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 36 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 >  Last ›
   3501. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 22, 2012 at 01:18 PM (#4214797)
I love the mainstream Democratic thought here. First, that the Iraq War was awful and unjust (I agree) and it detracted us from the important, necessary war (Afghanistan).
I have no idea why you presume I support Obama's terrible Afghanistan policy. I didn't support it in 2008 when he was running, I didn't support it in 2009-2010 when it failed, and I am vaguely supportive of his still insufficient attempts to roll it back after its failure.
   3502. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 22, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4214798)
when Bush nominated Miers, Rs freaked out NOT because she was unqualified, but because her record on issues important to them was sketchy-to-nonexistent. Obama has nominated two people with sketchy-to-nonexistent records on issues important to Dems, and the Dems in turn said, basically, "Well, we trust our President."


Well the Repubs/Righties did have a relatively recent experience with a GOP nominated Judge turning liberal on them - Souter - the Dems/Liberals haven't had that experience in quite awhile...

But you wait, if one of the Clinton/Obama appointees turns out pro-life, there will be no way in hell that a future Dem President will be able to appoint a judge without a clear pro-choice track record- the base will go nuts
   3503. bunyon Posted: August 22, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4214799)
The basic problem, as I see it, is that the American people like to tell other people what to do and believe that they have the right to kill anywhere in the world at any time. Having talked to many people across a fairly varied cross-section of people in the US, I think our government represents us fairly well.

Now, we all may disagree, from time to time, which actions we'd most like to control and which people we'd most like to kill, but that we want control and aggression can't really be debated.
   3504. Lassus Posted: August 22, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4214800)
But I do believe that a Romney administration will be less determined to legislatively repeal the First Amendment. And as much as I want gay marriages to be recognized, freedom of speech affects everyone, gay or straight, far more than a particularly subset of a particular type of legal contract.

I understand this, and obviously agree with the theory. However, you are taking slippery slope possible theories of worst-case First Amendment eradication scenarios of the Democratic platform and conflating them to the level of actual hand-written policy positions absolutely and definitively supporting discrimination of actual, real human beings by the Republican platform. Not to mention, as Andy refers to, re-writing of textboks and such to suit their beliefs. This is stuff that is happening and has happened that you are gleefully supporting, not the stuff you fear might happen if too much campaign finance reform is made law.

Your ideological stance is correct, but it is ideological, not tangible.
   3505. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 22, 2012 at 01:21 PM (#4214801)
Afghanistan has been botched, but speaking as one who had a building fall on me, starting it was neither unnecessary or unjust
For a war to be just, it needs to more than to be a response to an atrocity. It needs objectives that can be reasonably achieved through proportional means. This did not exist in Afghanistan. A combined military/police action aimed at Al Qaeda was justified. A war to topple the Afghanistan government and remake the entire nation was not, due to the unreasonableness of those goals.
   3506. GregD Posted: August 22, 2012 at 01:21 PM (#4214802)
But I do believe that a Romney administration will be less determined to legislatively repeal the First Amendment. And as much as I want gay marriages to be recognized, freedom of speech affects everyone, gay or straight, far more than a particularly subset of a particular type of legal contract.
I genuinely don't know what this means. Literally? Like you think there's a 85% chance Obama proposes an Amendment to repeal the First? And Romney only 70%?

   3507. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 22, 2012 at 01:28 PM (#4214808)
It sounds like what you want is rhetoric rather than results.


No he's trying to rationalize to himself voting for the Repubs this year, but he's an actual libertarian (as opposed to the GOP's clique of authoritarians who spout libertarian noises) I don't think he's capable of the double think required, the cognitive dissonance may kill him, when push comes to shove he may have to vote green or lib...

Or he's looked at how Joe K got wiped on the floor the last couple pages of this thread, and is trying to create a real live intelligent debate, rather than that rolling troll refutation that was going on.

Obama's record on Civil Rights is abominable, sadly to me the likely alternatives all appear worse.

I also see the current GOP brand as being afar worse threat to the 1st amendment, than the current Dem admin, and I see no basis for Dan's belief that a Romney admin would be better than Obama- aside from the very narrow issue of campaign finance.
   3508. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: August 22, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4214814)
But you wait, if one of the Clinton/Obama appointees turns out pro-life, there will be no way in hell that a future Dem President will be able to appoint a judge without a clear pro-choice track record- the base will go nuts

You might be right.
But I also thought the base would go nuts in response to Obama's civil liberties record, and they've been spooky-quiet for the most part - from radio silence to "I trust my President" to "it's probably not as bad as a Republican would have done."
   3509. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 22, 2012 at 01:44 PM (#4214828)
For a war to be just, it needs to more than to be a response to an atrocity. It needs objectives that can be reasonably achieved through proportional means. This did not exist in Afghanistan.

"Achieved through proportional means." Liberals are such rubes.

By that standard, I guess our response in Afghanistan was limited to flying three planes into targets. Good grief.
   3510. Lassus Posted: August 22, 2012 at 01:44 PM (#4214830)
But I also thought the base would go nuts in response to Obama's civil liberties record, and they've been spooky-quiet for the most part - from radio silence to "I trust my President" to "it's probably not as bad as a Republican would have done."

I think the idea that the level isn't as apocalyptic as you or Dan think it is is also a possibility.


Liberals are such rubes.

Drink!

   3511. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 22, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4214833)

There's a Democratic president and attorney general that have stated explicitly that they have the right to kill any American abroad that they want, anyone they accidentally kill automatically becomes a terrorist, and that there is no oversight anywhere outside the presidency, not Congress, not the courts, not anywhere.


The claim is that the U.S. has the right to kill U.S. citizens who are fighting on the side of an enemy with whom we are at war. As far as I know that has been true throughout the history of the country. During the Revolutionary War, U.S. soldiers gunned down Tories who marched for the British, and there are several instances of U.S. citizens fighting on behalf of the Central Powers and Axis during WWI or WWII. In no case was there any 'oversight' of the kind you are discussing.

Now, if your point is that in an unconventional conflict with one or more stateless entities, the 'enemy' is harder to define and identify, I would agree. I agree that there is ample potential for abuse. What criteria would you propose that would determine whether striking an alleged enemy target was legal and proper?
   3512. CrosbyBird Posted: August 22, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4214838)
I also thought the base would go nuts in response to Obama's civil liberties record, and they've been spooky-quiet for the most part - from radio silence to "I trust my President" to "it's probably not as bad as a Republican would have done."

Really? Non-citizens in other countries are way, way out of sight. Most of Obama's civil rights violations don't affect local American citizens, and therefore, don't matter. Also, our economy is struggling. It's hard to care about people on the other side of a huge ocean when you're worrying about how you're going to pay your bills.

This is not my personal opinion on the subject, but I think the best explanation for why the outcry has been so limited.
   3513. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 22, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4214840)

Hey, how's the economy doing today?

Back in 1992, when GDP grew at a rate of 3.5 percent, the liberal media gleefully went along with Clinton's "It's the Economy, Stupid" campaign shtick. The media pounded and pounded and pounded away at Bush, despite the recession being over by Election Day.

Now we're in 2012, we're in Year 5 of a horrible economy, unemployment remains above 8 percent despite Obama's promise that the stimulus would keep it under 8 percent, and the economy grew at an anemic rate of 1.5 percent in Q2 2012. If "It was the Economy, Stupid," in 1992, then it MUST be the "economy, stupid" in 2012, right? But no, the media talks about Romney's tax returns. The media talks about Romney's dog. The media talks about Romney's tax returns again. The media obsesses over some no-name GOP candidate in Missouri whose opinion on abortion has zero chance of becoming law. The media talks about anything and everything BUT the economy.

But, hey, I'm sure that's just "laziness" and "market forces" rather than a liberal bias. LOL.
   3514. Lassus Posted: August 22, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4214844)
I haven't even once called you a troll, Joe, and disagree when people do. But the fact that you are still talking about Romney's dog when no one else is or has in months makes me start to wonder.
   3515. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4214846)

Now we're in 2012, we're in Year 5 of a horrible economy,


An economy that most people blame on Bush, not Obama. In 1992 most people blamed the elder Bush for the economy.

Under Obama, we've had more private job creation than we did in the first four years of George W. Bush. Yet we didn't get any "It's the Economy, Stupid!" in 2004. That's because the recession of 2001 was largely blamed on the tech bubble of the later Clinton years.
   3516. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4214847)
”Proportional” has a specific, technical meaning in just war theory. that joe is uninformed about this is hardly surprising. That he turned his ignorance into a bizarre attack on liberals is likewise to be expected.
   3517. bigglou115 Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4214854)
For a war to be just, it needs to more than to be a response to an atrocity. It needs objectives that can be reasonably achieved through proportional means. This did not exist in Afghanistan. A combined military/police action aimed at Al Qaeda was justified. A war to topple the Afghanistan government and remake the entire nation was not, due to the unreasonableness of those goals.


First off, I don't know that you're correct in assuming that the Afghani government and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan were two entities distinct enough to target separately. Further, if you are correct I don't believe that was the prevailing wisdom when we first entered Afghanistan. I know for a fact that in certain circles Afghanistan was THE case study in state sponsored terrorism before and immediately after 9/11. So by your criteria we couldn't have been justified in going into Afghanistan at all?

I'm legitimately curious, because the other alternatives were to try and get at Al Qaeda without dealing with the government or just breaking the government without trying to re-make it. I don't know that either of those were tenable approaches, but the beliefs behind your statement aren't unreasonable and so a colorable argument can be made that those were the two morally superior actions.

Me, I think the Afghani government was going to defend Al Qaeda no matter what, and at that point they had to be dealt with because not getting at the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was simply not an option.

edited to make me sound less pretentious
   3518. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:06 PM (#4214855)
I haven't even once called you a troll, Joe, and disagree when people do. But the fact that you are still talking about Romney's dog when no one else is or has in months makes me start to wonder.

If by "no one," you meant the president and major news networks, and by "months" you meant "last week," then I guess you were right. Other than those two major errors, you were dead on.

Under Obama, we've had more private job creation than we did in the first four years of George W. Bush. Yet we didn't get any "It's the Economy, Stupid!" in 2004. That's because the recession of 2001 was largely blamed on the tech bubble of the later Clinton years.

We didn't get "It's the Economy, Stupid" in 2004 because the economy grew at ~3 percent that year, fresh off a Q4 2003 in which the economy grew by almost 7 percent. It's a null comparison.

”Proportional” has a specific, technical meaning in just war theory. that joe is uninformed about this is hardly surprising. That he turned his ignorance into a bizarre attack on liberals is likewise to be expected.

LOL to all three sentences. A new MCoA record.
   3519. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:07 PM (#4214858)
The media obsesses over some no-name GOP candidate in Missouri whose opinion on abortion has zero chance of becoming law.


whose opinion on abortion is a plank in the GOP platform

whose opinion on abortion AND rape was shared until very recently (the past week)by the GOP veep candidate

and I don't know where you claim to be looking, but I see articles, columns and blogs about the sorry state of the economy everyhwere...

and it's not our fault that 5 years after a wall street instigated economic meltdown the GOP nominated an effing Wall Street insider.

Front page Yahoo News, 2 headlines refer to the economy, none to Romney's dog or tax returns
New York Times front page I see articles o Syria, Autism, the RISK of RECESSION, the Fed being fearful of inflation... but none of what you say is the ONLY thing being reported
Fox News- Obama's beer recipe, Atheist Billboards, Kim Jung Un going to Iran, there is an Akin reference...

Come up with some better material, you are simply spinning out standard GOP talking points without bothering to see if they even fit the discussions going on.
   3520. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:07 PM (#4214860)
Really? Non-citizens in other countries are way, way out of sight. Most of Obama's civil rights violations don't affect local American citizens, and therefore, don't matter. Also, our economy is struggling. It's hard to care about people on the other side of a huge ocean when you're worrying about how you're going to pay your bills.

This is not my personal opinion on the subject, but I think the best explanation for why the outcry has been so limited.

Maybe... I feel like civil liberties was one of the Dems' biggest reasons for wanting Bush & the Republicans out of the White House. It certainly seems as though Bush's violations "mattered" to Democrats in a way that Obama's just do not.
Next Supreme Court term, the Obama administration is going to be arguing that the police may bring drug-sniffing dogs right up to anybody's house or apartment door, and that's OK because it's not a "search." Obviously they CAN argue that, but it's the sort of thing I think Democrats used to get mad about and now they just don't.

I think the idea that the level isn't as apocalyptic as you or Dan think it is is also a possibility.

Also possible. As a criminal-defense guy I'm probably much more sensitive to civil-liberties erosion than most civilians.
   3521. ASmitty Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4214863)
After an interesting discussion on civil liberties, we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
   3522. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:11 PM (#4214870)
The claim is that the U.S. has the right to kill U.S. citizens who are fighting on the side of an enemy with whom we are at war. As far as I know that has been true throughout the history of the country. During the Revolutionary War, U.S. soldiers gunned down Tories who marched for the British, and there are several instances of U.S. citizens fighting on behalf of the Central Powers and Axis during WWI or WWII. In no case was there any 'oversight' of the kind you are discussing.

I must have missed the imminent threat part. And the part in which the Obama administration has basically eliminated any investigation whatsoever, all but stating "Who we decide to kill is none of your business." And counts anybody killed along with the targets on Obama's Death List as terrorists as well.

The administration probably thinks its being merciful by only detaining and humiliating Bradley Manning for the rest of the eternity rather than putting a bullet in his brain. After all, there's no controlling legal authority if the administration decides if you're a threat. But don't worry, Obama ultra-super-double-pinky swears that he only selects Bad People© to die.



   3523. bobm Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:11 PM (#4214872)
[3514] you are still talking about Romney's dog when no one else is or has in months

Really?

Aug 19, 2012
Obama raises the Romney 'dog issue'
Comments
By David Jackson, USA TODAY
Updated 3d ago

We were wondering who in President Obama's campaign would raise "the dog issue" against Mitt Romney.

Turned out to be Obama himself, last week in Iowa.

Noting that Romney criticized the usefulness of wind energy because "you can't drive a car with a windmill on it," Obama referenced the 1983 incident in which Romney ferried the family dog Seamus in a kennel mounted atop his car.

"I know he's had other things on his car," Obama joked about Romney, a line he repeated two other times in Iowa.

All of which prompted this question from ABC's Jake Tapper to Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter: "Is this one of the big policy debates that the Obama campaign wants to have, whether or not it was appropriate for Governor Romney to put his dog on the top of a car in 1983?"

Cutter called it "a light-hearted remark," and that Obama spent his time in Iowa discussing the need for clean energy programs, and for Congress to pass legislation to counter the Midwestern drought.

"The president is out there every single day talking about where he wants to take this country," Cutter said.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said last week it was simply a joke -- "just like I think the Romney campaign and others have joked about the fact that in the President's memoir he talked about as a boy eating dog meat in Indonesia, because that is something that's done there."

When Obama made the dog comment last week, Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said: "After sanctimoniously complaining about making a 'big election about small things' President Obama continues to embarrass himself and diminish his office with his unpresidential behavior."

Earlier this year, Romney's wife Ann told ABC News that the family pet Seamus "loved" the trip back in 1983.

"He would see that crate and, you know, he would, like, go crazy because he was going with us on vacation," Mrs. Romney said. "It was to me a kinder thing to bring him along than to leave him in the kennel for two weeks."


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/obama-raises-the-romney-dog-issue-/1

Edit: Coke to Joe
   3524. Lassus Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:12 PM (#4214873)
LOL to all three sentences.

I really thought 4chan had moved beyond LOL a long time ago.


Really?

I stand corrected. I don't read enough USA Today.
   3525. ASmitty Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:14 PM (#4214875)
Noting that Romney criticized the usefulness of wind energy because "you can't drive a car with a windmill on it," Obama referenced the 1983 incident in which Romney ferried the family dog Seamus in a kennel mounted atop his car.

"I know he's had other things on his car," Obama joked about Romney, a line he repeated two other times in Iowa.


Oh, come on. He was just asking for that one.
   3526. bigglou115 Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4214878)
whose opinion on abortion AND rape was shared until very recently (the past week)by the GOP veep candidate


This is something I don't understand. People wig out about "flip flopping" and it makes no sense to me. If a candidate holds views that the majority find wrong then the candidate should change them, that's the whole point in the political process. If there's one criticism that I really have of the Obama administration, its a statement he made to the effect of "I don't care what the people want this is what they're getting."

I understand the policy disagreements I have because the policies that I might support weren't supported enough to win an election, but "government by the people and for the people" is kind of a big deal.
   3527. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:19 PM (#4214880)
Literally? Like you think there's a 85% chance Obama proposes an Amendment to repeal the First? And Romney only 70%?

Obama supports laws and the administration, the head of which is Obama, argued in Citizens that the government had the power to ban political speech, the government even going so far as to agree that there would be nothing preventing them from banning political books if a candidate was mentioned once. Citizens was arguably an even bigger victory for free speech than Texas v. Johnson or Tinker or a number of other decisions.

Last I checked, Romney has not publicly supported those laws. Maybe he does, but we *know* that Obama does.
   3528. zonk Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:20 PM (#4214882)
This doesn't get Obama off the hook for his foreign policy, which has been poor, but there's just no comparison to the worst president since the 19th century.


I think I'd quarrel with the "poor" assessment if we're going to talk pure 'foreign policy' -- on that front, I think he's actually excelled. I think the Libyan intervention was wholly appropriate, well-conceived, and well-executed. By the same token, I think he's likewise played Syria about as well as could be done.

I tend to think there are a variety of filters that foreign policy decisions pass through, which inevitably, means there's not one proper template that can globally applied even in situations that seem the same or even similar.

There was a clear-cut humanitarian need in Libya. The scenery of the situation was such that we had the capability, with minimal risk, to stop it. Gaddafi was doomed - a new government was going to arise in the near-term regardless of whether this particular uprising failed. We had universal regional and universal allied support. Of course, we have to accept that we have limited control over what comes after Gaddaffi -- but he had a near 40 year history of being a royal pain (and I'm not just talking about terrorism -- pick an African conflict, and I can show you Gaddafi... Darfur? The janjaweed militias doing most of the slaughtering are essentially Gaddafi's old Islamic Legions).

Syria, on the other hand, doesn't have quite the same universal regional support for intervention. The Russians particularly are much more closely aligned to Syria (though not as close as either the US or Russia would have you believe). The humanitarian issue is not so clear cut - with cities being disputed and no clear column of tanks you can just whack from above. However, Assad is doomed, too - so we're better off being aligned to some extent with those that come next.

I think he's managed to keep Israel from hitting Iran thus far - the bunker-busters aside, I think Netanyahu's government is ready to go, but I think that they know the US won't give its full-throated support at this time.

I have no problem with the bin Laden raid from a foreign policy perspective - I understand it breaks certain norms, but hey - we have realities to face.

The only real areas where I'm a bit less than happy with Obama's foreign policy would be on the Arabian peninsula -- I think we were a bit slow in Yemen, and bit absent in Bahrain.

I wish the administration would be/had been more aggressive in an Afghan draw down, but I'm not sure any President realistically would be able to exit any quicker... and it's not like he wasn't clear that his plan was to fix Afghanistan rather than GTFO.

On the whole, I'd give Obama's foreign policy a strong B, maybe even a weak A.
   3529. Gonfalon B. Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:21 PM (#4214886)
The media talks about Romney's dog.

Great call, because it's so incredibly rare for the media to overcover a politician's dog. I can't think of any other example.
   3530. zonk Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:26 PM (#4214892)
For a war to be just, it needs to more than to be a response to an atrocity. It needs objectives that can be reasonably achieved through proportional means. This did not exist in Afghanistan. A combined military/police action aimed at Al Qaeda was justified. A war to topple the Afghanistan government and remake the entire nation was not, due to the unreasonableness of those goals.


I would disagree that this not necessarily exist in Afghanistan... it was the lack of focus and due diligence, I think, that just makes it appear that way. You can't tell me that Karzai was the only choice. You can't tell me that if NSA and CIA resources weren't diverted to making up wild stories about Iraq, but instead, focusing on who from the National Alliance would be a reasonable partner also trusted enough by Afghans - it couldn't have gone better.

I might, however, give more agreement to the idea that by 2009 - the well had been poisoned and we inevitably weren't going to get a "do over".
   3531. Steve Treder Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4214895)
I think he's managed to keep Israel from hitting Iran thus far - the bunker-busters aside, I think Netanyahu's government is ready to go, but I think that they know the US won't give its full-throated support at this time.

I generally agree with all of #3528, but this point deserves amplification: I strongly suspect that a Romney victory in November is what Netanyahu is waiting for and hoping for. And once Israel were to hit Iran, nobody knows where it would lead, and anyone who says they do know is a fool or a liar.
   3532. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4214896)
They were entirely ineffective under Bush, even in the majority. In the minority under Romney, it'd be even more useless.

I'd argue that they were ineffective because as the performance of Democrats under the current administration, a significant percentage (not necessarily you) saw protesting Bush's civil liberty violations as simply the means to an end, that end being winning the next election.

A Democratic party in which the vast majority truly believe in and advocate for civil liberties as a good in and of themselves would be a really awesome thing and a group that I'd be happy to cooperate with on an electoral basis once again.
   3533. formerly dp Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4214898)
But, hey, I'm sure that's just "laziness" and "market forces" rather than a liberal bias. LOL.


Here's a little experiment you can do Joe-- it'll cost you a couple of dollars, but it'll be worth it. Buy the Times and the Post for the next week. Count the number of articles in each about the economy, and count the ones about abortion and Mitt's dog. All you have to do is count. Because right now, all you're doing is confirming what the research suggests-- that perceptions of media bias are informed not by objective analysis, but by acts of selective perception-- media akin to a Rorschach test for one's own political beliefs. So count, and tell us what you find. Is "the" media really not reporting on the economy, or are you just ignoring that reporting because it doesn't conform to your pre-existing perception that the media is unfair to your side? If you want to get really crazy, you can even track what pages the stories are printed on.
   3534. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:30 PM (#4214900)
I have no idea why you presume I support Obama's terrible Afghanistan policy. I didn't support it in 2008 when he was running, I didn't support it in 2009-2010 when it failed, and I am vaguely supportive of his still insufficient attempts to roll it back after its failure.

You brought up Afghanistan. It's a general critique of the mainstream Democratic party line. If it's not an opinion you share, then I probably agree with you more than I disagree with you (on this subject).
   3535. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:30 PM (#4214901)
I guess I don't see much difference between this and the standard "I will uphold Supreme Court precedent / Case X is the law of the land" line. Alito and Roberts said stuff like this, too, but nobody seems to believe they're actually pro-choice. Well, maybe this guy.

I refer you back to that link from the anti-choice group. Kagan and Sotomayor were in their crosshairs after they voted to uphold Obamacare. The chances that either of them would vote to overturn Roe are virtually nonexistent. The chances that Romney would nominate any such justice would be on the order of mega-accidental.

EDIT: it appears very much as though the Supreme Court has moved to the right under Obama - Kagan right of Souter, and Sotomayor right of Stevens. That might change over time, of course. But it's strange to think that a President Romney could still move the Court more to the left than Obama ever did, just by replacing Scalia with somebody even marginally less right-wing.

The sad but true fact is that any explicitly pro-choice nominee would be filibustered to death in the absence of a supermajority. This is the world we live in. All nominees have to fudge their views on this subject, no matter what their personal opinions, and you can't really blame them for doing so.

And while in itself a Romney replacement of Scalia probably wouldn't move the court that much more to the Right than it already is, you have to think of such an appointment this way: It would be like giving Scalia the body of a 40 to 50 year old man, extending his philosophy many decades into the future. That's what you'd get with Romney.
   3536. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4214903)

I generally agree with all of #3528, but this point deserves amplification: I strongly suspect that a Romney victory in November is what Netanyahu is waiting for and hoping for. And once Israel were to hit Iran, nobody knows where it would lead, and anyone who says they do know is a fool or a liar.


Is this like the secret-planned Bush invasion of Iran that was a done deal to start 30 days after every new Mother Jones magazine came out, from about 2004-2008?
   3537. Steve Treder Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:33 PM (#4214905)
Is this like the secret-planned Bush invasion of Iran that was a done deal to start 30 days after every new Mother Jones magazine came out, from about 2004-2008?

No.
   3538. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:33 PM (#4214907)
On the whole, I'd give Obama's foreign policy a strong B, maybe even a weak A.

Of course you would. You can't even admit Obama blundered with his Gitmo promise.

I distinctly recall a widespread belief that the mere election of Obama would have the world's rogue nations suddenly lining up to make peace with the U.S. Even the Nobel voters bought into the nonsense. But I've seen none of it come to fruition.
   3539. Lassus Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:36 PM (#4214910)
A Democratic party in which the vast majority truly believe in and advocate for civil liberties as a good in and of themselves would be a really awesome thing and a group that I'd be happy to cooperate with on an electoral basis once again.

I'm not being snarky, I really am asking, I don't remember - does this mean that all and any support of campaign finance reform is a civil liberties attack?
   3540. zonk Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4214911)
Is this like the secret-planned Bush invasion of Iran that was a done deal to start 30 days after every new Mother Jones magazine came out, from about 2004-2008?


What's so secret about it?

Folks like Dan Senor have been pretty vocal and upfront about how to deal with Iran... and they're the ones making up his foreign policy team.

I don't know that those folks were all that 'secret' about what they wanted to do in 2004, either -- it's just Iraq was getting worse, not better, everyone knew it, and even the neocons had to accept that starting a 3rd action while the other two were getting worse is just not possible. By 2006, there was just no way they were going to get what they wanted*.

*And I'm not even saying that the neocons are some inherently evil bunch that just love war -- they're ivory tower theorists who keep eternally doubling down on American hegemony, as if it's been lack of will alone that prevents us from rightfully assuming our place as the sole world superpower that rogue nations tremble before and cool kids want to sit with at lunch.
   3541. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4214912)
Here's a little experiment you can do Joe-- it'll cost you a couple of dollars, but it'll be worth it. Buy the Times and the Post for the next week.

FDP, do you really expect Joe to contribute nearly 30 bucks to the secret slush fund to enslave America? That's like asking Kevin to fork over for Derek Jeter's autograph.
   3542. Ron J2 Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4214913)
First off, I don't know that you're correct in assuming that the Afghani government and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan were two entities distinct enough to target separately.


I do. I'll note further that at the time there a fairly high degree of tension between the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

I'll also note that Mullah Omar's initial response to the demand that they hand over OBL (and followers) in the wake of 9/11 was not "No", but something close to, no good Muslim could have done such a thing. Give us the evidence and we'll prosecute him (to be fair, this was followed up with excuses at the "my dog ate my homework" level)

Prior to the US invasion the relationship was basically a bunch of foreigners invited by the previous regime (something most people forget) and tolerated primarily because of the strong Pashtun hospitality traditions. It quickly went to enemy of my enemy etc. and then to a strong working relationship.

Now it would have been extremely complicated at best to have started a police action directed specifically against Al Qaeda. It's moderately likely that the locals (Taliban or no) would have fought any force attacking Al Qaeda (but not guaranteed, it's been proven that money talks there and while you can't buy loyalty you can generally rent it for long enough. Wouldn't be cheap, wouldn't always work) but you can go in with "stand aside or else" orders. It was done in Iraq (where there was a very large anti-Iranian force based there that was told to stand down or else)

The war to overthrown the Tabilan was a discretionary one undertaken on the basis that as long as they were there, they may as well replace a loathsome regime. And it's at least possible that it would have turned out OKish (as good as is possible in Afghanistan I think) had the Iraq war not stripped off so many resources.
   3543. Lassus Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4214915)
edit: fixed
   3544. bobm Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:44 PM (#4214925)
[3524] I stand corrected. I don't read enough USA Today.

Don't worry; it was in the NY Times as well. They just mentioned it in a more meta way.

Obama, Romney and a Campaign of Attack Ads - Political Memo
By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: August 17, 2012

For about, oh, two minutes, there was talk last weekend that the debate dominating the presidential race would take on a more elevated tone now that Mitt Romney had selected an avowed fiscal hawk, Representative Paul D. Ryan, as his running mate.

The thinking was that the two presidential candidates, both with Harvard degrees, would finally use their intellectual prowess to discuss the nation's challenges seriously.

Then Tuesday (and Wednesday and Thursday) happened.

President Obama made a joking allusion to Mr. Romney's putting Seamus, the family dog, on the roof of his car; Mr. Romney accused Mr. Obama of demeaning his office with a campaign of "division and anger and hate," born of Chicago no less. And it was all sliding back down the banister.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/us/politics/obama-romney-and-a-campaign-of-attack-ads-political-memo.html
   3545. Lassus Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:46 PM (#4214928)
I stood corrected, even with snark. Would you care for self-flagellation as well? This is the internet, after all.
   3546. zonk Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:46 PM (#4214929)

I do. I'll note further that at the time there a fairly high degree of tension between the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

I'll also note that Mullah Omar's initial response to the demand that they hand over OBL (and followers) in the wake of 9/11 was not "No", but something close to, no good Muslim could have done such a thing. Give us the evidence and we'll prosecute him (to be fair, this was followed up with excuses at the "my dog ate my homework" level)

Prior to the US invasion the relationship was basically a bunch of foreigners invited by the previous regime (something most people forget) and tolerated primarily because of the strong Pashtun hospitality traditions. It quickly went to enemy of my enemy etc. and then to a strong working relationship.

Now it would have been extremely complicated at best to have started a police action directed specifically against Al Qaeda. It's moderately likely that the locals (Taliban or no) would have fought any force attacking Al Qaeda (but not guaranteed, it's been proven that money talks there and while you can't buy loyalty you can generally rent it for long enough. Wouldn't be cheap, wouldn't always work) but you can go in with "stand aside or else" orders. It was done in Iraq (where there was a very large anti-Iranian force based there that was told to stand down or else)

The war to overthrown the Tabilan was a discretionary one undertaken on the basis that as long as they were there, they may as well replace a loathsome regime. And it's at least possible that it would have turned out OKish (as good as is possible in Afghanistan I think) had the Iraq war not stripped off so many resources.


It ought to be noted, too, that the Taliban weren't entirely a homegrown government either... They were maybe-not-entirely-but-close to a Pakistani government client installed to finally clean up the simmering mess next door left by the Soviet collapse, and technically speaking, even they hadn't wholly consolidated power.

As tough a nut as Afghanistan has always been to crack, for any nation that has tried, it's the perfect lesson concerning the failures of a strictly good vs evil based foreign policy that doesn't appreciate layers of complexity.
   3547. formerly dp Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:48 PM (#4214935)
FDP, do you really expect Joe to contribute nearly 30 bucks to the secret slush fund to enslave America? That's like asking Kevin to fork over for Derek Jeter's autograph.


Fortunately, I think Syracuse still has a beautiful (socialist) public library downtown that provides free access to copies of these publications.
   3548. Lassus Posted: August 22, 2012 at 02:58 PM (#4214949)
Fortunately, I think Syracuse still has a beautiful (socialist) public library downtown that provides free access to copies of these publications.

Nothing in Syracuse really qualifies as beautiful, with the sole exception of the awesomely Art Deco NiMo Building.
   3549. formerly dp Posted: August 22, 2012 at 03:01 PM (#4214957)
President Obama made a joking allusion to Mr. Romney's putting Seamus, the family dog, on the roof of his car; Mr. Romney accused Mr. Obama of demeaning his office with a campaign of "division and anger and hate," born of Chicago no less. And it was all sliding back down the banister.


Wow, 11 whole words! Really dominated the news cycle that day!

As a point of clarification-- that's not "the liberal media" making a big deal about Romney's dog. It's media outlets reporting on something the president said. And that's one way that media outlets strike an objective pose-- they focus on reporting statements by officials, because it's safer to do that than it is to editorialize. The Times article you reference does precisely this: "Obama said" then "Romney said"-- quoting each candidate equally and without evaluating the content of their expressions insulates the reporter and the news organization from charges of bias. Politicians know this and often use it to their advantage. If you look at the structure of reporting on the Akin comments, you'll find very few reports saying that what Akin said was factually incorrect-- instead, they'll quote Akin, and then quote someone who claims that his claim that women can't get pregnant from rape is factually inaccurate. Journalists tend to be very careful about not making those pronouncements themselves (and editors police for this too), out of fear that they'll appear biased.

Journalism schools offer different classes to train students on different types of writing (reporting, opinion writing, and featuring writing, for example), and one of the things they learn is to be very careful on word usage and claim-staking.
   3550. formerly dp Posted: August 22, 2012 at 03:08 PM (#4214971)
Nothing in Syracuse really qualifies as beautiful,


Spoken like a true Utican! Joe Kelly, what have you done with Lassus?

Also, Charlie Celi: not part of The Liberal Media!
   3551. bigglou115 Posted: August 22, 2012 at 03:08 PM (#4214973)
As tough a nut as Afghanistan has always been to crack, for any nation that has tried, it's the perfect lesson concerning the failures of a strictly good vs evil based foreign policy that doesn't appreciate layers of complexity.


I'm certainly not going to disagree with this. The targeting of the Taliban did give Al Qaeda a greater foothold with the populace and probably increased the insurgent activity the military faced by a significant margin. I'm just not convinced that this wasn't an unavoidable consequence. I mean, just going through the time line its no leap to think that there was going to be local resistance to any attempt to root out Al Qaeda, if for no other reason than a refusal to believe the US was justified in its attempts. So whether it happened all at once or as an escalation the Taliban was very likely going to become involved. We'll never know if identifying the regime as a target from the beginning really was the correct choice from a cost-benefit standpoint, because as has been stated resources were foolishly diverted away, but I have a hard time conceiving of an outcome that didn't involve the Taliban siding against us.
   3552. Lassus Posted: August 22, 2012 at 03:23 PM (#4215005)
Spoken like a true Utican! Joe Kelly, what have you done with Lassus?

Nothing in Syracuse really qualifies as beautiful, and it's still about 1000 times nicer than Utica.



   3553. zonk Posted: August 22, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4215011)
I'm certainly not going to disagree with this. The targeting of the Taliban did give Al Qaeda a greater foothold with the populace and probably increased the insurgent activity the military faced by a significant margin. I'm just not convinced that this wasn't an unavoidable consequence. I mean, just going through the time line its no leap to think that there was going to be local resistance to any attempt to root out Al Qaeda, if for no other reason than a refusal to believe the US was justified in its attempts. So whether it happened all at once or as an escalation the Taliban was very likely going to become involved. We'll never know if identifying the regime as a target from the beginning really was the correct choice from a cost-benefit standpoint, because as has been stated resources were foolishly diverted away, but I have a hard time conceiving of an outcome that didn't involve the Taliban siding against us.


The minute we began cooperating with the 'Northern Alliance' - that's probably true (it may also be true that we had no choice).

However, it should be noted that at the moment, the Taliban/AQ aren't seeing eye-to-eye either. Conflict with the Taliban was probably inevitable, but I just don't know that ultimately toppling/eliminating the regime was. If we weren't going to go full tilt nation building - might there have been a point where the NA, thanks to our assistance, could have negotiated a power sharing arrangement or coalition with the Taliban? Probably not, but I would think that once we realized Karzai was essentially one cut above Ahmed Chalabi (if that) - contingency planning should have taken effect... and that might have meant back-door feelers to Omar/etc that it was security and stability we sought, and we realize we didn't have anyone on 'our side' who could supply it.

Of course, the neocon geniuses seemingly failed to grasp that the Sunni/Shiite dynamic might mean problems in Iraq -- so I'm sure intra-Sunni conflict is entirely beyond their realm of comprehension. Add to that - the US would have had a hard-time selling it based on the war 'branding strategy' the US pursued in the early aughts any way.

It's sadly amazing how few Presidents we've had who have been able to embrace the complexity of good foreign policy, and especially, the idea that it's a lot better to USE the differences between enemies (real and nominal) as wedge, rather than lump them all together and instead, let them use US as a bonding agent. I think FDR understood that... I actually think Nixon did, too. I have hopes that Obama does - the administration has on the record acknowledged that the Taliban are certain to have a role in the 'peace process' or whatever you want to call the exit... but time will tell there.
   3554. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 22, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4215013)
does this mean that all and any support of campaign finance reform is a civil liberties attack?


to Republicans and Libertarians, yes.
The libs are actually sincere (if wrongheaded), to the Repubs its all about gaining an advantage
   3555. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 22, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4215014)
Dan:


I must have missed the imminent threat part.


Pardon?


Maybe... I feel like civil liberties was one of the Dems' biggest reasons for wanting Bush & the Republicans out of the White House. It certainly seems as though Bush's violations "mattered" to Democrats in a way that Obama's just do not.


A lot of it has to do with the fact that the Democratic Party is itself divided on the topic. Even if, say, 60% of the party is in favor of rolling back the restrictions on civil liberties, pushing on that topic simply divides the party in the face of a Republican Party that will be 100% opposed no matter what. So you set up a situation where you have internecine fighting within the party that only benefits the opposition.

Now, when your party doesn't control either branch of Congress or the Presidency, it's easy for the 60% to rally behind civil liberties. But when you wield real power, your effort will naturally fragment. For myself, civil liberties is important, but universal health care is more important, and I will devote my time to letter-writing and donation in support of an agenda that commands unified party support and is likely to get passed rather than an issue that divides the party and is not likely to get passed. I'd like to see GITMO closed, but what good is that in the face of a 99-0 vote?

Similarly, other Democrats have objectives such as marriage equality, student loan reform, federal economic stimulus, etc. as some of their high priorities so they organize and rally around that.
   3556. The Good Face Posted: August 22, 2012 at 03:30 PM (#4215015)
The study Joe cited is 30+ years old. Pretending it contributes something new, shocking, or conclusive to a conversation is ignorant. Your unfamiliarity with the counter-arguments does not invalidate them. The study surveyed 238 journalists. It did not include the political attitudes of editors or owners. It did not analyze journalistic practice or norms. You're definitively concluding that there's a systemic liberal media bias based on the self-reported voting record of 238 (!) US journalists in the 1980 election.


So provide some evidence that things have changed since then. I provided evidence that within the past decade, the political donations of journalists tilt Democratic by 9 to 1, which supports Joe's orginal data. You've provided no data.

"J-schools teach the American ideal of objectivity" is hardly a controversial claim. But if you want a quick, summary, you can check out this piece by McChesney. There are media historians who study journalistic socialization and norms. Again, don't confuse your own ignorance with a lack of research and thinking about the question.


This is funny, an article by far left journalists that accuses the mainstream media (with no data whatsoever) of actually being right wing. Why? Because they're to the right of the authors, which of course just confirms my point from earlier in this thread; being to the right of the socialist party doesn't make you right wing. Again, there is no evidence in that article, no data. Just more hand-waving and shadowy conspiracy theory about plutocratic media barons from journalists who happen to agree with you.

With all of the smoke you're finding, you'd think there'd be fire around somewhere. Maybe, just maybe, journalists are not the all-powerful media elites you're dreaming them to be?


Non-responsive. I've never claimed them to be all-powerful. Only that the overwhelming majority of journalists are Democrats/liberals, and as human beings, they cannot wholly control their unconscious biases and preferences.

I didn't address it because it's a stupid analogy. It's a stupid analogy because KKK membership speaks far more definitely and specifically to someone's political attitudes than pulling a lever for a D or an R (as we've seen in the last few posts by Sam and Dan). But, indulging your particular brand of idiocy: if 90% of the media was comprised of current KKK members, I would absolutely think this suggests those journalists would produce racially-biased content.


This is where we get to the intellectual bankruptcy of your thinking. Those KKK members will have gone through the same journalism schools that our media members attended. They will work for the same organizations, under the same editors and for the same publishers. Since you believe those institutions are proof against bias when the biased parties share your beliefs, the only reason to think otherwise in my example is because you don't approve of the particular bias held by the biased parties. Like Sam before you, you're spinning incoherently because it's YOUR SIDE at risk, and your lizard brain demands you protect the tribe.

I'm not making a radical argument here-- this is the same summary of the debate on media bias that you'll find in a Media Studies 101 textbook.


Wow, a Media Studies textbook parroting the "nothing to see here" line. That's super persuasive. Seriously, come back with some data, or at least a NEW spin. Your current schtick is old.
   3557. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 22, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4215016)
might there have been a point where the NA, thanks to our assistance, could have negotiated a power sharing arrangement or coalition with the Taliban?


The NA's primary leader had just been assassinated by the Taliban/Al Qaeda shortly before 9/11
   3558. Steve Treder Posted: August 22, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4215018)
I have a hard time conceiving of an outcome that didn't involve the Taliban siding against us.

Agreed. Nothing is ever as simple as we would like it, especially in Afghanistan.
   3559. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 22, 2012 at 03:43 PM (#4215027)
Nothing in Syracuse really qualifies as beautiful, with the sole exception of the awesomely Art Deco NiMo Building.

Lassus, don't ruin my cherished childhood memories of the Syracuse Nats by telling me that the Onondaga County Waw** Memorial Coliseum is nothing but a dump. Don't tread upon the sacred soul of Danny ("24 seconds") Biasone.

**As the late and great Marty Glickman used to pronounce it. If he'd just said "war" I probably would've forgotten the name long ago.
   3560. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 22, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4215029)
The NA's primary leader had just been assassinated by the Taliban/Al Qaeda shortly before 9/11

He was the final signal for the 9/11 attacks, as the assassins (disguised as tv reporters from Belgium) were desperate to meet with Massoud before September 10th.
   3561. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: August 22, 2012 at 03:53 PM (#4215041)
The chances that either of them [Sotomayor or Kagan] would vote to overturn Roe are virtually nonexistent. The chances that Romney would nominate any such justice would be on the order of mega-accidental.

I agree with both of these points.
My problem is that - based on what we knew at the time of the nominations - the belief that Kagan and Sotomayor were pro-choice was based on faith, not evidence.

You might be right that any openly-pro-choice nominee would be filibustered to death, but I'm hoping that the Dems find the strength to actually make the Rs do it, instead of just cowering and then not getting their votes anyway. The wink-nudge stuff just makes women's rights feel like a fundraising opportunity for both parties, instead of illuminating a real difference between those two parties.
   3562. zonk Posted: August 22, 2012 at 03:53 PM (#4215044)

The NA's primary leader had just been assassinated by the Taliban/Al Qaeda shortly before 9/11


Yeah, but the NA was always a hodge podge of warlords... again - failure of due diligence - devote intelligence resources to figuring out which of them were reliable, which of them were just criminal dons, which were whatever, and maybe you start cobbling together something that can fill an inevitably vacuum rather/better than our coke-addled restauranteur.
   3563. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4215051)
The study Joe cited is 30+ years old.

The original study cited was from 1981, but a bunch of subsequent mini-studies and surveys have been conducted since then, none of which have come close to negating the original '81 finding. They're all in that same link; the most recent one was in 2004.
   3564. zenbitz Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4215054)

I think Szym has a point here. The Democrats are freakin' awful and even Saint Clinton was dirty centrist bastard who accomplished little real good other than "presiding" over the Internet boom economy.

I can see how that gets to you voting Republican to deliver a check* to Bastards, but on the other hand it may be like voting for National Socialists to prevent the Communists from taking over. But on the civil liberties front - it's either going to go one of two ways:

1) Police State

2) Backlash, when either (controlling) party actually manages to overstep the bounds of 55% of the actual voting public.

But in the end - terrorism sucks and terrorism works. Fear works. As long as the "American People" feel threatened by brown bearded dudes across the ocean, or trenchcoat clad zit faced assault rifle bearers, they will let anyone and everyone in power do what they want to help them feel safe.

Has Obama done a good job with the economy? Would we be better off now after 4 years of McCain/Palin? Well, hell, maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's all out of the POTUS' hands (and the Feds' and Congress') anyway.

What I kind of like about Obama is that he's practical, not ideological. I think that Governor Romney of Mass. could be similar... but when push comes to shove, I am more afraid of the Wingnuts than the Moonbats. Tribal, I suppose. Really we should all be afraid of the Center.

* by "check" I mean 'to stop" but the other context is at least as appropriate.
   3565. bigglou115 Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:07 PM (#4215055)
Yeah, but the NA was always a hodge podge of warlords... again - failure of due diligence - devote intelligence resources to figuring out which of them were reliable, which of them were just criminal dons, which were whatever, and maybe you start cobbling together something that can fill an inevitably vacuum rather/better than our coke-addled restauranteur.


Your correct that it was a failure of due diligence, but its easier to see that now. There was such a need in this country to retaliate, and I don't think any politician could have slowed down the military action in Afghanistan after 9/11, that the military swept across Afghanistan before anybody stopped to think about what would happen next. At that point there was a giant cluster**** and due diligence was probably a luxury.

An awful lot of this discussion (including my own posts) assume a level of clear-headedness that I'm not sure was possible at the time. Any time I start thinking about what might have happened or what Bush should have done I remember the media images of Afghan people celebrating 9/11 and I remind myself that there was a hysteria in country to do something, and anybody who called for a measured response was pretty much shouted down.

I'd be willing to wager that after 9/11 you could have polled 100% of Americans and found 10% would have found nuclear weapons an acceptable solution. That kind of hysteria is hard to control.
   3566. Spahn Insane Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4215057)
Obviously they CAN argue that, but it's the sort of thing I think Democrats used to get mad about and now they just don't.

Some Democrats do, but in broad storkes your statement's true. Civil liberties really don't have much of a constituency on either side of the aisle, sadly.
   3567. Steve Treder Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4215060)
But in the end - terrorism sucks and terrorism works. Fear works. As long as the "American People" feel threatened by brown bearded dudes across the ocean, or trenchcoat clad zit faced assault rifle bearers, they will let anyone and everyone in power do what they want to help them feel safe.

There was an article in the San Jose Mercury yesterday about a group of yokels protesting the presence of a Mosque in the town of Morgan Hill, about 20 miles south of San Jose. A woman identified as a leader of the protesters was quoted as saying, "We're afraid that they're sneaking in here in order to contaminate this country."

I kid you not.
   3568. Spahn Insane Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4215062)
Nothing in Syracuse really qualifies as beautiful, with the sole exception of the awesomely Art Deco NiMo Building.

Ah, c'mon--Crouse College (at least, the exterior--the interior's bland)?

But yes--generally speaking, Syracuse is a boring wasteland with appalling weather.
   3569. bigglou115 Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4215066)
Some Democrats do, but in broad storkes your statement's true. Civil liberties really don't have much of a constituency on either side of the aisle, sadly. Why? Because the public generally doesn't care much about them.


It'll swing back. Its pretty unlikely that the country falls further than the height of Jim Crow, and once people realize what they've given up they'll fight to get it back. It may all take longer than I'm alive, but it'll happen.
   3570. Lassus Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4215068)
I'd vote for a fat stork.
   3571. zenbitz Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:15 PM (#4215069)
BTW - Out here in Moonbat country "Everyone Knows" that the media is all controlled by 7 huge multi-national conglomerates (CBS, Time/Warner, Disney, News Corp, Clear Channel, Comcast, Viacom) and so had a "corporate" bias, not a liberal (or conservative) one. And of course all the corporations support both Democrats and Republicans.

Actually - you don't suppose that Big Media or Our Corporate Masters actually engineer the great Red/Blue or Rural/Urban divide to distract us from the real crimes? Nah...

Speaking of which, guess who owns Clear Channel communications... and is effectively Rush Limbaugh's boss??
   3572. Steve Treder Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:15 PM (#4215071)
An awful lot of this discussion (including my own posts) assume a level of clear-headedness that I'm not sure was possible at the time. Any time I start thinking about what might have happened or what Bush should have done I remember the media images of Afghan people celebrating 9/11 and I remind myself that there was a hysteria in country to do something, and anybody who called for a measured response was pretty much shouted down.

True enough. But I also remember being distinctly disappointed that the Bush administration immediately invented the term and concept of "War on Terror," by definition unwinnable and unstoppable. I considered that a blunder they could have avoided (although it's not inconceivable that initiating an unstoppable pretext to do badass stuff was entirely intended, the furthest thing from a blunder in neocon world).

My perspective was, to be sure, the minority view by a landslide.
   3573. bigglou115 Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4215077)
True enough. But I also remember being distinctly disappointed that the Bush administration immediately invented the term and concept of "War on Terror," by definition unwinnable and unstoppable. I considered that a blunder they could have avoided (although it's not inconceivable that initiating an unstoppable pretext to do badass stuff was entirely intended, the furthest thing from a blunder in neocon world).


Its what people wanted. Nobody could point to Afghanistan on the map, most probably didn't even know it was a nation let alone the preferred hiding place for the Al Qaeda elite. Heck, its a stretch to think they even knew what Al Qaeda was. But they wanted a War, and the only thing the general public could point to and say they wanted gone was terrorism. It probably wasn't a bad decision at the time, because I think most people would have been satiated by crippling Al Qaeda and continuing the hunt for OBL regardless of the phraseology. It was the failure to define it later that mattered. I personally don't impute any intentions to the initial naming of the War on Terror, but your probably correct that it was at least a happy happenstance that it gave Bush the leeway he needed to finish the job his pops started with Desert Storm.
   3574. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4215087)
Speaking of which, guess who owns Clear Channel communications... and is effectively Rush Limbaugh's boss??


I know that Bain was involved in the leveraged buyout after years back, don't know if they own it.

How does Clear Channel do business?
Among other things:

1: They hire voice actors to call their talk shows (Rush included), to relay scripted "anecdotes" and ask scripted questions

2: Dixie Chicks- make comments disparaging Bush, see air time drop precipitously from Clear Channel radio stations

3: Ted Nugent- makes comments disparaging Obama, despite not having any recent releases, nothing recently on any chart, is literally invited to tour Clear Channel stations giving interviews about how the liberal MSM is out to get him


But of course Clear Channel has nothing to do with the MSM

   3575. formerly dp Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4215088)
Nothing in Syracuse really qualifies as beautiful, and it's still about 1000 times nicer than Utica.


Word.

Drove through the 'Cuse a couple of weeks ago with a friend who had never been there, and was bummed he didn't get a better look at the NiMo building (view from the highway is more suggestive than impressive).

==
So provide some evidence that things have changed since then. I provided evidence that within the past decade, the political donations of journalists tilt Democratic by 9 to 1, which supports Joe's orginal data. You've provided no data.


Again, things don't have to have changed-- the study cited, and your statistic about donations, suggest bias, but they don't establish it. There are countervailing factors intended specifically to constrain the agency of journalists. You're dismissing them because you think "socialization" is a meaningless term.

Only that the overwhelming majority of journalists are Democrats/liberals, and as human beings, they cannot wholly control their unconscious biases and preferences.


Maybe they can, maybe they can't. Fortunately, there are editorial standards, conservatively biased editors and owners, and a whole other host of factors that check their ability to assert their political beliefs. If there was fire here, it would be in the form of biased content. A lot of people have looked for it, and simply not found it.

Since you believe those institutions are proof against bias when the biased parties share your beliefs, the only reason to think otherwise in my example is because you don't approve of the particular bias held by the biased parties. Like Sam before you, you're spinning incoherently because it's YOUR SIDE at risk, and your lizard brain demands you protect the tribe.


You don't read what I actually write-- I agree that 90% of 238 journalists voting Democrat in the 1980 election suggests there would be a liberal bias in the content those journalists produce. What I disagree with is the assertion, without reference to anything other than inductive reasoning, that this proves media bias. And when you introduce the factors specifically designed to limit the autonomy of journalists employed by media corporations, the case for drawing conclusions from this inference collapses.

Wow, a Media Studies textbook parroting the "nothing to see here" line. That's super persuasive. Seriously, come back with some data, or at least a NEW spin. Your current schtick is old.


It's the consensus in the field, from quantitative and qualitative analysis of both media content and media-content producing organizations. There's a whole field dedicated to studying this stuff in very specific contexts (I linked to a study on editorial endorsements and how those influence voting habits), and they study it in specific contexts because it has been impossible to find a systemic left or right bias in media content. You're focusing on the political leanings of the employees; the Editor and Publisher study McChesney cites focused on the Republican voting patterns of owners and editors. Your assumption that the employees of these news corporations have the power to circumvent the standards set by the owners and editors is a paranoid power fantasy, and it's simply not confirmed by any of the content analysis.

The perception of left-wing media bias is simply taken as an article of faith by the right wing at this point.

===
The original study cited was from 1981, but a bunch of subsequent mini-studies and surveys have been conducted since then, none of which have come close to negating the original '81 finding. They're all in that same link; the most recent one was in 2004.


There's nothing to negate-- journalists voting Democrat doesn't prove anything about the content they produce. But here's David Crouteau's study from 1998, which tracks more than just which lever journalists pulled:
When asked to characterize their political orientation on social and economic issues, most journalists self-identify as centrists (Q#22 and Q#23). Of the minority who do not identify with the center, most have left leanings concerning social issues and right leanings concerning economic ones. This is consistent with a long history of research on profit-sector professionals in general. High levels of education tend to be associated with liberal views on social issues such as racial equality, gay rights, gun control and abortion rights. High levels of income tend to be associated with conservative views on economic issues such as tax policy and federal spending. Most journalists, therefore, would certainly not recognize themselves in the "liberal media" picture painted by conservative critics.


Crouteau breaks down the findings on an issue-by-issue basis, if you're interested.

His conclusion:
This adherence to the middle is consistent with news outlets that tend to repeat conventional wisdom and ignore serious alternative analyses. This too often leaves citizens with policy "debates" grounded in the shared assumptions of those in positions of power.


But none of that really matters, as journalists don't get to dictate content. Claiming they do is just shoving your head up your ass and refusing to acknowledge how the sausage gets made in a newsroom. Editors and owners are far more powerful. On that subject--from Editor & Publisher, November 6th, 2000:
The nation’s newspaper editors and publishers strongly believe the Texas governor will beat Al Gore in Tuesday’s election for president. By a wide margin, they plan to vote for him themselves. And, to complete this Republican trifecta, newspapers endorsed Bush by about 2-to-1 nationally.


Commence obligatory handwaving.
   3576. Ron J2 Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:34 PM (#4215094)
#3565 It was a lot higher than 10% -- and some generally thoughtful people were in favor of nuking Kabul. (Not of course that this would have killed any AQ operatives)

I'm kind of doubtful you saw pictures of Afghanis dancing in the street after 9/11. Kind of tricky getting camera crews there back then. The coverage you saw was more than likely Palestinians.
   3577. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4215098)
When asked to characterize their political orientation on social and economic issues, most journalists self-identify as centrists


I tend not to trust it when polls ask people to "self-identify" themselves, I know more than a few hard core partisans (of both wings) who insist that they are centrist or moderate.

It's like the people who claim to be "independent," but consistently vote the same party every line every time.

   3578. bigglou115 Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:39 PM (#4215103)
I'm kind of doubtful you saw pictures of Afghanis dancing in the street after 9/11. Kind of tricky getting camera crews there back then. The coverage you saw was more than likely Palestinians.


You are correct sir. Now that you mention it that's exactly what I saw. Did most of America know the difference?
   3579. bigglou115 Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4215107)
I tend not to trust it when polls ask people to "self-identify" themselves, I know more than a few hard core partisans (of both wings) who insist that they are centrist or moderate.

It's like the people who claim to be "independent," but consistently vote the same party every line every time.


It probably comes out in the wash. I know more than a few lifelong liberals who I could convincingly argue have more in common with the tea party than Obama.
   3580. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4215108)
#3565 It was a lot higher than 10% -- and some generally thoughtful people were in favor of nuking Kabul. (Not of course that this would have killed any AQ operatives)


On 9/12 I was in a Houlihan's in Smithtown, openly ranting that I wanted Cheney to take over for Dubya, and that I was hoping someone would get nuked.

I was not very thoughtful at the time.
On 9/13 I drove 9 hours to visit my GF intending to propose... alas, once there I chickened out of that :-)
   3581. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4215111)
Unnecessary, awful, unjust wars started by Bush: 2
Unnecessary, awful, unjust wars started by Obama: 0


Bush: 1.5
Obama: 0.5

Bush gets half credit for the 20 seconds of the Afghani mission before the neocons ############# everything with their "let's remake the Middle East in our image!" lunacy.

Obama gets half credit for getting the hell out of Libya quickly, but that only takes away half of the demerit for getting into Libya in the first place.

Dan's points re: drone strikes and kill decisions against anyone are well made and valid, but his belief that the proper response is to give power back to the GOP is fatally flawed. His arguments that Obama has expanded the Bush-Cheney kill-decision policy or expanded their conceptions of Executive Authority is simply wrong. The primary difference is that Obama's admin explicitly states the policy where the previous admin hemmed and hawed (and had less effective drone strike capabilities.)

There's a huge bit of Dan's logic that "the Dems are worse on civil liberties" that hinges on his sincere belief that opposition to Citizens United and "corporate free speech" is an attempt to "overturn the first amendment." This is, in my opinion, similar to a sincere belief that Jesus rode T-Rex horsies around the Garden of Eden, and I don't know that I'm able to provide any counterpoint to the position that wouldn't drive the discussion toward the Cliffs of Cornholio, where I'd prefer not to go.

That being the case, I'll simply suggest this: if your sincere wish for public policy from 2012-16 is that some portion of the authoritarian police/national security state be rolled back to some previous level of less than stupid, your best bet is to re-elect Obama and hope that his more liberal instincts kick in and change his direction in his swan song, won't ever be running for re-election again second term. It's a slim hope to be sure, but it's a lot thicker than the thread that a GOP nominee who was thisclose to naming John Bolton as his shadow SecState is going to magically make things better.
   3582. Steve Treder Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4215112)
Did most of America know the difference?

I'm sure that woman protesting the mosque in Morgan Hill could have provided a thorough, accurate, and nuanced distinction.
   3583. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4215114)
I'm kind of doubtful you saw pictures of Afghanis dancing in the street after 9/11. Kind of tricky getting camera crews there back then. The coverage you saw was more than likely Palestinians.


1: Yes it was of Palestinians

2: What you had from Afghanistan were some ghoulish smuggled images of public executions and such, along with some Soviet/Afghan era war archival stuff
   3584. zenbitz Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:44 PM (#4215116)
The Icelandic Gambit Posted without comment.
   3585. bigglou115 Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:48 PM (#4215122)
What you had from Afghanistan were some ghoulish smuggled images of public executions and such, along with some Soviet/Afghan era war archival stuff


Was it Afghanistan that used the internationally funded soccer stadium for executions, and then stated that if the international community had a problem with it they should fund a place for executions so the soccer stadium would be free for soccer?
   3586. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4215124)
We all know the Icelandic method will never work because soshulizm sukxss.
   3587. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4215127)
Was it Afghanistan that used the internationally funded soccer stadium for executions


The Taliban executed a couple of folks in the soccer stadium, yes.
   3588. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:52 PM (#4215130)
he primary difference is that Obama's admin explicitly states the policy where the previous admin hemmed and hawed (and had less effective drone strike capabilities.)


Well that's really it- isn't it?
I mean with the possible exception of Carter, wouldn't every President we've had for the past 100+ years, used drone strikes to deal with foreign "enemies" if they had the ability?

Clinton- lobbed cruise missiles at Sudan and Afghanistan, plus there was Somalia
Bush 1- Gulf War, plus later Somalia
Reagan- tried to take out Quadaffy with an airstrike, launched a few 16" shells during the ill-fated Lebanon intervention, then there was Grenada
Ford... Ok, I don't know, maybe put him in with Carter
Nixon, do I even have to gte into him?
LBJ, ditto
Kennedy, Bay of Pigs, other stuff
Ike, Iran :-)
Truman, Korea and WWII
FDR: go for the Wolf's Lair!!!
and then you have all our intervention in Latin America, Caribbean, Philippines, North Africa, etc etc., if we'd had drone sin 19th C Sitting Bull would have been targeted.


Obama's admin does this because it can, not because it is fundamentally different
   3589. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4215135)
This is, in my opinion, similar to a sincere belief that Jesus rode T-Rex horsies around the Garden of Eden

I wouldn't be surprised if you did believe crazy stuff like that.

If money isn't speech, nothing beyond speaking quietly in a public park is.
   3590. Steve Treder Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:56 PM (#4215138)
Obama's admin does this because it can, not because it is fundamentally different

Yep.
   3591. formerly dp Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:56 PM (#4215139)
I tend not to trust it when polls ask people to "self-identify" themselves, I know more than a few hard core partisans (of both wings) who insist that they are centrist or moderate.


I think the more interesting parts of the study are the ones where journalists respond to questions about their views on the specific issues raised.

But again, none of this says anything about the content those journalists are allowed to produce-- they don't own the presses, or pick where their stories are going to get placed, or have a say in if the story even gets printed. In short, the Liberal Media Bias crowd seem to think the voting (and political contribution?) habits of journalists are more important than the editorial axiom "if it bleeds, it leads". That seems hopelessly wrongheaded.
   3592. zenbitz Posted: August 22, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4215141)

I just want to state, for the record, that the Libs here have been very convincing (to me) on the validity of campaign finance reform === violation of free speech.

That doesn't mean I think that Democratic supporters of CU have this secret agenda to invalidate the 1st. They are not that competent or forward thinking. Probably they would end up repealing the Bill of Rights "by accident".

   3593. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 22, 2012 at 05:03 PM (#4215151)
I mean with the possible exception of Carter, wouldn't every President we've had for the past 100+ years, used drone strikes to deal with foreign "enemies" if they had the ability?


You err in excepting Carter. The man authorized two black op helicopters to go get the Iranian hostages. The fact that a sandstorm took them apart before they got there doesn't mean Jimmy Carter was averse to decisive military action. He may have been more judicious in using drones, but he would have used drones.

A huge factor - probably the controlling factor, in fact - in the decay of civil rights in the last 20 years has been that the laws that "protect" our "rights" have simply been outpaced by the technological means to curtail them. The primary expansion of civil liberty stomping by the Obama admin has been drone warfare. The only reason this was an expansion point is because drones came of age as Obama took control of the White House.
   3594. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 22, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4215154)
If money isn't speech, nothing beyond speaking quietly in a public park is.


And if a corporation is a person, you're Mila Jojovich.
   3595. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 22, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4215156)
It probably comes out in the wash. I know more than a few lifelong liberals who I could convincingly argue have more in common with the tea party than Obama.

It'd be interesting to know the definition of "liberal" that you're using here. I suppose that there are a few pidgin libertarians who call themselves "Adam Smith liberals" (which only shows they've nver read Adam Smith), but outside of a bit of common antipathy towards corporations (which runs about as deep as a mud puddle in Arizona with the T-P's), it's hard to see what actual liberals and real life Tea Partiers would ever have in common. Cultural common points, sure, but not political.
   3596. CrosbyBird Posted: August 22, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4215158)
Maybe... I feel like civil liberties was one of the Dems' biggest reasons for wanting Bush & the Republicans out of the White House. It certainly seems as though Bush's violations "mattered" to Democrats in a way that Obama's just do not.

It seems much more likely in retrospect that what "mattered" was that the wrong guy was in office committing those violations.

Next Supreme Court term, the Obama administration is going to be arguing that the police may bring drug-sniffing dogs right up to anybody's house or apartment door, and that's OK because it's not a "search." Obviously they CAN argue that, but it's the sort of thing I think Democrats used to get mad about and now they just don't.

While I oppose that sort of thing, is it really a search? I think there's a reasonable argument that it isn't. Then again, I don't think everything up to a search should be permissible either.

The War on Drugs, stupid as it is, is bipartisan and relatively unmotivating to either party's base. Frankly, the overwhelming majority of middle-class and wealthy people that want drugs have practically no problem getting them, and experience very few legal problems if they don't do something particularly stupid. Most of the high-profile cases involve huge amounts of drugs.

Poor people get screwed, but "can't get away with using illegal drugs as easily as wealthier folks" is fairly low on the list of injustices.
   3597. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 22, 2012 at 05:09 PM (#4215162)
I just want to state, for the record, that the Libs here have been very convincing (to me) on the validity of campaign finance reform === violation of free speech.

And what about the ability to hide under a rock when it comes to disclosure? Does "speech" in the form of megabucks contributions to phony "non-profit" front groups have to be anonymous in order to be "free"?

And BTW I'm not exempting some contributors to equally phony liberal front groups, who also often keep anonymous. They're far outnumbered by their right wing counterparts, but the principle is the same.
   3598. bigglou115 Posted: August 22, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4215166)
It'd be interesting to know the definition of "liberal" that you're using here. I suppose that there are a few pidgin libertarians who call themselves "Adam Smith liberals" (which only shows they've nver read Adam Smith), but outside of a bit of common antipathy towards corporations (which runs about as deep as a mud puddle in Arizona with the T-P's), it's hard to see what actual liberals and real life Tea Partiers would ever have in common. Cultural common points, sure, but not political.


For that sentence the definition I was using was someone who fills in a card by looking for "D" and "R" by a candidate's name. Maybe its context, because I'm only 3 years out of college and I know people who still vote democrat because its what some unethical poly sci professor told them smart people are democrats and greedy people were republicans.

As an example I know one surprisingly smart woman who votes democrat exclusively because "anybody who cares about they're fellow man votes Democrat" while simultaneously believing they should bank the inheritance tax.
   3599. Steve Treder Posted: August 22, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4215168)
And what about the ability to hide under a rock when it comes to disclosure?

That's the part of it that's the most vile. The concept of anonymous speech is plainly idiotic (everywhere except internet threads).
   3600. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 22, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4215169)
Next Supreme Court term, the Obama administration is going to be arguing that the police may bring drug-sniffing dogs right up to anybody's house or apartment door, and that's OK because it's not a "search." Obviously they CAN argue that, but it's the sort of thing I think Democrats used to get mad about and now they just don't.


Is the door fronting to a public sidewalk? That might be okay. If the door is 200m set back onto private property, no. But...

The War on Drugs, stupid as it is, is bipartisan and relatively unmotivating to either party's base.


This. Trying to hang the idiocy of the drug crusade on Dems is just bad form. It's an equal opportunity cluster.
Page 36 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogDesign Room: Top 10 Logos in MLB History.
(34 - 9:32am, Apr 18)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(246 - 9:26am, Apr 18)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-18-2014
(2 - 9:24am, Apr 18)
Last: BDC

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(883 - 9:16am, Apr 18)
Last: Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1586 - 9:16am, Apr 18)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October

NewsblogFletcher: Foes have slowed Trout in one category so far - steals
(2 - 9:13am, Apr 18)
Last: sinicalypse

NewsblogOrioles launch D.C. invasion with billboard near Nationals Park
(19 - 9:09am, Apr 18)
Last: Chris Needham

NewsblogNightengale: Pujols nears 500 home runs...and no one seems to care
(79 - 9:07am, Apr 18)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogRobothal: What a relief! A’s could use bullpen differently than other teams
(8 - 8:22am, Apr 18)
Last: Dag Nabbit: secretary of the World Banana Forum

NewsblogGleeman: Mets minor league team is hosting “Seinfeld night”
(140 - 8:21am, Apr 18)
Last: Greg K

Jim's Lab NotesWe're Moved! (And Burst.net can bite me!)
(101 - 8:16am, Apr 18)
Last: zonk

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(139 - 7:58am, Apr 18)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(72 - 7:40am, Apr 18)
Last: Doris from Rego Park

NewsblogChris Resop - The Most Interesting Reliever in the World
(20 - 6:17am, Apr 18)
Last: MuttsIdolCochrane

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(306 - 2:50am, Apr 18)
Last: theboyqueen

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.7708 seconds
52 querie(s) executed