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 34 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 >  Last ›
   3301. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4214168)
Here's the email I got from the DNC:

And the one I got from the RNC:

And the one I got from any NC:

----

Seriously, I don't know how you people sit and read those emails. They are extremist and shrill in tone, tell you what you should be thinking, and should generally make any objective person want to disassociate themselves from the organization in question.

But, hey, they provide their lemmings with talking points.

   3302. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4214169)
There are about seven different things comically wrong with this statement, but I'll take two.

1) The characterization of American policy post-Reagan as 30 years of a "war on poverty".

Ah, so we'd have fewer poor people if only the GOP agreed to pay people more money to sit at home. That's the liberals' idea of a "Great Society" in a nutshell.

2) The comparison of the poverty rate during a deep recession to the poverty rate during the late 60s boom

Utter nonsense. The poverty rate reached its lowest point in 1973. In the almost 40 years since, it has only returned to that 1973 low a single time, in 2000, despite many boom times in that 40-year period.
   3303. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4214179)
Joe Kehoskie is either uninterested in or incapable of intelligent conversation about political topics.


one or the other, not that it really matters
   3304. Spahn Insane Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:19 PM (#4214180)
Ah, so Akin's decades-long position on abortion is so incredibly odious that ... no one has been able to make hay of it in election after election.

So, this "unknown GOP candidate" has managed to win "election after election." Amazing.

Also, I'm gonna go out on a long, fragile limb and speculate that Akin's running for the House in a deep red district is what's allowed him to win "election after election" without much attention being drawn to his abortion views.
   3305. zonk Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:19 PM (#4214182)
There are about seven different things comically wrong with this statement, but I'll take two.

1) The characterization of American policy post-Reagan as 30 years of a "war on poverty".
2) The comparison of the poverty rate during a deep recession to the poverty rate during the late 60s boom

Joe Kehoskie is either uninterested in or incapable of intelligent conversation about political topics.


You have to learn your 'chronology by Joe' -- if he wants to complain about something, history went like this:

1932: Franklin Roosevelt elected, ushers in generations of socialism
1932 - 1960: Nothing happens for a while
1960: The Kennedy's steal the election, plant a martyr, and install LBJ to construct the Great Society
1976: LBJ's corpse hands the Presidency to Jimmy Carter
1976 - some random day in 1988: Jimmy Carter ruins America
Some Random Day in 1988: Ronald Reagan temporarily wins Presidency for a day, slays communism, then having established himself as the greatest President, retires the next day
Day After Some Random Day in 1988: George HW Bush betrays Reagan, handing the reigns over to Bill Clinton
1989 through 2001: Nothing happens until Clinton hands out pilot licenses to Al Qaeda
September 12, 2001: George W Bush rallies the nation
September 13, 2001 to present: Barack Obama seizes control and continues Carter policies of ruining America

It all makes perfect sense -- if you bother to learn History by Joe™
   3306. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:20 PM (#4214183)
It's always cute to see people conclude that since the mainstream media isn't as far left as they themselves are, it therefore must be neutral, or even conservative. It's an outgrowth of the childish notion that they are the center of the universe, the ground around which all else must move.


I was having lunch with some colleagues in NYC today - mostly liberal as usual - and one of them suddenly noted that the Times had a front page story the other day which was very critical of Obama re the housing market. (I didn't see the story myself.) He was scratching his head about it, wondering why the Times wrote it since "I don't usually see the Times go after him."

It's kind of funny when people stumble upon the conclusion that the media is liberally biased, without realizing that they've stumbled upon said conclusion.
   3307. formerly dp Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4214187)
So no evidence, we're just supposed to take your word for it that the overwhelming majority of journalists being Democrats/liberals is meaningless.


Some sort of evidence that it influences content on a systemic level would help. Again, the structural constraints on reporters are such that their individual politics aren't supposed to factor into the framing of a story. This includes all sorts of editorial oversight on what constitutes biased word usage, house standards for objective and unbiased reporting, ect. You seem to think that "A LOT OF JOURNALISTS VOTE DEMOCRAT!" constitutes evidence of media bias. It certainly does suggest that there would be some, absent other factors. But those other factors exist, and are substantial. You can think of striving for objectivity as a market imperative in US commercial media (again, Fox and MSNBC excepted)-- why would a (conservative) media owner allow his (liberal) employee to #### up his brand, which rests on its claim to objectivity and impartiality, by tainting it with the employee's left-wing bias? The (small-c) conservative bias of media companies in a capitalist system seems less important to you than the voting patterns of these companies' employees.

Surely their "journalistic socialization (lol)" would override their thoughts, beliefs and ideologies, right?


The scare quotes around journalistic socialization are another sign that your opinion on this topic can be safely dismissed-- journalists, like any other group of workers, have a culture, and some of the research on media bias has focused on that culture-- what are its norms and values, how are they circulated and institutionalized, and how do those influence their production of media texts? J-schools teach journalistic ethics, news organizations have codes of conduct and professional standards that those who work in the industry are expected to adhere to.

The dominance of the mainstream media by liberals/Democrats is a fact, it's not open to debate.


No. The only fact here is that the employees of media organization tend to vote Democrat. For some reason you think this fact is the only one worth considering when weighing media bias. It's the same reductive and simplistic tactic people who haven't thought seriously about the issue use when arguing that "the" media is biased against their side.
   3308. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4214191)
1) The characterization of American policy post-Reagan as 30 years of a "war on poverty".

Ah, so we'd have fewer poor people if only the GOP agreed to pay people more money to sit at home. That's the liberals' idea of a "Great Society" in a nutshell.
The Kehoskie two-step.

1) Make false claim
(False claim disproven)
2) Use disproving of initial point as premise for bizarre anti-liberal comment

Joe takes as the premise of his claim that he was wrong in the first place. He's saying that American policy post-Reagan wasn't aptly characterized as a "war on poverty", and making a bizarre anti-liberal comment based on the premise that American policy has indeed not been involved in a war on poverty.

If you are both interested in and capable of intelligent discussion, you do not argue this way. But Joe does. And that's it for me.
   3309. The Good Face Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4214194)
The dominance of the mainstream media by liberals/Democrats is a fact, it's not open to debate.

Those words, "dominance" and "fact"? I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

And, for that matter, "liberals."


Still waiting for some evidence that the study was wrong. So far we have one guy saying that even if it's right, it doesn't matter because of JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITAH, and a few people putting their fingers in their ears and saying "LALALALALA".
   3310. formerly dp Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4214196)
the media is liberally biased


Why do you insist on saying "the" as if it's some sort of monolithic bloc? The Times skews left. The Washington Post skews right. Is this news to you?
   3311. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:33 PM (#4214198)
1) Make false claim
(False claim disproven)

What false claim was disproven? The only false claim disproven was your false claim that the poverty data was unfairly presented by comparing 2010 with the 1960s, when the graph plainly shows otherwise.

Joe takes as the premise of his claim that he was wrong in the first place. He's saying that American policy post-Reagan wasn't aptly characterized as a "war on poverty", and making a bizarre anti-liberal comment based on the premise that American policy has indeed not been involved in a war on poverty.

Huh? You were clearly implying that the War on Poverty ended or was drastically curtailed when Reagan took office. That might have been true in spirit, but it certainly wasn't true in practice. (Or have you forgotten that it's Bill Clinton who gets all the credit for welfare reform, some 15 years after Reagan took office?)
   3312. formerly dp Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:35 PM (#4214199)
Still waiting for some evidence that the study was wrong. So far we have one guy saying that even if it's right, it doesn't matter because of JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITAH, and a few people putting their fingers in their ears and saying "LALALALALA".


You're embarrassing yourself more each time you post on this subject. The study isn't evidence of anything, except that employees of media companies vote Democrat.
   3313. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4214203)
You're embarrassing yourself more each time you post on this subject. The study isn't evidence of anything, except that employees of media companies vote Democrat.

Come on, 'Good Face,' stop embarrassing yourself. We all know that thousands of journalists dutifully put their liberal leanings aside every day on their way into work, just like teachers, college professors, etc. We know this because ... they say so.
   3314. Tripon Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4214205)

Why do you insist on saying "the" as if it's some sort of monolithic bloc? The Times skews left. The Washington Post skews right. Is this news to you?


The Post skews right? Interesting, I always thought it skewed left. Now the Washington Times? That paper is a hard right.
   3315. Steve Treder Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4214206)
It's kind of funny when people stumble upon the conclusion that the media is liberally biased

No, what's funny is your equation that The New York Times = The Media.
   3316. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4214207)
Interesting to see you cite two laws that got more GOP votes than Dem votes. I presume this was an error on your part.


It's interesting to see you seem to think the Republicans and Democrats of the mid 60's are the same Republican and Democrats of today. I presume this was an error on your part.

The Democrats who voted against the CRA are now the base of the Republican Party. The Republicans who voted for it are now extinct.

edit: here's the breakdown by region and party:

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)


It was a regional division, not a party division.

But of course you knew that and just want to play rhetorical games.
   3317. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4214208)
You're embarrassing yourself more each time you post on this subject. The study isn't evidence of anything, except that employees of media companies vote Democrat.


Which is pretty significant evidence, and something that anyone seriously discussing this topic needs to deal with.

It's kind of like arguing that 20 of the 30 GMS in MLB are Billy Beane disciples, but don't care about OBP.

Selecting which topics to write about - and not write about - are major factors of media bias. A classic example is how Bill Clinton solved the homeless problem: the media stopped writing about it. A NEXIS search shows far fewer stories on the homeless in the years immediately following 1992.

Another major factor in media bias is how the stories are presented. Like that ridiculous "a majority of women now living without husbands in the home" alleged "hard news" story the Times vomited up a few years ago, or whatever it was. I forget the details - but it was so bad the ombudsman needed to comment on it - but the story needed to include 16 year old high school girls and military wives in order to "prove" the point that "a majority" of women are now living without husbands in the home. Or whatever ridiculous contortion they came up with.
   3318. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4214211)
The Democrats who voted against the CRA are now the base of the Republican Party. The Republicans who voted for it are now extinct.

The Democrats' leader in the Senate from 1971 to 2010 was a former member of the Klan. I don't think the lines are as clearly drawn as you seem to believe.
   3319. formerly dp Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4214216)
We all know that thousands of journalists dutifully put their liberal leanings aside every day on their way into work, just like teachers, college professors, etc. We know this because ... they say so.


They do it because their employers demand it. This world you inhibit where the employees of an organization have more power to determine content than the owners of that organization sounds like more of a Marxist fantasy than anything the man himself ever imagined.

And thanks for predictably busting out the conservative myth about college professors. At my university, Business has the most majors, and make no mistake: it's a straight-up indoctrination factory. But not in the way Rush tells you it is.
   3320. Tripon Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4214218)

The Democrats' leader in the Senate from 1971 to 2010 was a former member of the Klan. I don't think the lines are as clearly drawn as you seem to believe.


Man, this is some hardcore trolling.
   3321. Lassus Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:57 PM (#4214220)
Of course they do, because that's what people do. It's the embarrassing lack of self-awareness of some of the lefties here that merits my mockery.

Ah! Right! Totally! Like when you constantly mocked me for asking for proof and citations in countless earlier threads. Got it.

If the research is wrong, you should be able to provide some evidence other than handwaving. It's Ok, we'll wait. We've been waiting a few decades now, no rush.
Evidence talks, ######## walks. Still waiting for some of the former.
So no evidence, we're just supposed to take your word for it that the overwhelming majority of journalists being Democrats/liberals is meaningless.

Tell me about self-awareness, Good Face? Oh tell me, please, tell me how it should be. Sooooo dreamy.


Seriously, I don't know how you people sit and read those emails. They are extremist and shrill in tone, tell you what you should be thinking, and should generally make any objective person want to disassociate themselves from the organization in question.

I've never even seen one. I must be on all the wrong lists.
   3322. PreservedFish Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4214221)
Like that ridiculous "a majority of women now living without husbands in the home" alleged "hard news" story the Times vomited up a few years ago, or whatever it was.


Is this evidence of liberal bias? Family values is more often a conservative talking point.
   3323. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4214222)
Man, this is some hardcore trolling.

Robert Byrd wasn't a former member of the Klan? Per 'Misirlou,' the Byrd types ended up in the GOP.
   3324. formerly dp Posted: August 21, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4214223)
Which is pretty significant evidence,


Only if you insist on treating it in isolation from any other factors.

and something that anyone seriously discussing this topic needs to deal with.


It has been, for decades. Just because you, GF and Joe aren't familiar with the mountains of literature on the subject doesn't mean that it hasn't been studied.

Edit: just to be clear-- I'm arguing that the perception of a systemic left or right media bias tends to be in the eye of the beholder, and that the more important systemic biases-- toward sensationalism, horserace journalism, pro-consumption ideologies, ect, tend to be much harder to map on a simple left/right spectrum.
   3325. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:00 PM (#4214225)
Robert Byrd wasn't a former member of the Klan? Per 'Misirlou,' the Byrd types ended up in the GOP.


No, but the Strom Turmond and Jessee helms types did.
   3326. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4214226)
You know how bringing up Hitler/Nazis is said to Godwin a thread?

I propose that the sue of Robert Byrd to "prove" that Dems are the real racists (or some variation of that sentiment) should be referred to as Kehoskying a thread.
   3327. Steve Treder Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:02 PM (#4214229)
Just because you, GF and Joe aren't familiar with the mountains of literature on the subject doesn't mean that it hasn't been studied.

But those studies don't confirm their bias. So they pretend they don't exist.
   3328. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:05 PM (#4214231)
No, but the Strom Turmond and Jessee helms types did.


what I miss is how there once was a primate who tried to argue that conservatives in the South in the 60s/70s left the Demo party for the Repub party to get away from the redneck racists who stayed behind in the Demo party...

   3329. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4214233)
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

...

It was a regional division, not a party division.

But of course you knew that and just want to play rhetorical games.

LOL. You're relying awfully hard on that one Southern Republican, aren't you?

Those southern Dems were Dems for all other purposes. Strange how the revisionist history takes over when the CRA is discussed.
   3330. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4214237)
I was having lunch with some colleagues in NYC today - mostly liberal as usual - and one of them suddenly noted that the Times had a front page story the other day which was very critical of Obama re the housing market. (I didn't see the story myself.)

The only thing surprising about that is that you admitted it.

He was scratching his head about it, wondering why the Times wrote it since "I don't usually see the Times go after him."

Your friend must not read the news columns all that much, because there are hundreds of articles a year, many on the front page, which provide facts that make any Obama supporter uncomfortable, from the state of the economy to many of the polls to one that appeared just in the past few days, on Obama's historically lazy pace in filling open judiciary slots on the district court level. Whether those articles are written by liberals or conservatives, the facts are laid out.

What really upsets the right wing about the Times is that it's one of the few remaining papers in the country that actually has in depth coverage of long range trends and issues, many of which contain facts that should shake any sentient being's sense of complacency. They often cover (for instance) the health insurance industry from the POV of the people who get trapped in that industry's labyrinthian ways, and will also report on (don't faint) health systems in other countries that outperform ours in many ways. They will also cover the industry from the POV of investors, but that sort of reporting is just taken for granted and barely acknowledged by ideology-obsessed critics.

Boys and girls, that's what newspapers are SUPPOSED to do. They're SUPPOSED to do original investigative reporting, rather than just run AP wire stories and barely disguised press releases from lobbying groups without any sort of annotation or fact-checking. Perhaps most papers would like to do more of this, but unfortunately either their readership base is too small to sustain it, or their readers are more interested in reading fluff. Usually it's a bit of both.

A normal person reading many of the Times' articles will naturally feel a bit less comfortable, and a bit more skeptical about claims that the Magic Marketplace is always the Best of All Possible Worlds, in spite of its documented failures in some respects. A normal person doesn't feel threatened by stories like this, or immediately rush off to Rush for an anecdote about welfare chislers to restore his world to its proper axis.

Of course there are times when the Times goes off half-cocked on a marginal crusade, like the one they had against the Augusta Country Club. Talk about using a howitzer against a fly. But that sort of thing is far more the exception than the general rule, and in fact their most prominent bit of questionable reporting in recent years was contained in Judith Miller's dispatches about Iraq'a WOMD, hardly from a "liberal" perspective.

From the sort of mindless critiques I've seen of the Times on this website, it's hard not to conclude that the vast majority of the people making the criticism either don't read the paper at all, or only read the articles that stoke their sense of grievance. I doubt if the number of people who spend more than 15 minutes a day reading either their print edition or their website totals more than half a dozen Primates at the most. It's so much more comforting to go to sites that don't threaten your cherished worldview.

For people whose tender sensibilities are upset by the Times' coverage, there are hundreds of other news sources to draw from, of wildly varying quality. Anyone with a speck of curiosity about life can find the best of them within a matter of a few minutes at most. Somehow I doubt that those sites are where most of the Times' critics here are getting the bulk of their information from. From the repetitious and utterly predictable tone of much of their commentary, they seem to be getting their information mostly from passing notes to each other. It's not too surprising, given that real reporting can often be a disturbing phenomenon.
   3331. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:12 PM (#4214238)
LOL. You're relying awfully hard on that one Southern Republican, aren't you?

Those southern Dems were Dems for all other purposes. Strange how the revisionist history takes over when the CRA is discussed.


The CRA vote was a North/South vote period, not a Dem/Republican vote

admit it, just once, it'll do your soul good

this is how it can be done:

I freely admit that there are more Democratic Journalists than Republican.
I admit that Robert Byrd used to be a Klan member.
I admit that Obama had an unusually slight resume before getting elected POTUS
   3332. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:12 PM (#4214239)
LOL. You're relying awfully hard on that one Southern Republican, aren't you?


What does this even mean?

The old Confederacy voted 21-1 against the CRA. 95% of them were Democrats, who had little in common with the 98% of other Democrats who voted for it. So little that soon after, most of them or their seats were Republican, including that great Democratic champion of states rights, Strom Thurmond, and that infamous Democratic race baiter Jesse Helms.
   3333. Steve Treder Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:14 PM (#4214242)
Strange how the revisionist history takes over when the CRA is discussed.

No, what's strange is how this bizarre delusion about revisionist history is supposed to relate to your original "gotcha" in asking how that Great Society thing has worked out, and your complete inability to refute any of the positive aspects of it that have been mentioned (including the CRA), and your complete inability to name any one, just one, specific Great Society legislation that conclusively failed.
   3334. PreservedFish Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:18 PM (#4214244)
I read The Times every day, and it is tremendous. Is there a liberal bias in the news coverage? Probably a soft one in terms of topics chosen and such. But anyone that advances the idea that it is a rag slanted specifically in favor of the left doesn't know what he's talking about. The Times routinely criticizes Obama - it broke half of that #### about Obama having a list of people to assassinate, classifying all dead males in drone attacks as "enemy combatants," etc - this week's front page story in the Times Magazine is about how the neighborhood where Obama cut his teeth as a community organizer is still a hell hole. They've published the same happy fluff about Paul Ryan that everyone else has in the last week.
   3335. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4214246)
Robert Byrd wasn't a former member of the Klan?

He sure as hell was, and because of his filibuster against the CRA he was marginalized within his party for many years, until he'd come around to realizing how wrong he was. Just as conservatives like William F. Buckley had the grace to acknowledge that they'd also been utterly wrong about their views on that law.

OTOH one of the biggest Dixiecrat crusaders against the 1964 CRA was (naturally enough) a South Carolina Senator who as Governor had run for president in 1948 on an openly segregationist platform.

So how did the GOP react when this Senator (Thurmond) announced he was switching parties? They let him keep all of his ten years of accumulated seniority, no small gift at a time when seniority rank was rigidly honored. They treated him as some sort of a hero.

And who was the other leader of the GOP southern vanguard? Only a character who was perhaps the most racist TV commentating demagogue in the entire country, one who polluted the airwaves night after night with charges about "Communists" in the civil rights movement. And yet Jesse Helms was made an honored member of the GOP, never asked to recant his racist past, never asked to tone down his racial rhetoric, and virtually enshrined as a God by much of the "conservative" base.

Yeah, the long southern conversion from Dixiecratism to Republicanism didn't have a damn thing to do with race. It was all about Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.
   3336. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:28 PM (#4214248)
Those southern Dems were Dems for all other purposes. Strange how the revisionist history takes over when the CRA is discussed.
History tells us that those southern Dems stopped voting for the Democrats. Where do you think all those racists went? Who do you think all those racists are voting for now?
   3337. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:29 PM (#4214249)
Strange how the revisionist history takes over when the CRA is discussed.


I'm surprised no one caught this angle- at the time and up until the 1980s this vote was always understood as a regional vote, a regional issue- the idea that it was a Dem versus Repub issue is the revisionist* one (and in this case erroneous)

*by the way, "revisionist history" has been used as a putdown for quite some time now, but really labeling something "revisionist" just means that it's a different retelling of history- revisionist history may be more accurate than earlier retellings, it may be less, but in the popular imagination it seems that "revisionist history" now equals "falsification of history"
   3338. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:37 PM (#4214253)
the idea that it was a Dem versus Repub issue is the revisionist* one (and in this case erroneous)


I assumed that was just Joe looking for numbers to support his case and not understanding their meaning.
   3339. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:38 PM (#4214255)
History tells us that those southern Dems stopped voting for the Democrats. Where do you think all those racists went? Who do you think all those racists are voting for now?

I guess racists truly are slow learners, since blue-collar types in the South were still voting for Dems well into the '90s.

***
I assumed that was just Joe looking for numbers to support his case and not understanding their meaning.

It's easy to say it wasn't a party thing when one party essentially wasn't involved at all. The Dems owned the South back then politically. To the extent racism drove opposition to the CRA in the South, they were Dem racists. The fact many of them switched to the GOP over the next four decades doesn't change that fact.
   3340. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:41 PM (#4214256)
I guess racists truly are slow learners, since blue-collar types in the South were still voting for Dems well into the '90s.


That's very illustrative. And reprehensible.
   3341. Monty Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:45 PM (#4214257)
Listen. If you think someone is a troll, you stop responding to them. That's the only response a troll gets. You don't continue to argue with them, you don't refute their points, and you don't even accuse them of trolling. Any response at all is just giving them what they want.

Now, there are people who you strongly disagree with and who use debate tactics to which you object, but they still aren't trolls. Argue with them all you like. But if you think someone's actually trolling, don't engage them. Just move on and talk to the people you think are being sincere and honest.
   3342. Steve Treder Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4214260)
The Dems owned the South back then politically.

Yes, and as LBJ put it himself, by passing and signing the CRA and VRA he was giving the region over to the Republicans instead. He was proven completely correct.

What I'm missing is any cogent point that you may be laboring to make with this particularly frantic dance, but that's probably just me being unrealistic.
   3343. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4214263)
What I'm missing is any cogent point that you may be laboring to make with this particularly frantic dance, but that's probably just me being unrealistic.

It was really a basic point: The Dems who voted against the CRA were still Dems for all other purposes. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this — as they say, you can't take the politics out of politics — but the revisionist claims that "southern Dems were really Republicans" is just silly.

***
That's very illustrative. And reprehensible.

Reprehensible how? If the Dems were the party of civil rights, and large numbers of blue-collar "rednecks" were still voting for Dems some 30 years after the CRA, then maybe the regional shift toward the GOP was for reasons other than racism.*

(* Or, of course, maybe the southern Dem party wasn't as immune to racism as modern Dems seem to believe.)
   3344. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: August 21, 2012 at 06:58 PM (#4214266)
The Democrats' leader in the Senate from 1971 to 2010 was a former member of the Klan. I don't think the lines are as clearly drawn as you seem to believe.

I see Kehoskie is still being Kehoskie.

Byrd disavowed the Klan and intolerance in general many times over the years. It doesn't excuse his mistakes but it does explain why he remained and was welcomed within the Democratic Party.

His family tree is also pretty fascinating (from Wikipedia): "The Byrds had two children, Mona Byrd Fatemi and Marjorie Byrd Moore; two sons-in-law, Mohammad Fatemi and Jon Moore; six grandchildren, Erik Byrd Fatemi, Mona Byrd Moore Pearson, Darius Fatemi, Mary Anne Moore Clarkson, Fredrik Fatemi, and Jon Michael Moore (deceased automobile accindent in the 1980s); and seven great-grandchildren, Caroline Byrd Fatemi, Emma James Clarkson, Kathryn James Fatemi, Hannah Byrd Clarkson, Michael Yoo Fatemi, Anna Cristina Fatemi, and James Matthew Fatemi."

I remember reading about this on Andrew Sullivan's blog a few years ago, where he wrote "From the KKK to Michael Yoo Fatemi in two generations. Only in America." or something like that.
   3345. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 07:14 PM (#4214274)
It doesn't excuse his mistakes but it does explain why he remained and was welcomed within the Democratic Party.

... which has been precisely my point all along: The Dems tend to show remarkable "forgiveness" and are very "welcoming" when one of their own is involved, or when doing so will add another vote to the "D" column. But they hold the GOP to a much higher standard (and, indeed, the GOP holds its own to a higher standard, given the quickness with which GOPers tend to call on their own to resign, leave a race, etc.).
   3346. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 21, 2012 at 07:18 PM (#4214277)
I guess racists truly are slow learners, since blue-collar types in the South were still voting for Dems well into the '90s.


Reprehensible how?


"blue-collar types" = racists

but the revisionist claims that "southern Dems were really Republicans" is just silly.


no one claims that what they claim is that many Southern Dems over time became Republicans largely because of dislike of Democratic Party stands on issues of race and civil rights.

what they claim is that equating the 1960s Dem Party to the 2012 Dem party is silly
equating the 1960s Repub Party to the 2012 Repub Party is silly.



   3347. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 21, 2012 at 07:21 PM (#4214278)
... which has been precisely my point all along: The Dems tend to show remarkable "forgiveness" and are very "welcoming" when one of their own is involved, or when doing so will add another vote to the "D" column. But they hold the GOP to a much higher standard (and, indeed, the GOP holds its own to a higher standard, given the quickness with which GOPers tend to call on their own to resign, leave a race, etc.).


Oh good Lord. This is probably the dumbest thing you've said in a thread that is a veritable highlight reel of dumb things you say.
   3348. Tripon Posted: August 21, 2012 at 07:21 PM (#4214279)
   3349. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 21, 2012 at 07:26 PM (#4214282)
I guess racists truly are slow learners, since blue-collar types in the South were still voting for Dems well into the '90s.



Reprehensible how?



"blue-collar types" = racists


Yeah. Here's a hint and a half for your ass Joe. Many of those blue collar types who vote democratic today are people of a certain skin pigmentation who's vote was severely suppressed prior to the CRA. When they finally got the chance to vote, and they saw their segregationist representatives now had an R after their name, they voted D.
   3350. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 21, 2012 at 07:29 PM (#4214284)
It doesn't excuse his mistakes but it does explain why he [Robert Byrd] remained and was welcomed within the Democratic Party.


... which has been precisely my point all along: The Dems tend to show remarkable "forgiveness" and are very "welcoming" when one of their own is involved, or when doing so will add another vote to the "D" column. But they hold the GOP to a much higher standard (and, indeed, the GOP holds its own to a higher standard, given the quickness with which GOPers tend to call on their own to resign, leave a race, etc.).

Yes, just like they told Strom and Jesse to renounce their racist ways before letting Strom keep his seniority when he switched parties in 1964, and welcoming Jesse like a conquering hero in 1970 in spite of his well-known record of incendiary racial diatribes that went back for over a decade. Is there a single historical fact that runs contrary to your worldview that you're willing to acknowledge?

Byrd kept his seniority after his anti-CRA filibuster for the simple reason that the rules in place at the time forced them to do so. By the time that the seniority rules had slackened in the 70's, he'd made his repentance. The Republicans held out no comparable conditions for Strom and Jesse, whose sole concession to the late 20th century was to hire a handful of black staff members.
   3351. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 07:34 PM (#4214285)
Yeah. Here's a hint and a half for your ass Joe. Many of those blue collar types who vote democratic today are people of a certain skin pigmentation who's vote was severely suppressed prior to the CRA. When they finally got the chance to vote, and they saw their segregationist representatives now had an R after their name, they voted D.

Uh, you need to follow along closer. I specifically said "blue-collar types in the South were still voting for Dems well into the '90s." Unless you're claiming that huge numbers of black blue-collar voters in the South have switched to the GOP since the '90s, your angry rebuttal doesn't make much sense.

"blue-collar types" = racists

If the so-called "rednecks" weren't the racists in this narrative, then who were? The educated elites?
   3352. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 21, 2012 at 07:35 PM (#4214286)
The Dems tend to show remarkable "forgiveness" and are very "welcoming" when one of their own is involved, or when doing so will add another vote to the "D" column.


yes

But they hold the GOP to a much higher standard


yes, yes they do, shocking

and, indeed, the GOP holds its own to a higher standard, given the quickness with which GOPers tend to call on their own to resign, leave a race, etc.).


pure unadulterated bullshit
the Repubs are quick to show someone the door if they perceive that person to be an electoral liability, but if not...

If Dems see one of their own as a liability they too will toss them, such as Anthony Weiner and Elliot Spitzer (whose names come to mind since I'm a New Yorker)
   3353. Steve Treder Posted: August 21, 2012 at 07:36 PM (#4214287)
I'm going to re-commit myself to following Monty's advice. Joe is truly RossCW-esque.
   3354. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 21, 2012 at 07:38 PM (#4214289)
BTW not that this would ever penetrate Joe's thick skull, but the percentage of Southern whites who voted for Obama in 2008 ranged from about 39% in Virginia down to about 10%-12% in Alabama and Mississippi.
   3355. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 21, 2012 at 07:38 PM (#4214292)
Uh, you need to follow along closer. I specifically said "blue-collar types in the South were still voting for Dems well into the '90s." Unless you're claiming that huge numbers of black blue-collar voters in the South have switched to the GOP, your angry rebuttal doesn't make much sense.


Try re-reading what you yourself wrote, but then again your evidently serious reading comprehension issues may explain quite a bit
   3356. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 21, 2012 at 07:41 PM (#4214296)
I'm going to re-commit myself to following Monty's advice. Joe is truly RossCW-esque.


I was about to say that he argues politics the way SBB argues Jack Morris' qualifications for the HOF.

I'm also going to mention that someone compared Joe K to RossCW a few weeks ago, and I said that was unfair... in that thread it was, this one here, not so much.
   3357. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 07:48 PM (#4214303)
I'm going to re-commit myself to following Monty's advice. Joe is truly RossCW-esque.

That's OK. You can use the extra time to read up on Ted Williams' military exploits.

***
BTW not that this would ever penetrate Joe's thick skull, but the percentage of Southern whites who voted for Obama in 2008 ranged from about 39% in Virginia down to about 10%-12% in Alabama and Mississippi.

The percentage of blacks who voted for McCain was 4 percent. Is that evidence of racism?
   3358. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 21, 2012 at 07:52 PM (#4214308)
The percentage of blacks who voted for McCain was 4 percent. Is that evidence of racism?


No silly. It's evidence of intelligence.
   3359. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 07:52 PM (#4214309)
Try re-reading what you yourself wrote, but then again your evidently serious reading comprehension issues may explain quite a bit

What are you talking about? Which part of "blue-collar types in the South were still voting for Dems well into the '90s" was unclear or incorrect?
   3360. Steve Treder Posted: August 21, 2012 at 07:54 PM (#4214312)
I'm also going to mention that someone compared Joe K to RossCW a few weeks ago

I think it was probably me. You were correct that at the time it was an overstatement, but it's becoming far less so. The complete unwillingness to genuinely engage on anything, exchange real thoughts, move the discussion forward, and instead to just skitter from one trivial "aha!" to the next, never acknowledging in the slightest about having been demonstrated to be dead wrong, over and over and over and over again.

But at least one difference between them is that RossCW, agonizing as he was, did present some manner of intellect. Joe doesn't.
   3361. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 21, 2012 at 08:01 PM (#4214316)
What are you talking about? Which part of "blue-collar types in the South were still voting for Dems well into the '90s" was unclear or incorrect?


Because the blue collar electorate in 1960 in the south is a far different demographic than the blue collar electorate in 1990, due in large part to the CRA.. Apparently, only you can't seem to grasp that. If you don't adjust for the fact that a large segment of the blue collar electorate in 1960 wasn't allowed to vote, you analysis is worthless.
   3362. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4214322)
Because the blue collar electorate in 1960 in the south is a far different demographic than the blue collar electorate in 1990, due in large part to the CRA.. Apparently, only you can't seem to grasp that. If you don't adjust for the fact that a large segment of the blue collar electorate in 1960 wasn't allowed to vote, you analysis is worthless.

I understand a lot of blacks weren't voting in 1960, but what does that have to do with *white* blue-collar voters still voting for Dems into the '90s? The claim here is that racist rednecks were angered by the CRA and flocked to the GOP, but the numbers seem to suggest they took their leaving rather slowly.

***
I think it was probably me. You were correct that at the time it was an overstatement, but it's becoming far less so. The complete unwillingness to genuinely engage on anything, exchange real thoughts, move the discussion forward, and instead to just skitter from one trivial "aha!" to the next, never acknowledging in the slightest about having been demonstrated to be dead wrong, over and over and over and over again.

This is kind of funny coming from the lefties' house high-fiver. I can't remember the last time you "exchanged real thoughts" or "moved the discussion forward" in one of these threads. The average word count of a Treder political post is probably 5.
   3363. formerly dp Posted: August 21, 2012 at 09:16 PM (#4214352)
The average word count of a Treder political post is probably 5.


Threads you post in have a way of discouraging serious engagement, for some strange reason. I've been here for the better part of a decade-- Treder has banked enough capital in these political threads to warrant being taken seriously, because he frequently makes well-supported and well-reasoned arguments, even if I don't always agree with them. If you'd like evidence for this, we have a search function that works pretty well.
   3364. Lassus Posted: August 21, 2012 at 09:20 PM (#4214354)
If you'd like evidence for this, we have a search function that works pretty well.

Well.........
   3365. steagles Posted: August 21, 2012 at 09:24 PM (#4214356)
I understand a lot of blacks weren't voting in 1960, but what does that have to do with *white* blue-collar voters still voting for Dems into the '90s? The claim here is that racist rednecks were angered by the CRA and flocked to the GOP, but the numbers seem to suggest they took their leaving rather slowly.
interestingly, in the last ~30 years, the flight of blue collar whites from the democrat to the replublican party seems to parallel the decline in union membership across the country.


   3366. McCoy Posted: August 21, 2012 at 09:24 PM (#4214357)
A shocking turn of events.
   3367. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 09:35 PM (#4214369)
Threads you post in have a way of discouraging serious engagement, for some strange reason. ...

How do you define "serious engagement"? Liberals outnumber right-wingers and libertarians here by about 10 to 1. The liberals' idea of "serious engagement" seems to be to attempt to shout down the non-liberals, and then, when that doesn't work, to start in with the "troll" allegations. The same pattern repeats about five times per week.
   3368. CrosbyBird Posted: August 21, 2012 at 09:37 PM (#4214371)
"Worthy of contempt" seems overly harsh. It's one thing to dislike his position on abortion, but considering him "contemptible" merely for being wrong seems a bit much.

It seems precisely the right amount of harsh, considering that he has yet to own up to how fundamentally incorrect his statement was as a matter of basic reproductive science. We should hold our elected leaders to a higher standard. Anyone can make a mistake or experience a slip of the tongue; this was neither.

By the way, I don't think his position on abortion (that there should be no rape exception) is worthy of contempt. If you believe in good faith that a fetus is a life that is just as sacred as a developed human being, then it is the only anti-abortion position I can respect. (If you believe that it is less sacred, but still worthy of protection, I can respect that position too.)
   3369. McCoy Posted: August 21, 2012 at 09:38 PM (#4214374)
Well, the ratios wouldn't be so out of whack if the some of the far righters wouldn't do such a wonderful job shaming and embarrassing the rest of the people on the right.
   3370. formerly dp Posted: August 21, 2012 at 09:46 PM (#4214377)
How do you define "serious engagement"?


See the way you're not ever interested in actually discussing something, and only want to complain about how persecuted you are by the terrible liberals (on this site, in "the" media, ect)? That's, like, the opposite of serious engagement. And why you get called a troll by liberals and non-liberals on this site at least once a week.

   3371. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 21, 2012 at 09:48 PM (#4214379)
Here was Joe's original claim, which clearly refers to blue collar whites:

I guess racists truly are slow learners, since blue-collar types in the South were still voting for Dems well into the '90s.


To which I replied:

BTW not that this would ever penetrate Joe's thick skull, but the percentage of Southern whites who voted for Obama in 2008 ranged from about 39% in Virginia down to about 10%-12% in Alabama and Mississippi.

Here's his rebuttal:

The percentage of blacks who voted for McCain was 4 percent. Is that evidence of racism?

I've heard that Kerry was white. Kerry won 29% of the southern white vote overall, and 17% of the Deep South white vote.

Gore was both white and southern. Gore won 31% of the southern white vote and lost his home state of Tennessee even with the overwhelming support of blacks in that state. On the presidential level, Jimmmy Carter in 1976 was the only Democrat since 1960 to even come close to winning the southern white vote.

And of course, once again, race has nothing to do with this transformation. Those southern blue-collar types are really just big, big fans of the Laffer curve.
   3372. formerly dp Posted: August 21, 2012 at 09:55 PM (#4214382)
It seems precisely the right amount of harsh, considering that he has yet to own up to how fundamentally incorrect his statement was as a matter of basic reproductive science.


Eve Ensler's open letter to Akin (warning: this is a link to the Huffington P[ost!).

Here's what I want you to do. I want you to close your eyes and imagine that you are on your bed or up against a wall or locked in a small suffocating space. Imagine being tied up there and imagine some aggressive, indifferent, insane stranger friend or relative ripping off your clothes and entering your body -- the most personal, sacred, private part of your body -- and violently, hatefully forcing themself into you so that you are ripped apart. Then imagine that stranger's sperm shooting into you and filling you and you can't get it out. It is growing something in you. Imagine you have no idea what that life will even consist of, spiritually made in hate, not knowing the mental or health background of the rapist.

Then imagine a person comes along, a person who has never had that experience of rape, and that person tells you, you have no choice but to keep that product of rape growing in you against your will and when it is born it has the face of your rapist, the face of the person who has essentially destroyed your being and you will have to look at the face every day of your life and you will be judged harshly if you cannot love that face.

I don't know if you can imagine any of this (leadership actually requires this kind of compassion), but if you are willing to go to the depth of this darkness, you will quickly understand that there is NO ONE WHO CAN MAKE THAT CHOICE to have or not have the baby, but the person carrying that baby herself.

I have spent much time with mothers who have given birth to children who are the product of rape. I have watched how tortured they are wrestling with their hate and anger, trying not to project that onto their child.

I am asking you and the GOP to get out of my body, out of my vagina, my womb, to get out of all of our bodies. These are not your decisions to make. These are not your words to define.


Akin's position is an ugly one. It is not made any less ugly by introducing the actions of Byrd or Kennedy, or any more ugly by "the" "liberal" "media" reporting on it. This whole subthread has been people on this board wrongly indulging Joe's attempt to distract everyone from the fundamental ugliness of radical social conservatives on this issue.
   3373. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 09:56 PM (#4214383)
See the way you're not ever interested in actually discussing something, and only want to complain about how persecuted you are by the terrible liberals (on this site, in "the" media, ect)? That's, like, the opposite of serious engagement. And why you get called a troll by liberals and non-liberals on this site at least once a week.

If that's your idea of "serious engagement," I'm not impressed. I disagree with liberals on just about everything, but I don't claim to be "persecuted" by them.

The "troll" business is just stupid. Anyone who calls someone a troll and then continues engaging with them is far dumber than the alleged troll.
   3374. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 21, 2012 at 09:58 PM (#4214385)
This whole subthread has been people on this board wrongly indulging Joe's attempt to distract everyone from the fundamental ugliness of radical social conservatives on this issue.


When I closed my laptop and went to dinner, my connection to the hotel wifi dropped. This made my credentials reset and logged me out of BTF. So when I logged back in, I had 15 seconds of having to read his idiotic verbal vomit before realizing what had happened.

I strongly recommend the killfile for this one kids. He's too stupid to teach.
   3375. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:00 PM (#4214386)
If that's your idea of "serious engagement," I'm not impressed. I disagree with liberals on just about everything, but I don't claim to be "persecuted" by them.

We'll remember this the next time you start whining about the Bad Old Liberal Media, though it's nice to know you're now conceding that they're not stalking you personally.
   3376. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:00 PM (#4214387)
Those southern blue-collar types are really just big, big fans of the Laffer curve.

They're also big fans of the Bible, a demographic the Dems have generally gone out of their way to offend since the '80s.
   3377. Lassus Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:06 PM (#4214390)
Also, the continuing war on Christmas.
   3378. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:08 PM (#4214392)
Akin's position is an ugly one. It is not made any less ugly by introducing the actions of Byrd or Kennedy, or any more ugly by "the" "liberal" "media" reporting on it. This whole subthread has been people on this board wrongly indulging Joe's attempt to distract everyone from the fundamental ugliness of radical social conservatives on this issue.

The only "attempt to distract" here has been by the Dems and the liberal media. After four years of The Messiah, 10 percent of the U.S. workforce remains idled and 20 percent are underemployed, and yet we're spending days and weeks talking about things like Todd Akin's grasp of science and Mitt Romney's dog riding on the car roof 25 years ago.
   3379. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:12 PM (#4214394)
Also, the continuing war on Christmas.

And the war on guns. Can't forget that.
   3380. Lassus Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:13 PM (#4214395)
Also, unions.

EDIT: Dammit, Andy, totally ruined my rhythm on that one! It was supposed to follow #3378, not appear as a high-five.

Man, Joe, wherever you are must be even more boring than whatever the adjoining upstate NY county to mine is that you came from.

HOWEVER, if it makes you feel any better, the most recent shooting was against god-fearing gay-haters by an ####### liberal with guns who hates christian values or some such: Have at it, liberal media! However, as Good Face will tell you, like most liberals, he sucked at guns and managed only to wound one guy.
   3381. formerly dp Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:19 PM (#4214397)
The only "attempt to distract" here has been by the Dems and the liberal media.


Akin's position is a real one, with real consequences for the freedoms of those who possess vaginas. No amount of ######## about your make-believe "liberal media", or calling Obama names, will change that fundamental fact. If you think that the right wing's attempt to restrict abortion rights hurts their chances of winning elections, then you should condemn their positions, rather than raise the corpses of dead Democrats.
   3382. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM (#4214398)
Man, Joe, wherever you are must be even more boring than whatever adjoining upstate NY county to mine is that you came from.

I'm in Syracuse right now, and yes, "boring" doesn't even begin to describe it.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/family-research-council-shooter-chick-fil-corkins-170426728.html

What were the odds of "Family Research Council," "shooter," and "Chick-Fil-A" being the three central keywords for a major news story? Only in America, I guess.
   3383. Lassus Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:24 PM (#4214402)
I'm in Syracuse right now, and yes, "boring" doesn't even begin to describe it.

It begins, but falls far short.
   3384. SteveF Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:28 PM (#4214403)
Plenty of worse places to live than Syracuse. Like Darfur for instance.
   3385. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:29 PM (#4214405)
Akin's position is a real one, with real consequences for the freedoms of those who possess vaginas.

Actually, there are no consequences for women unless about 50 more people with Akin's view on abortion manage to get elected to the Senate and about 200 more get elected to the House. Until then, he holds a minority view that has absolutely zero chance of becoming the law of the land.

This whole Akin thing is a distraction from the dismal failure of Obama's economic policies. Last week it was Romney's dog, this week it's Akin, next week we'll find out Romney only tipped 12 percent at some restaurant when he was 19. It's all B.S., all the time. The media couldn't stick to major issues for a week if their lives depended on it, because they know discussing the major issues hurts Obama.
   3386. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:32 PM (#4214406)
I'm in Syracuse right now, and yes, "boring" doesn't even begin to describe it.
It begins, but falls far short.

Even the Hooters has closed since the last time I was here. What kind of city allows a Hooters to go under?
   3387. rr Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:33 PM (#4214407)
Mitt Romney's dog riding on the car roof 25 years ago.


The media like easy hooks, and easy hooks=clicks, and there are few easier hooks than dog stories, particularly ones that involve stuff with a vivid image, like an Irish setter tied to the roof of a car.

Since you like "quick Google searches", if you do that for "Romney dog story" you get 133,000,000 results. If you do it for "Obama unemployment" you get 32,400,000. "Obama Afghanistan?" 112,000,000. "Obama Economy?" 677,000,000.

And, if you do it for "Obama Muslim" you get 223,000,000 results and the first link is to a story in which Hank Williams Jr. apparently said that "Obama is a Muslim who hates the USA." Easy hook. Clicks.

Like fdp's points suggests, the things about "media bias" are:

1. Everything is biased on some level. What bias one finds depends on where one looks.
2. What types of bias bothers people depends on whom they are rooting for.

There is a thread up now linking to an article by an old-school baseball writer named Stan McNeal, saying that Derek Jeter will and should be the first unanimous HOFer. You can imagine how this went with some Primates, and a couple of Primate Yankees fans are fed up.
So, if you are sick of statheads bashing Jeter's D, chances are pretty good that you are a Yankees fan. If you are sick of MSM guys sniffing Jeter's jock, chances are pretty good that you're not. And a lot of people are sick of both.

   3388. formerly dp Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:37 PM (#4214409)
Actually, there are no consequences for women unless about 50 more people with Akin's view on abortion manage to get elected to the Senate and about 200 more get elected to the House. Until then, he holds a minority view that has absolutely zero chance of becoming the law of the land.


Someone hasn't been paying attention to the concerted efforts by conservatives to restrict and limit abortion rights (and that someone includes the "liberal" media). It's a real fight, and Akin galvanized a lot of the people who had forgotten just how ugly the right's thinking on this issue is. But whatever-- you'll say anything to avoid agreeing that what Akin said was both scientifically wrong and morally contemptible, because to do so is to give aid and comfort to the enemy (even though it's people on your side of the aisle calling for him to step down).
   3389. Lassus Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:38 PM (#4214410)
This whole Akin thing is a distraction from the dismal failure of Obama's economic policies. Last week it was Romney's dog, this week it's Akin, next week we'll find out Romney only tipped 12 percent at some restaurant when he was 19. It's all B.S., all the time. The media couldn't stick to major issues for a week if their lives depended on it, because they know discussing the major issues hurts Obama.

Stick with being persecuted by Syracuse, it at least has some basis in reality.
   3390. rr Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:38 PM (#4214411)
The media also like stories that tug at the emotions. The economy really doesn't do that, unless the story comes with a human interest angle.
   3391. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:46 PM (#4214414)
Someone hasn't been paying attention to the concerted efforts by conservatives to restrict and limit abortion rights (and that someone includes the "liberal" media). It's a real fight, and Akin galvanized a lot of the people who had forgotten just how ugly the right's thinking on this issue is.

Totally ridiculous. Barely one in five pro-lifers believes abortion should be outlawed even in the case of rape. It's absurd to suggest that we're a couple more Todd Akins away from abortion being outlawed.

But whatever-- you'll say anything to avoid agreeing that what Akin said was both scientifically wrong and morally contemptible, because to do so is to give aid and comfort to the enemy (even though it's people on your side of the aisle calling for him to step down).

I believe I've already done this. I disagree with Akin on the science, I disagree that abortion is wrong in cases of rape, and I've repeatedly said I want him to withdraw from the race. What more do you want here?
   3392. zonk Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:46 PM (#4214415)
interestingly, in the last ~30 years, the flight of blue collar whites from the democrat to the replublican party seems to parallel the decline in union membership across the country.


I think that's largely driven by three factors:

1) Union power has waned significantly since its height (whether you want to put that in the 70s or earlier). Once upon a time, unions delivered job security, pay that would ensure you could buy a house, even send your kids to college, rock solid health care, and a pension that would ensure you could spend your retirement fishing if you so choose. I'm not trying to have the unions good/unions bad/unions went too far argument here, it's just a simple fact that 40+ years ago, you joined a union and if you stuck with it, were relatively reliable, you were set. When an organization delivers that and tells you that they need you to vote for the slate, you do it. Once unions don't have the same power to deliver benefits, it starts to seem less important that you vote the way they suggest.

2) Southern Democrats filled the vacuum of eastern and rust belt Democrats. Ever since Kennedy and before Obama - you had southern Democrats LBJ, Carter, and Clinton. Clinton and Carter especially were governors of states that have never been particularly union friendly. They ran and governed as 'pro-union' - but let's face it, they were quite a ways away from being Dick Gephardt. Clinton in particular. I think you really have to go back to FDR to find a Democratic President that has actively supported union initiatives - since, it's largely been status quo. I think they've been awfully disappointed in Obama, too.

3) Union opponents have, by and large, won. You can blame the free traders, you can blame the unions themselves, or some combination of both - but once upon a time, union membership among the middle class was much, much higher. Even people that weren't in unions recognized they were in fields related enough were seeing benefits - company defined benefit pension plans, for example. As union membership dropped and new fields dominated by non-union workers arose - it became much easier to portray union benefits as unfair because you don't get them, too rather than a good thing because your employer would have to offer them to compete.

Add those three up and you end up with organizations that can still spend plenty of money in an election cycle, and most definitely are still the bulwark of Democratic foot soldiers (I've done many a canvas, and I'd say more than half of them were either sponsored directly by unions, or, had their numbers made of up mostly of people in union shirts) -- but they just can't win many elections any more by delivering votes.
   3393. formerly dp Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:49 PM (#4214416)
And, if you do it for "Obama Muslim" you get 223,000,000 results and the first link is to a story in which Hank Williams Jr. apparently said that "Obama is a Muslim who hates the USA."


Google's algorithm is immune to the media's liberal bias!

The media also like stories that tug at the emotions.


Corporate media's sole bias is to deliver consumers' eyeballs and eardrums to advertisers. It's as if Joe has lost his faith in these corporations' ability to act in their own rational self-interest.
   3394. formerly dp Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:54 PM (#4214420)
Totally ridiculous. Barely one in five pro-lifers believes abortion should be outlawed even in the case of rape. It's absurd to suggest that we're a couple more Todd Akins away from abortion being outlawed.


That's not what I said-- I said that Akin's part of a concerted campaign to make legally procuring an abortion as difficult as possible.

I believe I've already done this. I disagree with Akin on the science, I disagree that abortion is wrong in cases of rape, and I've repeatedly said I want him to withdraw from the race. What more do you want here?


So wait, you're ######## because people in the biased liberal media are saying things you agree with?
   3395. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: August 21, 2012 at 10:56 PM (#4214423)
That's not what I said-- I said that Akin's part of a concerted campaign to make legally procuring an abortion as difficult as possible.


Forget it, he's on a roll.
   3396. rr Posted: August 21, 2012 at 11:04 PM (#4214427)
Corporate media's sole bias is to deliver consumers' eyeballs and eardrums to advertisers.


Sure, and Akin, while it is a very real issue, is also from a corporate media POV an emotional story, with a horserace angle. Rape! Abortion! Anger! Senate control? Will he drop out?

Obama's economic policies OTOH are an ongoing story, with multiple interpretations, and a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo.
   3397. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 21, 2012 at 11:04 PM (#4214428)
So wait, you're ######## because people in the biased liberal media are saying things you agree with?

I declared right upfront that Akin seems like a dummy, that I disagreed with his position on rape and abortion, and that I wanted him out of the Senate race. Did you miss all of that?

My complaint all along has been with the liberal media turning this into a huge affair despite the fact that Akin was a no-name legislator whose opinion had never been sought on any other topic in his 12-plus years in Congress.

We have 10 percent unemployment, but the media doesn't care. We have a vice president who's so unstable the White House hasn't released his transcripts in two months, but the media doesn't care. But Romney's dog, and some no-name candidate who failed science? The media has endless time for those topics. It's a joke.
   3398. Steve Treder Posted: August 21, 2012 at 11:11 PM (#4214430)
Corporate media's sole bias is to deliver consumers' eyeballs and eardrums to advertisers.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Any attempt to explain or describe the US media (and the media in most countries) that fails to acknowledge this towering fundamental is an epic fail. Liberal or conservative has utterly nothing to do with it.
   3399. bobm Posted: August 21, 2012 at 11:16 PM (#4214432)
[3334]
The Times routinely criticizes Obama - it broke half of that #### about Obama having a list of people to assassinate, classifying all dead males in drone attacks as "enemy combatants," etc - this week's front page story in the Times Magazine is about how the neighborhood where Obama cut his teeth as a community organizer is still a hell hole. They've published the same happy fluff about Paul Ryan that everyone else has in the last week.


ISTM that most of that drone stuff was leaked to help make Obama seem more resolute, along with the leaks about the computer virus that sabotaged the Iranian centrifuges. It's a sort of ironic "criticism" that actually serves a helpful purpose, not unlike the Jeremiah Wright controversy that had the "positive" side effect of refuting the "Obama is a secret Muslim" propaganda by talking ad nauseam about Obama's pastor.
   3400. rr Posted: August 21, 2012 at 11:16 PM (#4214434)
We have a vice president who's so unstable the White House hasn't released his transcripts in two months, but the media doesn't care.


This is another basic thing you don't get: there is nothing older than old news, particularly in the era of 24.7 digital news cycles. Biden's being a verbal gaffe machine and high unemployment are old stories. Akin is a new player on the scene.
Page 34 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
greenback calls it soccer
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogSources: Kyle Seager nearing $100 million extension with Mariners - Yahoo Sports
(27 - 4:22pm, Nov 24)
Last: bookbook

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1028 - 4:22pm, Nov 24)
Last: jmurph

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8659 - 4:22pm, Nov 24)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(68 - 4:21pm, Nov 24)
Last: NJ in DC (Now with Wife!)

NewsblogStanton Losing About $141 Million of Record Deal to Taxes - Bloomberg
(41 - 4:21pm, Nov 24)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4365 - 4:18pm, Nov 24)
Last: Rants Mulliniks

NewsblogRed Sox trying for mega-free agent double play: Panda and Hanley - CBSSports.com
(132 - 4:16pm, Nov 24)
Last: Sonic Youk

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(141 - 4:16pm, Nov 24)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogBig Unit, Pedro, Smoltz headline Hall of Fame ballot
(16 - 4:14pm, Nov 24)
Last: Rants Mulliniks

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(149 - 4:03pm, Nov 24)
Last: Rants Mulliniks

NewsblogWhich Pablo Sandoval Did the Red Sox Buy | FanGraphs Baseball
(1 - 3:18pm, Nov 24)
Last: zack

NewsblogBoston Red Sox in talks to acquire free agent Hanley Ramirez - ESPN Boston
(14 - 3:11pm, Nov 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-24-2014
(10 - 3:10pm, Nov 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogSandoval agrees to Red Sox deal, as Boston looks for free agent sweep - CBSSports.com
(21 - 1:53pm, Nov 24)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(456 - 12:33pm, Nov 24)
Last: Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine

Page rendered in 1.4760 seconds
52 querie(s) executed