... but I take the point.

So, I didn't realize how pressing the Akin thing is. Apparently if he doesn't resign either today or tomorrow, the state GOP would be stuck with him on their ballot line, with no option to list an alternate.

Source: ABC News.


Per TPM, at least, they have until Sept 28 -- but would need a court order and they have to cover ballot costs after tomorrow afternoon at 5.

What's interesting here --

I understand why the GOP desperately wants Akin out - but they DO have a tight rope to walk, I think. You'll find plenty of quarters of the GOP base that are still pissed about the way the 'party infrastructure' abandoned O'Donnell (and Angle in NV) in 2010. I get a very strong sense that many of them are looking strategically at things this cycle, but then - it's silly to think there isn't an appreciable part of the GOP that's going to be upset about shunting aside Akin.

To this point -

- Crossroads GPS (Rove's super PAC) has apparently said that they're pulling out of MO-SEN if Akin is the candidate
- RNC Chair Reince Preibus has said "if it were me, I would withdraw".
- RSCC Chair John Cornyn has said that Akin needs to seriously consider whether it's wise to remain in the race
- The National Review has called for Akin to drop out
- Ron Johnson (who's NOT up this cycle), Scott Brown, and Dennis Rehberg (running for MT-SEN) have called on Akin to drop out

Now, on the other hand, the FRC has strongly lined up behind him.

I think this post on TPM "It's up to the Grassroots" is probably about right...

They've basically got 24 hours to finance Akin's campaign. It's not an east coast metropolis race - but MO-SEN is still relatively expensive and I highly suspect that Akin's decision is going to come down to whether the socon movement can finance his bid or not. The establishment players are abandoning him - not that he probably cares, but he certainly does care about their financing.
   3018. zonk Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:52 PM (#4212966)
The difference between an O'Donnell and an Akin is that O'Donnell is always a bit crazy, but Akin was generally mainstream until he said something that was absolutely insane.


Well, that and O'Donnell was really a bit of a piker -- if you want to talk about the sort of person who makes a career off of the public till, that's O'Donnell. Numerous irregularities in her previous runs for office (where she was electorally a sacrificial lamb, but had an interesting habit of basically using her campaign funds as a sort of 'salary').
   3019. ASmitty Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4212970)
O'Donnell also supported her opposition to stem cell research by saying that scientists had bred mice with fully functioning human brains.
   3020. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4212971)
It seems to me that this has the potential to become an important battle for the pro-life movement. Akin backing down could be perceived as being akin (haha!) to backing down on the rape exception.
   3021. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:55 PM (#4212973)
My views are pretty close to atheist but I don't call myself that because it implies that I care more about the issue than I really do.


A friend once told me that the percentage chance that he'll call himself an atheist rather than an agnostic is his blood alcohol content times 6.
   3022. billyshears Posted: August 20, 2012 at 04:55 PM (#4212975)
The difference is that in arguments with your wife you may not actually be wrong, but you still have to apologize anyway


Todd Akin having an argument with his wife:

Akin: What's wrong? You seem legitimately upset. You never make any sense when you're legitimately upset.

Wife: What do you mean by "legitimately upset"? That's offensive. Also, I do to make sense when I'm upset.

Akin: Well, sometimes, you're not actually upset. You're just pretending to be upset to get out of doing something you don't want to do anyway. So you're saying you're upset, but everybody knows you're not really upset. Other times, you're actually upset, but you have no right to be - if you had the reasoning capabilities and emotional stability of a non-insane person, you wouldn't be upset. But I'm sorry. I misspoke. Obviously you being upset is a very, very bad thing.

Wife: I want a divorce.

Akin. Sorry, I'm not going anywhere.
   3023. Tripon Posted: August 20, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4212995)

It's also meant to distinguish it from "she said no but meant yes" and "she wanted it then decided to call it rape afterwards"]


Also, he slipped her a ruffie and doesn't remember what happened rape.
   3024. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 20, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4213000)
There's the obvious implication that the others that want to raise taxes are the kind ones while those that don't are the mean ones. Which is completely ridiculous - one can only be kind with what they have. You cannot be kind with the stuff of others, you can only force your beliefs on them, and it's no different whether it's rooted from Christianity or Buddhism or any other personal ethical belief system.


I've never understood this view. The kinder society, or person, is the one that gives the most to the poor. If you want to adjust it based on available resources, i.e. the widow's mite, then fine by me. But a society that raises $1 million via private donations and gives it to the poor is less generous than an equally rich society that raises $0 via private donations but $10 million via taxation and gives it to the poor.

This idea is based on the concept that virtue is necessarily voluntary, and a concomitant assumption that taxation is necessarily involuntary. That's an interesting philosophical argument, but it pales in comparison to the thing that really matters: are you actually helping the poor or not?
   3025. PreservedFish Posted: August 20, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4213010)
I pretty much agree with #3024.

Which is completely ridiculous - one can only be kind with what they have. You cannot be kind with the stuff of others, you can only force your beliefs on them, and it's no different whether it's rooted from Christianity or Buddhism or any other personal ethical belief system.


Isn't this reductive? You're doing two things at once: you're forcing your beliefs on the guy whose swag you're taking, and you are also being kind to the person you're helping. There's a balance. The first part doesn't invalidate the second part. It tinges it, so you have to be careful applying this principle, but it doesn't invalidate it.
   3026. Shredder Posted: August 20, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4213011)
The difference between an O'Donnell and an Akin is that O'Donnell is always a bit crazy, but Akin was generally mainstream until he said something that was absolutely insane.
I'm not sure that's it. I think he was just lower profile nationally than O'Donnell. I thought she'd been a TV pundit or something prior to her run. Akin was pretty much known as a extreme kook, which is why the McCaskill campaign propped him up. The surprise around this strikes me as not being due to the fact that he believes this BS, but that they he was dumb enough to say it publicly.
   3027. Spahn Insane Posted: August 20, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4213045)
Oh, good gravy, that's the second Ray opinion that I agree with to the letter.

Yeah, I was about to ask what the hell's in the water.

I'm an agnostic basically because (1) I can't PROVE god doesn't exist, and (2) labeling myself "atheist" would seem to obligate me to try. Which, since I don't really give a rat's ass, I have no inclination to do.

As for Colbert's "atheists without balls" bit, I think "atheist leaners with humility on the subject" is more accurate.
   3028. Spahn Insane Posted: August 20, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4213053)
Did O'Donnell ever say anything as crazy as what Akin did? Akin would need to rehab his image *down* to bat-#### crazy.

"i'm not a witch, i'm you"

also, there was the whole thing with bill maher and masturbation.


What, no mention of her "tell the truth at all times" absolutism, even to hypothetical SS officers at the door of a person harboring Anne Frank? That might top the masturbation and witchcraft stuff for sheer braindead looniness.
   3029. billyshears Posted: August 20, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4213062)
I'm an agnostic basically because (1) I can't PROVE god doesn't exist, and (2) labeling myself "atheist" would seem to obligate me to try. Which, since I don't really give a rat's ass, I have no inclination to do.

As for Colbert's "atheists without balls" bit, I think "atheist leaners with humility on the subject" is more accurate.


And I always considered agnosticism to be somewhat arrogant. As in "Wait, you're willing to accept the possibility of an all-powerful god, but you want the all powerful god to provide proof of its existence. Who the #### are you? Go #### yourself."
   3030. Randy Jones Posted: August 20, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4213072)
(1) I can't PROVE god doesn't exist


There are lots of things that can't be proven to not exist(Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc). Are you agnostic about their existence as well?
   3031. Spahn Insane Posted: August 20, 2012 at 06:03 PM (#4213077)
There are lots of things that can't be proven to not exist(Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc). Are you agnostic about their existence as well?

Sure, what the hell.
   3032. Spahn Insane Posted: August 20, 2012 at 06:05 PM (#4213080)
And I always considered agnosticism to be somewhat arrogant. As in "Wait, you're willing to accept the possibility of an all-powerful god, but you want the all powerful god to provide proof of its existence. Who the #### are you? Go #### yourself."

Heh. Well, if he's all-powerful, seems like a reasonable request.

In all seriousness--no, I don't "want" anything of the sort, because I don't particularly care.
   3033. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 20, 2012 at 06:09 PM (#4213084)
There are lots of things that can't be proven to not exist(Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc). Are you agnostic about their existence as well?

Sure, what the hell.
Yeah, I think a lot of people aver agnosticism not as a way of saying that they find the existence of God highly plausible but unproven, and rather as a way of saying that they find the existence of God to be a question that is of very little import to them in their day-to-day lives. Saying that you're an atheist often implies to people that the non-existence of God structures your practices and beliefs significantly.
   3034. GregD Posted: August 20, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4213087)
The language of the radical republicans was all "freedom" all the time. The notions of "free soil" and "free states" are in great part what converted enough Northern whites to the Republican cause. I think that separating this from questions of liberty is historically inaccurate.
This is true, but it's true of most politically parties. The current Republicans talk about freedom all the time but no one thinks of them as a great civil liberties party. For that matter no party spoke about freedom more than the 1850s Democrats; anti-slavery infringed on their freedom to own slaves.

You have a reasonable point on Radical Republican anti-slavery; I'm not sure I'd go all the way with you because I think civil liberties is inherently a 20th century idea that just didn't exist in the 19th century. The freedom that Republicans wanted was real and meaningful but was oriented in a different way than ours. And the major organizing cry of free soil was that slavery impinged on non-slaveowners' ability to make their own livelihood. The second pillar of the Republican platform was anti-Mormonism which gives you also another sense of what they thought freedom meant. Freedom to have access to federally subsidized allocation of western homesteads, absolutely. But a general modern-type freedom? Republicans were strongly anti-vice in general, and Boston Republicans simultaneously pushed for emancipation and launched an unprecedented crackdown on prostitution, while other Republicans pushed strong anti-vagrancy laws that essentially criminalized a man being out of work in a city.

Which suggests that the reason that no party has organized primarily around civil liberties is that 1) majorities rarely need civil liberty protection and 2) support for civil liberties for minorities (however defined) is never a particularly popular position.
   3035. billyshears Posted: August 20, 2012 at 06:14 PM (#4213093)
I don't "want" anything of the sort, because I don't particularly care


C'mon. You have to care. I'm one of those dirty atheists, and I can tell you, I care an awful lot. I mean, it's God, man. If I found out tomorrow that God existed and if I did 7 particular things during my mortal existence while refraining from 12 other particular things, that I would go to heaven when I died and that it would be awesome forever, I would toe the ####### line. I just feel pretty confident that's not gonna happen.
   3036. SteveF Posted: August 20, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4213102)
Saying that you're an atheist often implies to people that the non-existence of God structures your practices and beliefs significantly.


It's true! Once I learned the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't exist, I stopped wearing sauce retardent clothing and no longer carry a fork and spoon with me wherever I go.
   3037. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: August 20, 2012 at 06:25 PM (#4213105)
   3038. Tripon Posted: August 20, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4213106)
I always understood agnosticism allowing you to believe in God, but not think he directly influences events in life like in the good old days.

Maybe I'm just a bad Christian.
   3039. Shredder Posted: August 20, 2012 at 06:28 PM (#4213108)
I always understood agnosticism allowing you to believe in God, but not think he directly influences events in life like in the good old days.
That sounds more like Deism. God got the ball rolling, then GTFO.
   3040. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: August 20, 2012 at 06:30 PM (#4213110)

Akin now is guaranteed to stay in.


At least Morris is being honest here:

We need to pressure Todd Akin to withdraw from the Senate contest in Missouri.

His ridiculous comment that somehow women won’t get pregnant from “legitimate rape” (whatever that is?) makes it impossible for him to beat incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill.


Can't wait for the Republican machine to broker a compromise that allows him to keep his house seat after saying essentially he's unworthy to be a senator.

   3041. zonk Posted: August 20, 2012 at 06:42 PM (#4213121)

Akin now is guaranteed to stay in.


Hahahaha. If Dick Morris isn't the biggest idiot in politics (discounting those who actually hold office, of course), I don't know who is.

You honestly have to wonder if he'd even be getting gigs if the prostitute toe-sucking thing hadn't made him famous. I know he was Bill's campaign manager in '96, but I just don't think "3rd way" takes a genius to formulate and Clinton was simply one hell of a politician. Donna Brazille could have won an election with Bill as the candidate.
   3042. Lassus Posted: August 20, 2012 at 06:52 PM (#4213125)
Saying that you're an atheist often implies to people that the non-existence of God structures your practices and beliefs significantly.

How odd. I've never once thought or even considered this to be part of atheism.

Also, every last conversation I've ever had about the existence of god was started by believers trying to convince me of something or troll me, not the other way around, YMMV, etc.
   3043. Darren Posted: August 20, 2012 at 07:03 PM (#4213130)
The difference between an O'Donnell and an Akin is that O'Donnell is always a bit crazy, but Akin was generally mainstream until he said something that was absolutely insane.


I just don't think you've been following Akin as closely: TPM's list of Akin Crazy.
   3044. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: August 20, 2012 at 07:03 PM (#4213131)
my interpretation of the difference between atheism and agnosticism is that atheism is the distinct belief that there is no god, whereas agnosticism is the absence of any belief, either in the affirmative or the negative.

   3045. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 20, 2012 at 07:07 PM (#4213138)
Can't wait for the Republican machine to broker a compromise that allows him to keep his house seat after saying essentially he's unworthy to be a senator.

I wonder if this is even possible, given the late date. From what I've read, the GOP candidate for his House seat has already been chosen.

Anyway, I had barely heard of Akin before yesterday. While I hope he gets out of the Senate race and don't care if he remains in the House or not, this is yet another example of the double standard that exists for GOP pols vs. Dem pols.

Teddy Kennedy killed a woman and Dems didn't care. Bill Clinton was accused of rape and Dems didn't care. Sherrod Brown apparently beat his first wife and Dems don't care. But some unknown GOP candidate says something dumb, and you'd think the world was about to end.
   3046. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 20, 2012 at 07:09 PM (#4213140)
Oh, good gravy, that's the second Ray opinion that I agree with to the letter.


Woohoo!
   3047. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 20, 2012 at 07:13 PM (#4213147)
EDIT: No, I'm not responding to Joe. All y'all shouldn't, neither.
   3048. SteveF Posted: August 20, 2012 at 07:15 PM (#4213152)
Agnosticism is the idea that whether god exists/doesn't is itself unknowable, almost on a theoretical level. a - not, gnosis - knowledge.

Scientific theories are no different than religious ones. You can't prove a scientific theory, only disprove it. The power of science comes from its predictive power. Whether or not a theory is 'Truth' is less important than whether we can use it to predict what will happen.

Religious beliefs have no predictive power one way or the other. You end up with the beliefs you have either without much choice (e.g. they are the beliefs that were passed onto you at a young age and have been reinforced by your chosen social groups) or by choice (e.g. you choose the beliefs you have because you find them most comforting).

As a personal matter, my atheism is of a Nietzschean variety. I choose not to believe in God because that's the belief system that provides me the most direction/comfort in my life. It's not something I feel the need to advertise or explain, primarily because what would I gain by convincing someone that God doesn't exist?

The saint answered: “I make songs and sing them, and when I make songs I laugh, weep and growl: thus I praise God. With singing, weeping, laughing and growling I praise the god who is my god. But tell me, what do you bring us as a gift?”

When Zarathustra had heard these words he took his leave of the saint and spoke: “What would I have to give you! But let me leave quickly before I take something from you!”
   3049. Dan The Mediocre Posted: August 20, 2012 at 07:16 PM (#4213154)

I just don't think you've been following Akin as closely


That appears to be the case.
   3050. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: August 20, 2012 at 07:24 PM (#4213158)
Teddy Kennedy killed a woman and Dems didn't care. Bill Clinton was accused of rape and Dems didn't care. Sherrod Brown apparently beat his first wife and Dems don't care. But some unknown GOP candidate says something dumb, and you'd think the world was about to end.


Only because McCaskill is vulnerable. When it's a race they cannot hope to win, they don't care either. Or have you forgotten Alan Keyes, candidate for Senate already?
   3051. PreservedFish Posted: August 20, 2012 at 07:40 PM (#4213172)
While I hope he gets out of the Senate race and don't care if he remains in the House or not, this is yet another example of the double standard that exists for GOP pols vs. Dem pols.


Seems like the GOP is going crazier about this than any Dems are.
   3052. Lassus Posted: August 20, 2012 at 07:41 PM (#4213174)
Seems like the GOP is going crazier about this than any Dems are.

Yes, that's the Dems' fault. Duh.
   3053. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: August 20, 2012 at 07:45 PM (#4213180)
Seems like the GOP is going crazier about this than any Dems are.


I thought this was his point, that the GOP is more principled or something.
   3054. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 20, 2012 at 07:46 PM (#4213182)
Seems like the GOP is going crazier about this than any Dems are.

I'm sure it was a coincidence that Obama finally graced the media with his presence today.

I thought this was his point, that the GOP is more principled or something.

Or bigger wimps.
   3055. Tripon Posted: August 20, 2012 at 07:47 PM (#4213186)
I wonder if all the gerrymandered seats that both the republicans and Democrats created over the last few decades are allowing them to basically shoot themselves in the foot so to speak. Each party is able to create so called 'safe' seats that basically allow anybody affiliated with that particular party to win easily and so face less scrutiny(State seats, House seats for the most part) in terms of potential political pratfalls or gaffes. But when they step on the national stage,(Senate, or presidency, some governorships) you ultimately get a weaker set of candidates across all parties and you get the really goofy ones like Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Tom Akins on the republican side or Jack Conway, (or that whole mess with Obama's old seat leading to somehow Roland Burness Roland getting it and making it really easy for Mark Kirk to pick up a senate seat that has been Democratic for decades,) running for a seat they have no business to run for.

Basically, a lot of these players aren't ready for the Show, and you can't just send them back to AAA like you can in baseball.
   3056. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 20, 2012 at 07:49 PM (#4213190)
Basically, a lot of these players aren't ready for the Show, and you can't just send them back to AAA like you can in baseball.

Mostly, I think it's that the types of people most attracted to politics these days are the types of people who should be kept the furthest from actual positions of power.
   3057. asdf1234 Posted: August 20, 2012 at 07:57 PM (#4213198)
I've never understood this view. The kinder society, or person, is the one that gives the most to the poor.


The kinder society is the one that helps poor people not be poor anymore. Which is not to say that such a society would neglect charity by any stretch of the imagination or that the majority of tax dollars in our "kinder" society are going to the poor.
   3058. zonk Posted: August 20, 2012 at 08:05 PM (#4213212)
Teddy Kennedy killed a woman and Dems didn't care. Bill Clinton was accused of rape and Dems didn't care. Sherrod Brown apparently beat his first wife and Dems don't care. But some unknown GOP candidate says something dumb, and you'd think the world was about to end.


I think if "accused of" is the standard, then hell - Laura Bush has been accused of vehicular homicide towards an ex-boyfriend.

Debating which side has more (miscreants + accusations of miscreancy) isn't a very fun game, though. It's like google bingo.
   3059. Lassus Posted: August 20, 2012 at 08:10 PM (#4213218)
Snapper's returned, btw. Perhaps he'll show up. Next week, after he's read everything.
   3060. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 20, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4213225)
Anyway, I had barely heard of Akin before yesterday. While I hope he gets out of the Senate race and don't care if he remains in the House or not, this is yet another example of the double standard that exists for GOP pols vs. Dem pols.
1. Minimize the GOP problem.
2. Distance self from problem.
3. Turn issue.
4. Accuse Democrats of worse.

I call this the Joe.
   3061. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 20, 2012 at 08:33 PM (#4213233)
I think if "accused of" is the standard, then hell - Laura Bush has been accused of vehicular homicide towards an ex-boyfriend.

I don't recall Laura Bush running for office.

1. Minimize the GOP problem.
2. Distance self from problem.
3. Turn issue.
4. Accuse Democrats of worse.

I call this the Joe.

I'm not a Todd Akin supporter at all, and I hope he gets out of the Senate race for the good of the GOP. But if killing a woman didn't disqualify Teddy Kennedy, and being a Grand Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan didn't disqualify Robert Byrd, and beating his wife didn't disqualify Sherrod Brown, then it seems like the Senate could survive Todd Akin. The media double standard is laughable.
   3062. Tripon Posted: August 20, 2012 at 08:38 PM (#4213237)
Tell me, Joe. If the media is trying to protect Democrats, then how the heck have you heard all of these accusations?
   3063. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: August 20, 2012 at 08:39 PM (#4213238)
Tell me, Joe. If the media is trying to protect Democrats, then how the heck have you heard all of these accusations?


Thank God for Drudge.
   3064. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 20, 2012 at 08:39 PM (#4213239)
The media double standard is laughable.
I'm just saying that it's what you do. Romney really should have nominated you for VP — you're a much more reliably defensive attack dog than Ryan is.
   3065. Lassus Posted: August 20, 2012 at 08:42 PM (#4213241)
I looked up Sherrod Brown. I gotta say, not even FOX picked up that one. Kinda weak to state that beating as an unassailable fact.

I have nothing to add to the 5,000,000 words that have been written on Chappaquiddick
   3066. CrosbyBird Posted: August 20, 2012 at 08:43 PM (#4213242)
some days I would call myself a "hopeful agnostic" and other days an atheist.

You're answering two different questions. Agnosticism is a position on whether the question is answerable. Atheism is a position on belief. You can be agnostic without being an atheist, or vice-versa, or both, or neither.
   3067. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 20, 2012 at 08:49 PM (#4213247)
Tell me, Joe. If the media is trying to protect Democrats, then how the heck have you heard all of these accusations?

I didn't use the word "protect" or claim the media ignores such stories when Dems are involved. The media does, however, greatly amplify such stories when GOP pols are involved. The quickest way for an unknown GOP politician to get famous is to say something dumb or impolitic. Doing so will generate enough media attention to make the Kardashians jealous.
   3068. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 20, 2012 at 08:53 PM (#4213250)
I'm an agnostic basically because (1) I can't PROVE god doesn't exist, and (2) labeling myself "atheist" would seem to obligate me to try. Which, since I don't really give a rat's ass, I have no inclination to do.
I think the label you're looking for is apathetic agnosticism.
   3069. Lassus Posted: August 20, 2012 at 08:55 PM (#4213253)
The quickest way for an unknown GOP politician to get famous is to say something dumb or impolitic.

How exactly are unknown Dem politicians getting famous in opposition?
   3070. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 20, 2012 at 08:59 PM (#4213257)
How exactly are unknown Dem politicians getting famous in opposition?

Well, the first example that springs to mind is a smooth-talking but otherwise thinly qualified back-bench legislator whom a fawning liberal media turned into The Messiah within a matter of months.
   3071. CrosbyBird Posted: August 20, 2012 at 09:06 PM (#4213259)
As a personal matter, my atheism is of a Nietzschean variety. I choose not to believe in God because that's the belief system that provides me the most direction/comfort in my life. It's not something I feel the need to advertise or explain, primarily because what would I gain by convincing someone that God doesn't exist?

Interesting. My atheism is not really a matter of choice. I don't choose my beliefs; I arrive at my beliefs through observation and experience. I don't really find it comfort either; it's just what makes sense to me.

I don't think you can convince someone that God doesn't exist. In fact, I think the very question is entirely unanswerable. It's framed in such a way as to be unanswerable.

That said, I think that I have a responsibility to represent myself as a moral individual without faith. There are people that believe that my lack of belief makes it impossible for me to be a moral actor, and I think it's important to set an example that proves this false. Religion also often stands in the way of scientific progress and peace, and that also is something that I feel a responsibility to speak out against.
   3072. Lassus Posted: August 20, 2012 at 09:08 PM (#4213261)
Well, the first example that springs to mind is a smooth-talking but otherwise thinly qualified back-bench legislator whom a fawning liberal media turned into The Messiah within a matter of months.

Well, if Jindal wasn't the worst public speaker in the galaxy, maybe you'd have something.

But instead, you have absolutely nothing, I can see.
   3073. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 20, 2012 at 09:14 PM (#4213262)
Well, if Jindal wasn't the worst public speaker in the galaxy, maybe you'd have something.

But instead, you have absolutely nothing, I can see.

Typical lefty, valuing style over substance. Jindal's government track record is a hell of a lot better than Obama's.

Speaking of Louisiana, what happened to Morty Causa? He's been M.I.A. for a while now.
   3074. PreservedFish Posted: August 20, 2012 at 09:17 PM (#4213265)
Typical lefty,


Could you cut that #### out? Please? It's easier to pretend that you are worth arguing with if you keep such comments to a minimum.
   3075. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 20, 2012 at 09:19 PM (#4213267)
Could you cut that #### out? Please? It's easier to pretend that you are worth arguing with if you keep such comments to a minimum.

You guys don't want me to have any fun. Typical ...
   3076. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 20, 2012 at 09:26 PM (#4213271)
Could you cut that #### out? Please?
It's not that he won't stop, it's that he can't. It's really all he knows how to do, so he's damn well going to do it.
   3077. Lassus Posted: August 20, 2012 at 09:27 PM (#4213273)
Typical lefty, valuing style over substance. Jindal's government track record is a hell of a lot better than Obama's.

Oh good lord. It was YOU guys who abandoned your young, accomplished legislative star because he had no style, not the Democrats.
   3078. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 20, 2012 at 09:38 PM (#4213279)
Aww, Phyllis Diller died.

But was it a legitimate death?
   3079. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 20, 2012 at 09:38 PM (#4213281)
Oh good lord. It was YOU guys who abandoned your young, accomplished legislative star because he had no style, not the Democrats.

The GOP abandoned Jindal? I don't recall him even dipping his toe in the presidential waters this time around.

But anyway, call me when the liberal national media starts fawning over some random GOP back-bench state legislator who has six years in government and zero notable legislative achievements.
   3080. Lassus Posted: August 20, 2012 at 09:51 PM (#4213287)
The GOP abandoned Jindal? I don't recall him even dipping his toe in the presidential waters this time around.

Yes, a Presidential run is the only way to elevate the profile of anyone. The way the GOP has been doing to Jindal since he gave his kindergarten speech to America in 2009. But that's the liberals' fault, of course.


But anyway, call me when the liberal national media starts fawning over some random GOP back-bench state legislator who has six years in government and zero notable legislative achievements.

Call me when you come up with something more substantive.


   3081. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 20, 2012 at 09:52 PM (#4213289)
But anyway, call me when the liberal national media starts fawning over some random GOP back-bench state legislator who has six years in government and zero notable legislative achievements.
Not like Paul Ryan. The list of bills with his name on them is as long as...
   3082. zenbitz Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:03 PM (#4213295)
For all practical definitions of "exist" an omnipotent, omniscient god *cannot* exist.

Not sure what -ic or -ist that makes me.
   3083. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:11 PM (#4213300)
Call me when you come up with something more substantive.

I don't see a denial in there re: Obama being a media creation.

***
Not like Paul Ryan. The list of bills with his name on them is as long as...

Paul Ryan's been in Congress for 14 years, which is 13 years more than Obama had when he announced for president. If a GOPer like Ryan had been so presumptuous as to announce for president after only a year in Congress, the media would have crushed him.*


(* I know Ryan wasn't eligible to be president after his first year in Congress, due to being under 35. The general point stands, though.)
   3084. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:16 PM (#4213302)

Paul Ryan's been in Congress for 14 years, which is 13 years more than Obama had when he announced for president. If a GOPer like Ryan had been so presumptuous as to announce for president after only a year in Congress, the media would have crushed him.*


Add counting to the list of things Joe Kehoskie is totally ####### stupid about.
   3085. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:18 PM (#4213303)
If God could create a GOP negative so awful that that even Kehoskie wouldn't try to turn it 180 degrees, I'd reconsider my agnosticism.
   3086. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:24 PM (#4213307)
But anyway, call me when the liberal national media starts fawning over some random GOP back-bench state legislator who has six years in government and zero notable legislative achievements.

Not like Paul Ryan. The list of bills with his name on them is as long as...


This may already have been mentioned on pages 19, 22 and 26 of this thread, but the answer is (2). He got a bill passed establishing a tax rate for arrows (the kind that go with bows). And a bill renaming a post office. Ryan is in his 14th year as a U.S. Representative.

Paul Ryan is touting his legislative bona fides over Obama '08. Last Saturday, he told an interviewer, "About foreign policy[...], I’ve been in Congress for a number of years. That’s more experience than Barack Obama had when he came into office. And I've voted to send people to war.”
   3087. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:25 PM (#4213308)
If a GOPer like Ryan had been so presumptuous as to announce for president after only a year in Congress, the media would have crushed him.

There's an Abraham Lincoln joke in here somewhere.
   3088. Lassus Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:25 PM (#4213310)
I don't see a denial in there re: Obama being a media creation.

For some reason, this reminds me of the Little Match Girl story.
   3089. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:30 PM (#4213311)
Add counting to the list of things Joe Kehoskie is totally ####### stupid about.

Which part are you nitpicking? That Ryan's been in Congress 13 years and 8 months rather than 14 years, or that Obama waited until his second year in the Senate to formally announce he was running for president, which everyone with an IQ over room temperature knew was happening as soon as Kerry lost in '04?
   3090. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:30 PM (#4213312)
Every national politician is a media creation.
   3091. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:31 PM (#4213313)
Joe: I'm "nitpicking" the part where you either lied or were just totally wrong about the amount of time Obama had been in Congress.
   3092. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:32 PM (#4213314)
If a GOPer like Ryan had been so presumptuous as to announce for president after only a year in Congress, the media would have crushed him.*

The media's handling of Donald Trump and Herman Cain was certainly a brutal pair of crushings. Some of us still remember the way the media eviscerated Ross Perot.
   3093. SteveF Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:36 PM (#4213318)
Obama was sworn in as senator on January 3, 2005 and announced he was running for president on Feb 10, 2007.
   3094. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:37 PM (#4213319)
Neither Trump or Cain were serious candidates. They were both self-promoting hucksters with no actual interest in running for President. That much was obvious to anyone with a brain.
   3095. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:39 PM (#4213322)

Obama was sworn in as senator on January 3, 2005 and announced he was running for president on Feb 10, 2007.


Or January 15 if you go by the date of his "exploratory" committee announcement. Still, that's is two years. Not one year. And that is during his third year in Congress, not his second.

The pathetic thing about Joe's lying is that the truth doesn't really change the essential valid point: that Obama was not very experienced in public office for a presidential candidate. He is just such a trollish boor that he can't resist lying to make his case sound even better.
   3096. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4213323)
Joe: I'm "nitpicking" the part where you either lied or were just totally wrong about the amount of time Obama had been in Congress.

Yes, I'm sorry. Obama had been in the Senate for a full 30 minutes before announcing for president, rather than the 20 minutes I claimed earlier.

The pathetic thing about Joe's lying is that the truth doesn't really change the essential valid point: that Obama was not very experienced in public office for a presidential candidate. He is just such a trollish boor that he can't resist lying to make his case sound even better.

LOL. Obama's 2007 "announcement" was the worst-kept secret in D.C. He was running for president from the moment he arrived in the Senate, if not before.
   3097. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4213324)

Yes, I'm sorry. Obama had been in the Senate for a full 30 minutes before announcing for president, rather than the 20 minutes I claimed earlier.


If you want to understate a person's time in office by a full 100 percent, don't be surprised when people call you a ####### liar.
   3098. I am going to be Frank Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4213326)
This is from the NY Times:
While Republicans at the national level were in a hurry to shove him aside, Republican opinion had not hardened against Mr. Akin in Missouri, in part because of the salience of the abortion issue. “The congressman is totally, firmly, solidly pro-life,” Sharon Barnes, a member of the state Republican central committee, said, adding that Mr. Akin believed “that abortion is never an option.”

Ms. Barnes echoed Mr. Akin’s statement that very few rapes resulted in pregnancy, adding that “at that point, if God has chosen to bless this person with a life, you don’t kill it.”

“That’s more what I believe he was trying to state,” she said. “He just phrased it badly.”

Ms. Barnes said that she believed that the controversy would blow over, and that once people in the state became more familiar with Mr. Akin, they would learn “what a great, conservative, godly man Todd Akin is, and they’ll put his comment in its proper context.”


At least someone in the "establishment" is sticking with Akin.
   3099. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:47 PM (#4213329)

LOL. Obama's 2007 "announcement" was the worst-kept secret in D.C. He was running for president from the moment he arrived in the Senate, if not before.



Backtracking on your lie now, eh? This is the internet, and I can just quote you.

Paul Ryan's been in Congress for 14 years, which is 13 years more than Obama had when he announced for president.


Why don't you stop being a crybaby and just admit you lied? You would look so much less pathetic if you did.
   3100. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 20, 2012 at 10:48 PM (#4213330)
deleted; double post
Page 31 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harry Balsagne, anti-Centaur hate crime division
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogSurprising Sports Stars – Guided by Voices’ Robert Pollard
(30 - 3:14pm, Jul 26)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogCardinals agree to deal with veteran catcher A.J. Pierzynski
(7 - 3:09pm, Jul 26)
Last: asinwreck

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3213 - 3:06pm, Jul 26)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogFull Count » Sources: Red Sox agree to deal sending Jake Peavy to Giants for minor leaguers
(21 - 3:05pm, Jul 26)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogHall of Fame Announces Changes to Voting Process for Recently Retired Players, Effective Immediately
(26 - 3:00pm, Jul 26)
Last: jdennis

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(420 - 2:56pm, Jul 26)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-26-2014
(5 - 2:46pm, Jul 26)
Last: Joey B.: posting for the kids of northeast Ohio

NewsblogDJ Short: Maximum stay on Hall of Fame ballot changed from 15 to 10 years
(15 - 2:41pm, Jul 26)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogNewsweek: With Big Data, Moneyball Will Be on Steroids
(1 - 1:58pm, Jul 26)
Last: kthejoker

NewsblogPrice, Rays beat Red Sox for 8th straight victory
(4 - 1:38pm, Jul 26)
Last: BDC

NewsblogHurdles remain in Mets-Rockies deal for Tulowitzki, Gonzalez
(43 - 1:19pm, Jul 26)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(114 - 1:10pm, Jul 26)
Last: BDC

NewsblogGiants purchase contract of 2B Uggla
(4 - 12:29pm, Jul 26)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogSoE: AN IDIOT IN EXILE
(5 - 12:09pm, Jul 26)
Last: Der-K thinks the Essex Green were a good band.

NewsblogBuehrle treats Toronto rookies to new suits in NY
(8 - 11:59am, Jul 26)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October

Page rendered in 0.7464 seconds
52 querie(s) executed