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 40 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 >  Last ›
   3901. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 24, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#4217137)
This is the sort of thing that apparently passes for humor in Romneyland, since the crowd roared its approval.

As opposed to the Hedberg-esque comedians on the left, that make jokes involving slavery, slurpees, and saying that People is as important a news source as the news networks. Oh wait, that was Stephanie Cutup.

Wait, one correction. As funny as Hedberg was, even "If I had a nickel for every time I said that, I'd be making money in a very weird way," couldn't possibly be as funny as anything Debbie Wasserman Schultz says.
   3902. Lassus Posted: August 24, 2012 at 06:45 PM (#4217139)
Good lord, Dan, we haven't had underlining capabilities on this website in years.
   3903. asdf1234 Posted: August 24, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4217140)

when libertarians look at the 19th century, they don't see the real 19th century anymore than any group sees the real past that they are mythologizing - what they see is a society where the rights of the individual were paramount, little to no government regulation or taxes, every man was free to do what he wanted when he wanted where he wanted.


I haven't read all of the past few pages of comments, but who was it who contended that the century defined by slavery, Lincoln, Jim Crow, and Indian removal was a libertarian utopia? My view (and one that I find to be generally shared among minarchists/libertarians) of the nation's roots in classical liberalism is that Jefferson and Madison had some great ideas and successfully incorporated them into the highest law of the land, after which Hamilton, Adams, and other founding fathers promptly ignored them. The First Amendment was ratified in 1791; in 1798 Adams signed the Alien & Sedition Act. Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Bush, Obama--they're all inheritors of a proud and early tradition of ignoring limitations on federal authority. The Constitution and its enumerated (and explicit affirmation of unenumerated) natural rights turned out to be an ambitious but ultimately failed experiment in limited government. To quote Rothbard:

The instruments set up by the Constitution – in particular, the erection of a monopoly Supreme Court with the final power to decide what is Constitutional – embody a fatal flaw in any constitutional attempt to limit the State. In short, when you give the State itself the final power to interpret the very instrument that is supposed to limit the State, you will inevitably find the Constitution being stretched and distorted, until it becomes merely a means of lending an unjustified aura of prestige to the State's despotic actions.
   3904. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 24, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4217142)
The fact in question was <U>Jon Stewart says those who watch Fox News are the "most consistently misinformed media viewers"</U>

PolitiFact's verdict: False


read the article, read how PolitiFact parses the polls it reviews, befroe coming to this conclusion:

The way Stewart phrased the comment, it’s not enough to show a sliver of evidence that Fox News’ audience is ill-informed. The evidence needs to support the view that the data shows they are "consistently" misinformed -- a term he used not once but three times. It’s simply not true that "every poll" shows that result. So we rate his claim False.


Basically Fox News viewers do badly, not literally worst on every poll (sometimes they climb up to average) and sometimes individual shows do well on a random poll, this is a case where Stewart's quip was not literally true, but did have a kernal of truth to it.
   3905. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: August 24, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4217149)
As opposed to the Hedberg-esque comedians on the left, that make jokes involving slavery, slurpees, and saying that People is as important a news source as the news networks. Oh wait, that was Stephanie Cutup.

Wait, one correction. As funny as Hedberg was, even "If I had a nickel for every time I said that, I'd be making money in a very weird way," couldn't possibly be as funny as anything Debbie Wasserman Schultz says.
what do you think of this joke?

   3906. Greg K Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:25 PM (#4217202)
Obviously we've simply accepted the idea of nearly unlimited and unrestricted gun ownership (and periodic mass murders) as the price to be paid for whatever the hell we think we're buying with it, but it's hardly an accident that among first world countries we have a murder rate that puts us to shame.

My bad, I just meant to throw a history hi-jack monkey-wrench into things. From what I understand you and I are probably in the same ball park when it comes to our views on guns.
   3907. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:33 PM (#4217214)
Basically Fox News viewers do badly, not literally worst on every poll (sometimes they climb up to average) and sometimes individual shows do well on a random poll, this is a case where Stewart's quip was not literally true, but did have a kernal of truth to it.

The forgotten block from PolitiFact just inc ase people didn't go there.


So we have three Pew studies that superficially rank Fox viewers low on the well-informed list, but in several of the surveys, Fox isn’t the lowest, and other general-interest media outlets -- such as network news shows, network morning shows and even the other cable news networks -- often score similarly low. Meanwhile, particular Fox shows -- such as The O’Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity’s show -- actually score consistently well, occasionally even outpacing Stewart’s own audience.


So, if you want to say "Fox viewers are less informed than average, except for O'Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity viewers, who are consistently well-informed," then I won't quibble with that.
   3908. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:38 PM (#4217225)
This is the stupidest political sub-thread we've had to date. We're parsing Politifact's parsing of Jon Stewart's parsing of Fox News' veiwers parsing of reality.

Are we incapable of thinking original thoughts any more?
   3909. Fresh Prince of Belisle Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:39 PM (#4217227)

Wait, one correction. As funny as Hedberg was, even "If I had a nickel for every time I said that, I'd be making money in a very weird way," couldn't possibly be as funny as anything Debbie Wasserman Schultz says.


That's not entirely fair. The Obama campaign has clearly marginalized her whenever possible after some pretty wretched performances. She's like a Bobby Jindal State of the Union response every time she speaks. The problem they have is that she is the head of the DNC, so it's hard to completely scrub her from the campaign, so they'll let her get embarrassed by the C-teamers that nobody watches. That's not Obama's fault.
   3910. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:41 PM (#4217234)
Are we incapable of thinking original thoughts any more?

If we can settle a dispute of truth by using an organization that won the Pulitzer Prize on the basis of fact-checking, why wouldn't we?
   3911. Steve Treder Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:44 PM (#4217241)
That's not Obama's fault.

Silly. Everything is Obama's fault. Especially things beyond his control.
   3912. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:44 PM (#4217242)
If we can settle a dispute of truth by using an organization that won the Pulitzer Prize on the basis of fact-checking, why wouldn't we?


If you could, perhaps it would be vaguely practical if fundamentally irrelevant. But you can't, which you know already, because that's why you caveated the entire idea of "settling a dispute" with that string of contingency's about "an organization that wont the PP on the basis of fact-checking."

I stand by my assertion. This is a rabbit hole down a rabbit hole inside a mire of quicksand imbedded in a raped woman's vagina while Paul Ryan demands that the method of conception doesn't matter. It's pointless.
   3913. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:48 PM (#4217252)
So, if you want to say "Fox viewers are less informed than average, except for O'Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity viewers, who are consistently well-informed," then I won't quibble with that.


But to ask for that clarification is itself a quibble, Dan. No one watches Fox for Shep Smith.
   3914. SteveF Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4217265)
read the article, read how PolitiFact parses the polls it reviews, before coming to this conclusion:


It's hard to imagine that any news organization, however biased, would misinform their viewers about who the President of the United States is, who the Vice President of the United States is, what party controls the House of Representatives, and other basic facts that formed the basis of the polling data.

Obviously we've simply accepted the idea of nearly unlimited and unrestricted gun ownership (and periodic mass murders) as the price to be paid for whatever the hell we think we're buying with it, but it's hardly an accident that among first world countries we have a murder rate that puts us to shame.


The same judicial process that reads the 5th and 14th amendments broadly reads the 2nd the same way. The job of the Supreme Court isn't to craft public policy. That's the job of the legislators. I wish the courts left more things up to legislators (for a whole host of reasons), but they often don't.

You want to get rid of guns? Repeal the 2nd amendment or start filling the bench with Supreme Court justices that read constitutional protections more narrowly and be prepared to vote out the legislators that vote in favor of laws that restrict your freedoms in ways that should not be tolerated.
   3915. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4217267)
But to ask for that clarification is itself a quibble, Dan. No one watches Fox for Shep Smith.

If everyone's watching Fox for O'Reilly and Hannity (I don't watch any TV news), then by the results of O'Reilly and Hannity viewers being, and I quote, "consistently well-informed," then by definition, the main audience of Fox would be consistently well-informed.
   3916. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: August 24, 2012 at 07:56 PM (#4217274)
Wherein "more of the same" equals strong data and argument against things that TGF desperately needs to be true, which he will ignore.

See also.
   3917. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: August 24, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4217316)
If everyone's watching Fox for O'Reilly and Hannity (I don't watch any TV news), then by the results of O'Reilly and Hannity viewers being, and I quote, "consistently well-informed," then by definition, the main audience of Fox would be consistently well-informed.


According to PolitiFact:
Definition of "consistently misinformed":
The evidence needs to support the view that the data shows they are "consistently" misinformed -- a term he used not once but three times. It’s simply not true that "every poll" shows that result.
i.e. literally last all the time.

Definition of "consistently well-informed":
Meanwhile, particular Fox shows -- such as The O’Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity’s show -- actually score consistently well, occasionally even outpacing Stewart’s own audience.
i.e. sometimes do well.

Joe Morgan should give them a lesson on consistency.
   3918. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:13 PM (#4217375)
If everyone's watching Fox for O'Reilly and Hannity (I don't watch any TV news), then by the results of O'Reilly and Hannity viewers being, and I quote, "consistently well-informed," then by definition, the main audience of Fox would be consistently well-informed.


I haven't been following the details of this debacle closely. Can you please summarize the phrase "consistently well informed?"

(Nevermind. FP went there @3917)
   3919. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:29 PM (#4217388)
Obviously we've simply accepted the idea of nearly unlimited and unrestricted gun ownership (and periodic mass murders) as the price to be paid for whatever the hell we think we're buying with it, but it's hardly an accident that among first world countries we have a murder rate that puts us to shame.

The same judicial process that reads the 5th and 14th amendments broadly reads the 2nd the same way. The job of the Supreme Court isn't to craft public policy. That's the job of the legislators. I wish the courts left more things up to legislators (for a whole host of reasons), but they often don't.

You want to get rid of guns? Repeal the 2nd amendment or start filling the bench with Supreme Court justices that read constitutional protections more narrowly and be prepared to vote out the legislators that vote in favor of laws that restrict your freedoms in ways that should not be tolerated.


You kind of lost me with that last part, but in any case nothing you wrote negates what was a simple observation.
   3920. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:37 PM (#4217396)
You kind of lost me with that last part


IFF we repeal basic Bill of Rights type protections...

And IFF we appoint SCOTUS justices who read protections narrowly...

THEN we have set up a system of governance where the ONLY protection against tyranny is the willingness and ability of the electorate to vote tyrannical elements out of office at the drop of a dime.
   3921. SteveF Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:43 PM (#4217402)
Obviously we've simply accepted the idea of nearly unlimited and unrestricted gun ownership


If the second amendment were repealed tomorrow, would there be any change in gun control legislation? Or have we simply accepted the idea of nearly unlimited and unrestricted gun ownership? My point is it may not be the case that we've simply accepted things, but things are the way they are partly because of how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. If that's the case, then there are at least two potential solutions (the ones I mentioned) available.

Neither of which I am advocating, by the way.

My political position on the matter is that the second amendment needs to be repealed, but as a practical matter I'm not sure it would do any good given the number of guns out there. Note that when I say the second amendment should be repealed, I'm not saying that guns should be illegal. Gun control should be a matter left to the states, though you'd need federal rules regarding how guns for sale could be transported through various states with different gun control laws.
   3922. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:52 PM (#4217411)
Romney was being Romney again today.

When he was campaigning in Michigan before his usual collection of cranky old codgers, he said that

“No one has ever asked to see MY birth certificate."

This is the sort of thing that apparently passes for humor in Romneyland, since the crowd roared its approval.


As opposed to the Hedberg-esque comedians on the left, that make jokes involving slavery, slurpees, and saying that People is as important a news source as the news networks. Oh wait, that was Stephanie Cutup.


I'm not even going to bother to google these people, but I do know that none of them are, unlike Romney, actually running for president.

But just to even the score, here's the worst case of bad taste in political humor I've ever heard, and it wasn't from a rightie. When the black nationalist Stokely Carmichael first started capitalizing on his "Black Power" fame by touring college campuses (this was in the Fall of 1967), he was at Duke and giving with his usual mixture of acid humor and inflammatory BS.

During the Q&A period a shy blond girl (it might have been Judy Woodruff, who was a senior at Duke that year) plaintively asked him, "Stokely, don't you see any hopeful developments in the white community?" She sat down, waiting for some sort of substantive answer.

What she got was the trademark Stokely grin, with a four word reply:

"Yeah. Lurleen's got cancer."

"Lurleen" was George Wallace's wife, who died of cancer six months later.
   3923. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 24, 2012 at 09:59 PM (#4217420)
My political position on the matter is that the second amendment needs to be repealed, but as a practical matter I'm not sure it would do any good given the number of guns out there. Note that when I say the second amendment should be repealed, I'm not saying that guns should be illegal. Gun control should be a matter left to the states, though you'd need federal rules regarding how guns for sale could be transported through various states with different gun control laws.


The broad interpretation of 2nd Amendment rights is the most sacrosanct law in the land. If you successfully repealed it you would literally have armed rebellion within hours of the decision.
   3924. SteveF Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:10 PM (#4217432)
If you successfully repealed it you would literally have armed rebellion within hours of the decision.


Well, hopefully they'd wait for the federal government to actually pass a law that restricted gun ownership, but I understand your sentiment. The second amendment isn't likely to be repealed anytime soon (if ever).
   3925. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:11 PM (#4217433)
"Yeah. Lurleen's got cancer."


If you've got a sacred calf I've got a cleaver. What's the problem here?
   3926. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:22 PM (#4217440)
Well, hopefully they'd wait for the federal government to actually pass a law that restricted gun ownership, but I understand your sentiment.


They would not. Even the agitation to repeal would drive them to rebellion. There is nothing more sacred to "Real Americans" than the 2nd. You could serve abortion slushies as protein supplements at public schools and you wouldn't get a third of the outrage you would over any attempt to curtail, much less repeal, the 2nd.
   3927. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:22 PM (#4217441)
You kind of lost me with that last part

IFF we repeal basic Bill of Rights type protections...

And IFF we appoint SCOTUS justices who read protections narrowly...

THEN we have set up a system of governance where the ONLY protection against tyranny is the willingness and ability of the electorate to vote tyrannical elements out of office at the drop of a dime.


Sam, you know and I know that the recent Supreme Court decisions on the 2nd amendment have come about almost entirely because of the changing composition of the Court, which is only as permanent as the next election. Nobody was "tyrannized" by the sort of gun control laws that were upheld time and again until the past few years.

------------------------------------------------

If the second amendment were repealed tomorrow, would there be any change in gun control legislation? Or have we simply accepted the idea of nearly unlimited and unrestricted gun ownership? My point is it may not be the case that we've simply accepted things, but things are the way they are partly because of how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.

And in this case the Supreme Court has followed the election returns. Nothing more and nothing less. Repealing the second amendment has nothing to do with anything, since we've had that amendment on the books since 1791.

If that's the case, then there are at least two potential solutions (the ones I mentioned) available.

Neither of which I am advocating, by the way.

My political position on the matter is that the second amendment needs to be repealed, but as a practical matter I'm not sure it would do any good given the number of guns out there. Note that when I say the second amendment should be repealed, I'm not saying that guns should be illegal. Gun control should be a matter left to the states, though you'd need federal rules regarding how guns for sale could be transported through various states with different gun control laws.


I have no interest in repealing the second amendment, but obviously there are many ways of interpreting it more restrictively than our current SC does. You can't stuff the genie back into the bottle, but it would help we had national standards for gun ownership and registration, rather than the sort of state-by-state (and sometimes city-by-city) laws that we have now, which results in (say) the easy access to guns in Virginia spilling over repeatedly into the District of Columbia. There's no quick and easy solution, and it all comes down to the voting power of organized common sense vs. the power of the gun lobby. So far in recent decades that's been a pretty lopsided battle.
   3928. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:24 PM (#4217445)
There is nothing more sacred to "Real Americans" than the 2nd. You could serve abortion slushies as protein supplements at public schools and you wouldn't get a third of the outrage you would over any attempt to curtail, much less repeal, the 2nd.

Hard to argue with that particular empirically based observation.
   3929. GregD Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:26 PM (#4217447)
I'm interested that no cynical leftie hasn't introduced a Strip Muslims of Their Guns Act, something obviously unconstitutional but under the premise of keeping guns out of terrorists' hands and daring the NRA and right-wingers to oppose it. As with our other constitutional rights, people defend the right in general but carve out a big terrorist exception, and I wonder if the same wouldn't be true for the 2nd Amendment if push came to shove. Gun shop owners and the NRA they control would oppose obviously.

What's interesting is that general support for gun ownership has always been high, but until 20 years ago, there was simultaneously high support for regulation of that ownership. That broad middle ground--a general right but one that can be reasonably regulated--has fallen out of the debate entirely.
   3930. SteveF Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:27 PM (#4217448)
I have no interest in repealing the second amendment, but obviously there are many ways of interpreting it more restrictively than our current SC does.


Upon what basis would you decide which amendments should be interpreted strictly and which amendments should not be interpreted strictly?
   3931. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4217461)
Nobody was "tyrannized" by the sort of gun control laws that were upheld time and again until the past few years.

Not really the case in places like Chicago & Washington, DC where the locals basically banned private possession of hand guns. Even after they lost in Court, these "massive resistance" types ginned up ideas about banning or taxing ammunition sales or using zoning laws to ban gun shops. Where folks could pass these laws without losing elections, the did, at least in some cases.
   3932. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:49 PM (#4217475)
I'm interested that no cynical leftie hasn't introduced a Strip Muslims of Their Guns Act, something obviously unconstitutional but under the premise of keeping guns out of terrorists' hands and daring the NRA and right-wingers to oppose it.

Well, I do know that I never noticed that the NRA ever showed much interest in defending the Black Panthers or the heavily armed (for self-defense) Black Muslims, so that might give you a hint as to their reaction to your modest proposal.

-------------------------------------------------

I have no interest in repealing the second amendment, but obviously there are many ways of interpreting it more restrictively than our current SC does.

Upon what basis would you decide which amendments should be interpreted strictly and which amendments should not be interpreted strictly?


To answer that I'd have to know your definitions of "strictly" and "loosely", and why it necessarily follows that a literal (and subjective) interpretation of one amendment implies a command to follow the same literal (and equally subjective) path in another. Either of those terms could encompass a huge variety of interpretations within themselves, not to mention that they get interpreted differently by each succeeding generation.

IOW while I respect the sentiment behind the question, I don't think it really gets us anywhere. I feel perfectly comfortable in allowing tight gun control laws within the context of allowing broad gun ownership, and I feel equally comfortable in not following the post-Buckley Supreme Court in its increasing conflation of commercial speech with political and other non-commercial speech**. That view seems sacreligous to libertarians, but the country as a whole was able to live quite easily with these balancing acts up until recent decades.

**On which I'd put no limits beyond the fire-in-a-crowded theater and other clearly inflammatory contexts, such as a demagogue telling a crowd to kill police officers.
   3933. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 24, 2012 at 10:49 PM (#4217477)
Where folks could pass these laws without losing elections, the did, at least in some cases


Federalism.
   3934. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 24, 2012 at 11:01 PM (#4217489)
Nobody was "tyrannized" by the sort of gun control laws that were upheld time and again until the past few years.

Not really the case in places like Chicago & Washington, DC where the locals basically banned private possession of hand guns.


As a resident of DC from 1951 through 1991, I'm well aware of the laws that operated in that city. My views on them are (and were) (1) I would have allowed private ownership of hand guns, but placed strict conditions on that ownership, including an extensive background check and at least a two or three week waiting period; (2) That said, to call those laws "tyranny" is a wildly exaggerated form of overkill; and (3) When you've got virtually unlimited gun ownership in neighboring states to the South, no local gun control law is going to do that much good to begin with. Gun violence is clearly a function of (changing) demographics, culture, resources put into enforcement, and the easy availability of firearms, either legal or illegal. And without federal standards, state and local laws may not be "tyrannical", but they're basically pointless. They're like trying to hold back the tides with a funeral parlor fan.
   3935. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: August 25, 2012 at 12:57 AM (#4217607)
legislators that vote in favor of laws that restrict your freedoms in ways that should not be tolerated.

As opposed to the other kind, that we have now.
   3936. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 25, 2012 at 01:50 AM (#4217633)
but it would help we had national standards for gun ownership and registration, rather than the sort of state-by-state (and sometimes city-by-city) laws that we have now, which results in (say) the easy access to guns in Virginia spilling over repeatedly into the District of Columbia.

Still peddling this nonsense, huh?

If the "easy access to guns" in Virginia is responsible for the decades of gun-related carnage in D.C., then why hasn't Virginia suffered the same levels of gun-related carnage?


(What's the over/under on a liberal mentioning Virginia Tech? Two minutes?)
   3937. Lassus Posted: August 25, 2012 at 06:58 AM (#4217675)
3936. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 25, 2012 at 01:50 AM (#4217633)

(What's the over/under on a liberal mentioning Virginia Tech? Two minutes?)

Bourbon for breakfast!
   3938. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 25, 2012 at 08:10 AM (#4217679)
but it would help we had national standards for gun ownership and registration, rather than the sort of state-by-state (and sometimes city-by-city) laws that we have now, which results in (say) the easy access to guns in Virginia spilling over repeatedly into the District of Columbia.


Still peddling this nonsense, huh?

Still leaving out the other parts of what I've written (many times), huh?

Gun violence is clearly a function of (changing) demographics, culture, resources put into enforcement, and the easy availability of firearms, either legal or illegal.


If the "easy access to guns" in Virginia is responsible for the decades of gun-related carnage in D.C., then why hasn't Virginia suffered the same levels of gun-related carnage?

Because D.C. is a city, and Virginia is a state. D.C.'s murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate in 2010 (21.9 per 100,000 residents) was virtually identical to Richmond's (19.9), and well under that of cities such as St. Louis (40.5) and New Orleans (49.1), neither of which are in states that are known for hostility to gun ownership.

For the 100th time, gun violence is a cause of many factors, easy availability of guns (and ammunition) among them. The fact remains that a madman can't kill many people in a matter of a few minutes with a knife, but he can with the sort of firearms that are easily available in, or easily transportable to, cities and towns (and campuses) all over the United States. What we get in return for this periodic slaughter is questionable, although it's true I haven't seen many redcoats lately.

Not that I ever expect a registered NRA orifice like yourself ever to address any of these issues with anything beyond a "GUNS GOOD, GUNS PROTECT ME FROM KING GEORGE" mantra, but then as an agnostic I've never much believed in miracles to begin with.


   3939. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 25, 2012 at 09:16 AM (#4217696)
(Trying to get away from boring discussions of media bias and gun control)

So does anyone expect anything out of the conventions? I will read coverage of the two, but I doubt I will watch a minute of either.

I would think both conventions will run fairly smoothly (weather permitting), but it seems clear the GOP convention is at a bit more risk. They are playing from behind right now which means taking more risks, plus (oddly) the GOP is a bit more fractured this year which can always lead to bad things happening.

I doubt much news will come out of either. It sounds like the GOP has the right idea in what they are trying to accomplish (make Mitt likable), but I am not sure how easy that is.

I plan on ignoring the polls (as much as I can) until after both conventions are done, though if Romney does not have a lead after the GOP convention then they really are in big trouble.
   3940. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: August 25, 2012 at 03:12 PM (#4218052)
"During a speech a few months ago, Governor Romney even explained his energy policy," Obama said. "This is what he said; he said, 'You can't drive a car with a windmill on it.' That's what he said about wind power -- you can't drive a car with a windmill on it. I mean, maybe he's tried it; he's put other things on the roof."
   3941. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 25, 2012 at 10:07 PM (#4218316)
Ahem ...

The executive editor of the New York Times is disputing an accusation of liberal bias made by her very own public editor, Arthur Brisbane.

In his final column for the Times, Brisbane wrote that his fellow staffers "share a kind of political and cultural progressivism" that "virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times." Brisbane even argued that Times reporters covered some liberal causes, like gay marriage and the Occupy movement, "more like causes than news subjects."

NYT's Abramson rebuts Brisbane charge
   3942. Lassus Posted: August 25, 2012 at 11:09 PM (#4218343)
Departing employee trash-talks employer? THAT's your aha! moment?
   3943. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 25, 2012 at 11:27 PM (#4218345)
Here's the full text of what Brisbane said about the Times's "bias", two short paragraphs out of the entire column:

When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.

As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.


All of two subjects, and no specifics as to what the alleged bias entailed in covering them, or any thoughts or suggestions on how these two topics should have been covered more "objectively". Just a parting shot with nothing to back it up. Sounds pretty much like what we've seen here.
   3944. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 25, 2012 at 11:53 PM (#4218365)
From the same column referenced in #3941:

... I had taken up the public editor duties believing “there is no conspiracy” and that The Times’s output was too vast and complex to be dictated by any Wizard of Oz-like individual or cabal. I still believe that, but also see that the hive on Eighth Avenue is powerfully shaped by a culture of like minds — a phenomenon, I believe, that is more easily recognized from without than from within.

The bolded part is the exact opposite of what 'formerlydp' has been claiming.
   3945. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 26, 2012 at 12:30 AM (#4218379)
Without looking back on everything dp has written, I'm pretty sure that his point is that there's little evidence that the political preferences of reporters are reflected in their news columns. Even Brisbane acknowledges the lack of slant in coverage of presidential campaigns, though that Pew survey showed a large pro-Obama tilt in '08, an equally large pro-Bush slant in '00, and insignificant leans towards Kerry and Romney in '04 and this year.

Concerning the two specific cases Brisbane was making: The Occupy movement got a lot of attention while it was still holding forth in many cities at a time, but much less attention once it began to fall off, and it's little more than a footnote today. And I think it's fair to say that his complaint about the gay marriage issue doesn't take (as Abramson notes) the demographics of the Times's readership into consideration, as well as the fact that it's been one of the leading ongoing news stories on the poltical / cultural front over the past few years. Hard to see just how he would've expected the topic to be covered, when the unavoidable point is the issue of equality under the law.
   3946. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 26, 2012 at 01:46 AM (#4218404)
And I think it's fair to say that his complaint about the gay marriage issue doesn't take (as Abramson notes) the demographics of the Times's readership into consideration,

When Fox News takes its "demographics ... into consideration," lefties scream "bias!"
   3947. PreservedFish Posted: August 26, 2012 at 03:27 AM (#4218421)
I don't think there's anything surprising about Brisbane's words. I wrote this four days ago in this thread:

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.


Was Brisbane reading my comments? This is obvious to anyone that reads the paper.

It is also smart to read a lot into Brisbane's phrase "across many departments." The easiest way to identify the biases of the Times is to look at the ridiculous Styles section. It's written by and for coastal urban elite types. But the hard news sections are produced by serious people that do their very best to play it straight.

By the way, today's biggest political article? An extremely long biographical fluff piece on Romney.
   3948. tshipman Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:38 AM (#4218424)
The number one truism about political discussion is that it's a waste of time to discuss "media bias." Richard Nixon won in 1972 by staggering margins, and he was probably the most biased against politician in the modern era.

I have no idea if Kehoskie and Szymborski are interested in a substantive discussion sometimes. I mean, I know that The Goo Face isn't.
   3949. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 26, 2012 at 08:14 AM (#4218430)
And I think it's fair to say that his complaint about the gay marriage issue doesn't take (as Abramson notes) the demographics of the Times's readership into consideration,

When Fox News takes its "demographics ... into consideration," lefties scream "bias!"


And when you ignore the point that Brisbane also acknowledged the lack of "bias" in political campaign coverage, more than a few people might say, "That's just Joe being Joe".

---------------------------------

I have no idea if Kehoskie and Szymborski are interested in a substantive discussion sometimes.

It might start with an acknowledgement that there's a difference between playing up gay weddings or the Hampton summer vacationers in the Style section, which reflects the sort of demographics that Abramson was referring to, and slanting their political coverage in their news pages, which Brisbane acknowledges that they don't.

---------------------------------

It is also smart to read a lot into Brisbane's phrase "across many departments." The easiest way to identify the biases of the Times is to look at the ridiculous Styles section. It's written by and for coastal urban elite types. But the hard news sections are produced by serious people that do their very best to play it straight.

That's the most concise and substantive comment yet. To that I'd add the "bias" that the Times Magazine has towards those with unlimited disposable income, which reflects a combination of that magazine's advertiser base and the demographics of a significant minority of its readership. And yet even there you'll often get long and thoughtful articles that go way beyond those narrow concerns.

And from my narrow POV, the worst "bias" in the entire paper is the bias in the Sports section toward minor sports, at the expense of (at least in the national edition) coverage of baseball. The irony is that when they do write about baseball, the reporting is excellent, but every week from Tuesday through Saturday I can look in vain for a writeup of the Yankee or Mets game. Instead of the story that runs in their web edition, you get one or two sentences from the AP in a tiny box labeled "Roundup".

The bottom line is that all newspapers and other media have their "biases". If they didn't, it'd be a pretty boring world. But if there's a newspaper or network out there that gives an "unbiased" reader a more thorough examination of not only political campaigns, but of the other issues facing the world, from all sides of these issues, than the New York Times, I'd like for someone to tell me what it is.

Of course if you think that creationists should get equal coverage with evolutionists, or that gay couples should be treated as Biblical outcasts, then perhaps you really need to reconsider your premises, or just stick to some other source of information.

By the way, today's biggest political article? An extremely long biographical fluff piece on Romney.

Clearly a transparent bit of deception by the Uptown edition of the Occupy newsletter.
   3950. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 26, 2012 at 08:47 AM (#4218434)
The number one truism about political discussion is that it's a waste of time to discuss "media bias."


QFT.

Though if you are going to continue I would like a definition of media (for purposes of what is unfairly biased), just so we are talking about the same thing. I was told earlier advertising doesn't count (which surprised me). How about talk radio? The internet? Are we just talking news, and if so please define just a bit.
   3951. Lassus Posted: August 26, 2012 at 09:45 AM (#4218444)
185. Moneyball can't buy you love (Joey B.) Posted: August 26, 2012 at 09:36 AM (#4218440)

Basically, the core of this site is Boston Red Sox

ROTFL. At best, the Red Sox come in fourth place after extreme left wing politics, the National Basketball Association, and soccer.


I'm pasting this from the blockbuster trade thread so as not to enable Joey's trolling hijack that he only says the liberals do. But really, extreme left-wing? That is seriously ignorant.
   3952. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 26, 2012 at 10:36 AM (#4218458)
@3951. To be fair I suspect a plurality of posters here are in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, but of course that does not at all mean they are extreme. But remember Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Socialist.
   3953. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: August 26, 2012 at 10:47 AM (#4218465)
Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan says that he personally believes that rape is just another ‘method of conception’ and not an excuse to allow abortions.

During an interview with WJHL this week, Ryan was asked his view about Rep. Todd Akin, who recently asserted that women could not get pregnant from ‘legitimate rape.’

‘Specifically where you stand when it comes to rape, and when it comes to the issue of should it be legal for a woman to be able to get an abortion if she’s raped?’ WJHL reporter Josh Smith wondered.

‘I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea that, the position that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life,’ Ryan explained. ‘But let’s remember, I’m joining the Romney-Ryan ticket. And the president makes policy.’

‘And the president, in this case the future President Mitt Romney, has exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother, which is a vast improvement of where we are right now.’
   3954. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 26, 2012 at 11:01 AM (#4218469)
That is seriously ignorant.


It was written by Joey, ergo.
   3955. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 26, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4218503)
Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan says that he personally believes that rape is just another ‘method of conception’ and not an excuse to allow abortions.

During an interview with WJHL this week, Ryan was asked his view about Rep. Todd Akin, who recently asserted that women could not get pregnant from ‘legitimate rape.’

‘Specifically where you stand when it comes to rape, and when it comes to the issue of should it be legal for a woman to be able to get an abortion if she’s raped?’ WJHL reporter Josh Smith wondered.

‘I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea that, the position that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life,’ Ryan explained.


During one of the 1988 presidential debates, CNN's Bernard Shaw asked perhaps the most famous question ever posed since these debate forums were introduced in 1960:

"By agreement between the candidates, the first question goes to Gov. Dukakis. You have two minutes to respond: "Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?"


It was a brutal question, but totally fair, because it left absolutely no wiggle room for someone who had previously said he was against the death penalty. And Dukakis, to his credit, didn't back down:

"No, I don't, Bernard," he said. "And I think you know that I've opposed the death penalty during all of my life."


Bringing that sort of uncommon directness of questioning up to date, I would love to see Martha Raddatz, the designated moderator at this year's VP debate, pose a question like this to Ryan when he steps up to the podium against Joe Biden:

"Congressman Ryan, if I were raped, should I be forced to give birth to the rapist's child, regardless of my wishes? I'm asking for your personal view on this, not the view of Governor Romney. Would you argue that my rapist was engaging in 'just another form of conception'?"


It would be just as brutal as the question Shaw posed to Dukakis, and every bit as pertinent. I'm sure that Republicans would be shocked and "offended" by the question, just as Democrats hated that question about Kitty Dukakis, but I'm not sure exactly why a view like Ryan's, as quoted on WJHL, should not be given a chance to be reaffirmed or modified. Either way, it would be a most educational moment.


   3956. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 26, 2012 at 12:05 PM (#4218507)
It would be just as brutal as the question Shaw posed to Dukakis, and every bit as pertinent.


To be equally brutal the question would need to assume Paul Ryan's wife was raped and impregnated.
   3957. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 26, 2012 at 12:11 PM (#4218513)
To be equally brutal the question would need to assume Paul Ryan's wife was raped and impregnated.

I realize that, but I also realize that Ryan could easily duck that version by saying that he's spoken to his wife about such a scenario and that she'd told him that she would never choose to abort. My more cynical version anticipates such a spin, and gives Ryan no such opportunity to run out the clock.
   3958. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 26, 2012 at 12:19 PM (#4218524)
How's the economy doing today?
   3959. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 26, 2012 at 12:29 PM (#4218532)
Don't worry, Joe, I hope they ask plenty of questions about the economy, too, along with plenty of pointed questions about the details of how the four of them would address it. No hiding under the rocks for any of them.

BTW, how's the DJA today compared to how it was in January 2009?
   3960. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: August 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4218545)
How's the economy doing today?


Dunno. All the liberal Weather Channel wants to talk about is this hurricane.
   3961. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 26, 2012 at 12:44 PM (#4218546)
BTW, how's the DJA today compared to how it was in January 2009?

Who cares? You lefties always claim the stock market only benefits "the rich."
   3962. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 26, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4218553)
How's the economy doing today?
Dunno.


Better than it would be under a Romney-Ryan admin, certainly.
   3963. zenbitz Posted: August 26, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4218579)
Rape was probably the primary method of genetic outbreeding in humans until about 1800. 1950 if you include arranged marriages.
   3964. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 26, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4218598)
How's the economy doing today?

Better than it would be under a Romney-Ryan admin, certainly.
And unquestionably better than it was four years ago today.
   3965. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 26, 2012 at 02:36 PM (#4218602)
And unquestionably better than it was four years ago today.


Complaining about the economy as an attempt to discredit the Obama administration is like Pirates fans complaining about the 2012 team because they haven't won a world series in the last four years.
   3966. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 26, 2012 at 02:36 PM (#4218603)
And unquestionably better than it was four years ago today.

Unemployment in August 2008: 6 percent.
Unemployment in August 2012: 8.3 percent (and more like 10 percent).
   3967. Lassus Posted: August 26, 2012 at 02:56 PM (#4218616)
Unemployment in August 2012: 8.3 percent (and more like 10 percent).

It's like you're basically flat-out admitting you don't really care what facts actually say if you don't agree with them.
   3968. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: August 26, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4218617)
From Slate:

UPDATE #10: All nine people who suffered gunshot wounds outside the Empire State Buiding Friday morning were hit by police gunfire, Police Commsisione Raymond W. Kelly said Saturday. Citing ballistics evidence, Kelly said that it looks like three of the nine bystanders were hit with bullets, while the rest were “struck with fragments of some sort,” reports the New York Times. Three of the victims remained hospitalized Saturday but were in stable condition.
   3969. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 26, 2012 at 03:08 PM (#4218624)
Unemployment in August 2012: 8.3 percent (and more like 10 percent).

It's like you're basically flat-out admitting you don't really care what facts actually say if you don't agree with them.

I think that's just a reference to how much higher the unemployment rate would be if those who left the workforce involuntarily were counted, or perhaps those who are only working part-time because they can't get full-time work. Although I think the actual rates would be even higher.


   3970. robinred Posted: August 26, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4218632)
U-3 — This is what BLS calls the “official unemployment rate.” It represents unemployed workers who are actively searching for a new job. That’s the 8.3 percent rate that made headlines last week.

U-4 — This is the total unemployed plus “discouraged workers.” Discouraged workers are those who have given up looking for a job because they are convinced there aren’t any available for them. It was 8.9 percent in January.

U-5 — This is the total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus “other persons marginally attached to the labor force.” The marginally attached are people who are neither working nor looking for work, but indicate they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the last year. But they aren’t counted as unemployed, because they didn’t actively search for work in the last four weeks. That rate was 9.9 percent in January.

U-6 — This is the catch-all of the lot. It includes all of the above groups — total unemployed, discouraged workers and the marginally attached — plus part-time workers who say they would like to be working more, but for economic reasons could only find part-time work. It was 15.1 percent in January.


The link also includes graphs and some examples of spin. Factcheck.org is a useful site.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/whats-the-real-jobless-rate/
   3971. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 26, 2012 at 03:23 PM (#4218635)
I think that's just a reference to how much higher the unemployment rate would be...
I don't think so. I think Joe is being an honest debater and seriously arguing that the economy in August 2008 is healthier than it is in 2012. Because otherwise, he's just a monkey throwing his own #### around.
   3972. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: August 26, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4218638)
How's the economy doing today?
i'd just like to point out that that kind of comment is absolute horseshit.


you can say all you want that the only thing that matters in this election is the economy, but the reality is that, if romney wins, the republicans are also very likely to win majorities in the house and the senate, and if they gain control of the presidency and both chambers of congress, they will pass legislation that severely restricts the ability for women to terminate their pregnancy, if they so desire. in addition, if republicans gain control of the presidency and both houses of congress, that will also likely mean the return of don't ask, don't tell.


as much as you want to believe this fairytale, that a romney/ryan presidency will be 100% focused on the economy, the truth is, in the republican party, the tail wags the dog, and if the fundamentalist base in congress wants pass legislation that sterilizes the children of openly gay parents, neither romney, nor ryan, nor boehner, nor mcconnell has the will or the backbone to stand up and say no.

you can't just wave your hand and say that these things don't matter, because, when romney is elected, he's not the president of the economy, he's the president of the united states, and what he will do on social issues is just as relevant as what he will do with the military (speaking of, does he have a stated position on iraq, iran, and afghanistan?), and it's just as relevant as what he will do with the economy.

   3973. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 26, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4218645)
#3972 = "Obama can't defend his record on the economy, so let's demonize the opposition."

   3974. Tilden Katz Posted: August 26, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4218654)
#3972 = "Obama can't defend his record on the economy, so let's demonize the opposition."


You're saying that the House has not passed a multitude of bills to restrict abortion rights? Or that nearly all House Republicans voted against the DADT repeal and have expressed a desire to reinstate it? Or that they tried to change the Hyde Amendment to allow exceptions only for "forcible rape"? Or that the Presidential candidates were too cowardly to chastise a debate audience that booed a soldier because he was gay?

Is it demonization to point out those facts?
   3975. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 26, 2012 at 04:25 PM (#4218664)
I think that's just a reference to how much higher the unemployment rate would be if those who left the workforce involuntarily were counted, or perhaps those who are only working part-time because they can't get full-time work. Although I think the actual rates would be even higher.

Right. The fact this even needed to be explained shows just how poorly the media has covered the economy. There are millions of unemployed Americans who don't even exist in the headline unemployment number.

***
as much as you want to believe this fairytale, that a romney/ryan presidency will be 100% focused on the economy, the truth is, in the republican party, the tail wags the dog, and if the fundamentalist base in congress wants pass legislation that sterilizes the children of openly gay parents, neither romney, nor ryan, nor boehner, nor mcconnell has the will or the backbone to stand up and say no.

Yikes. And you thought my comment on the economy was out of bounds?

***
You're saying that the House has not passed a multitude of bills to restrict abortion rights? Or that nearly all House Republicans voted against the DADT repeal and have expressed a desire to reinstate it? Or that they tried to change the Hyde Amendment to allow exceptions only for "forcible rape"? Or that the Presidential candidates were too cowardly to chastise a debate audience that booed a soldier because he was gay?

Is it demonization to point out those facts?

Whether it's demonization or just a crass attempt to change the subject, it's basically the same thing. Five years into the worst U.S. economy since the 1930s, the economy should be getting 90 percent of the attention in this election. All these other issues are just a distraction. The idea that there's a "war on women" or that abortion will be outlawed in 2013 is just utter nonsense.
   3976. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 26, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4218672)
. . . if the fundamentalist base in congress wants pass legislation that sterilizes the children of openly gay parents, neither romney, nor ryan, nor boehner, nor mcconnell has the will or the backbone to stand up and say no.

Don't think there is any forced sterilization legislation anywhere on the horizon, much less any aimed at the "children of openly gay parents". Absent a cite, I think we can write this off as hyper-partisan rhetoric.
   3977. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: August 26, 2012 at 04:48 PM (#4218676)
Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association:
Women's suffrage only thing keeping Obama in the game: Obama down 8 with men, up 8 with women. http://shar.es/74Sn9
That's... interesting.
   3978. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: August 26, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4218687)
#3972 = "Obama can't defend his record on the economy, so let's demonize the opposition."
if you want to say that obama's a godless heathen for supporting gay marriage, you can go ahead and do so, but it's absolutely asinine to act as if social issues are of no consequence whatsoever.

Yikes. And you thought my comment on the economy was out of bounds?
i'm a fan of hyperbole. also, considering that american evangelicals are the driving force behind both the republican party and legislation in uganda that calls for the execution of "repeat" homosexuals, i don't think it's entirely unfair to call them on their willingness to persecute gay people.
The idea that there's a "war on women" or that abortion will be outlawed in 2013 is just utter nonsense.
what if it's not? has romney said that he'd veto any legislation that restricts access to abortion? has john boehner vowed to keep any such legislation off the floor of the house?

no?


well, then you can't really say that it's utter nonsense to think they will.
   3979. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: August 26, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4218689)
Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association:

Women's suffrage only thing keeping Obama in the game: Obama down 8 with men, up 8 with women. http://shar.es/74Sn9


That's... interesting.
yeah. just to break down various constituencies:

obama:
blacks
latinos
women
gays

romney:
white men
rich white men
white christian men
rich white christian men
tokens--women, blacks, latinos, gays
   3980. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 26, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4218691)
. . . considering that american evangelicals are the driving force behind both the republican party and legislation in uganda that calls for the execution of "repeat" homosexuals, i don't think it's entirely unfair to call them on their willingness to persecute gay people.

In Uganda? That's the best you can do, try to blame the Republicans for some crazy talk in Uganda? Why not blame them for all the things Islamists do to homosexuals, too. You'd have been better off sticking to the economy.
   3981. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: August 26, 2012 at 05:35 PM (#4218706)
No, I will hold it against the GOP.

These organizations are doing evil, wicked things to their fellow man. And the Republicans are happy for the groups' support.
   3982. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 26, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4218710)
The economy is the most important thing regarding the outcome of the election. It it is that terrible (and it is bad) then people know whatever the media says. And whining about media really doesn't help your cause, just makes you look whiny.

However the other stuff matters too, and to pretend it doesn't is just plain silly.

And yes the GOP is pretty far right and if Romney wins (and gets the House and Senate) then a whole bunch of things will happen. Fortunately that is not likely.
   3983. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: August 26, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4218712)
In Uganda? That's the best you can do, try to blame the Republicans for some crazy talk in Uganda? Why not blame them for all the things Islamists do to homosexuals, too. You'd have been better off sticking to the economy.


i'm not blaming republicans for anything. i'm not even really blaming the christians. i am saying that the scapegoating of gays in uganda is largely the result of american evangelicals exportation of homophobia to that region, and that those very same evangelicals also make up a large portion of the republican voting base that romney is completely unwilling to stand up to.


it's okay if you're not one of these people, but you really have to understand that your support for their economic policies is not compartmentalized to just their economic policies. as much as you and mitt and paul ryan don't want to talk about it before the election, when you vote for these people, you vote for restrictions on abortion, you vote for the reinstatement of don't ask don't tell, you vote for the **actual** elimination of medicare and social security.

   3984. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 26, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4218720)
. . . the **actual** elimination of medicare and social security.

Not sure you can scare enough people on that either. Besides, you used up all your credibility in Uganda.
   3985. zonk Posted: August 26, 2012 at 07:21 PM (#4218752)
So the GOP's campaign promise is "Trust us, we don't do any of those things many of our most powerful politicians and proponents say we'll do"?
   3986. asdf1234 Posted: August 26, 2012 at 07:29 PM (#4218755)
#3972 = "Obama can't defend his record on the economy, so let's demonize the opposition."


When you have no strengths, you run on your opponent's weaknesses.
   3987. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: August 26, 2012 at 07:31 PM (#4218756)
Not sure you can scare enough people on that either. Besides, you used up all your credibility in Uganda.
in uganda? i've never been, and i'm fairly sure that if i ever was, i'd be stoned to death.

anyway, in news related to the fact that republicans would never, ever vote to restrict a woman's reproductive rights, and that the idea of a republican war on women is absolute nonsense, here's a story about republicans voting to restrict a woman's reproductive rights:
In Arizona, women are now legally pregnant two weeks before conception, according to a new law, the Orwellianly-named, “Women’s Health and Safety Act,” signed yesterday by Republican Governor Jan Brewer. The scientifically, medically, ethically, and intellectually dishonest legislation is designed to reduce the amount of time a woman is allowed to have a legal abortion, and is one of the most draconian bills to become law in America.


   3988. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 26, 2012 at 08:19 PM (#4218772)
I'd still like to see someone make the argument that the economy was healthier in August 2008 than it is in August 2012.
   3989. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 26, 2012 at 08:19 PM (#4218773)
When you have no strengths, you run on your opponent's weaknesses.


Uh, both sides are running (and will likely continue running) brutal negative campaigns. Pretending only one side is doing it is silly. But hey, knock yourselves out.
   3990. tshipman Posted: August 26, 2012 at 08:42 PM (#4218781)
Uh, to me if you say this:

#3972 = "Obama can't defend his record on the economy, so let's demonize the opposition."


Don't you have to acknowledge that half the R ticket thinks that the federal funds rate is too low right now? And that they think you should reduce or remove the capital gains tax?
I mean, you can't just claim that Obama is unqualified to run the economy because of a massive recession that hit the hardest in the three months before he took office, can you? How are those three months his fault?

Romney's stated position on the economy are terrible. And, as terrible as they are, Ryan's are even worse!!!! All of the R's comments on the economy are based in cynical, calculated appeals to ignorance.

If you really are an economics voter, the fact that Ryan actively sabotaged the recovery with the rest of the Republicans over the debt ceiling and Romney refused to call on them to shut the #### up and stop fooling around should be disqualifying. That's the worst act of economic stewardship in my lifetime, and probably yours as well. If you're an economics voter and you vote for Romney/Ryan, I seriously question your intelligence and knowledge.
   3991. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: August 26, 2012 at 08:52 PM (#4218788)
Concur to tshipman. Which reminds me, I thought it was quite telling, during the debt ceiling ########, the Big Money of the GOP didn't/couldn't tell the Tea Partiers to STFU and pass it. There was a literal price tag to that disaster, with much of Wall Street helping pay, and it was not small.
   3992. robinred Posted: August 26, 2012 at 09:00 PM (#4218793)
Uh, both sides are running (and will likely continue running) brutal negative campaigns


MCOA pointed this out about three months ago, and factcheck's homepage has a story up on it. And it will almost certainly get more negative.
   3993. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 26, 2012 at 09:18 PM (#4218803)
I'd still like to see someone make the argument that the economy was healthier in August 2008 than it is in August 2012.

The economy was ugly in 2008 because of the housing implosion, but unemployment was also a lot lower and the U.S. had far less debt.

Given that this was a structural rather than cyclical downturn, the 2012 economy is only "healthier" in the sense that bad is better than horrible. There aren't any real positives of note, and the economic trends suggest things are getting worse instead of better.

For election purposes, what are Obama's signature economic achievements? Are companies making massive investments in the U.S.? Are new industries popping up and prospering? Have millions of unemployed people been retrained and/or put back to work? The answers are none; no; no; and no.

Obama's all out of ideas. His economic "plan" is just more of the same — borrow and spend, borrow and spend, borrow and spend, with some class warfare tossed in to rile up his base.
   3994. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 26, 2012 at 09:24 PM (#4218807)
Wait a minute Joe, the stock market is doing great and corporate profits are at an all time high. Are you suggesting trickle down economics doesn't work?
   3995. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: August 26, 2012 at 09:49 PM (#4218828)
From the Clown Show's lead clown:


Speaking to reporters at a press conference in Sarasota, Fla., Donald Trump said Mitt Romney's birth certificate quip in Michigan last week may have been a lighthearted joke, but that the issue of President Obama's birth certificate is far from settled.

"What I think doesn’t matter -- he has his views and many other people disagree with him as you know," Trump said. "...But he did make a joke, and some people thought it might not be a joke. It happens to be an issue that a lot of people believe in … many, many people believe in it so maybe I would have handled it differently, but he’s running for president and I’m with him 100 percent."

Trump, who has focused on Obama's birth certificate in the past, said that whether he raises the issue again going forward is an open question.

"Let’s just say this there’s a huge group of people that are not believers in what [Obama] did, what he said and where he came from. We’ll see what happens. Well see what happens over the coming weeks and months."

Trump was in town to receive the "Statesman of the Year" award from the Sarasota Republican Party. He was originally scheduled to participate in what he called a "big surprise" at the GOP convention on Monday, but in light of the cancellation of Monday's speeches he's not sure what his involvement will be.

"Well I had a big role tomorrow night. You know what happened tomorrow night. So it’s now up to them. … It’s totally up to them, whatever they like," he said. "They gave me a big role and I was looking forward – I was actually going to Tampa right after this, right after this dinner, but now I probably will be going back to New York. I may come back but I’ll probably be going to New York after the dinner."

Asked to elaborate on what the "big surprise" was, Trump just said it was a "very big thing." "I think they're still going to probably do it," he added.
   3996. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: August 26, 2012 at 09:59 PM (#4218832)
I feel like the Republican National Convention is going to have to shoot Trump with a tranquilizer dart.
   3997. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: August 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM (#4218848)
I feel like the Republican National Convention is going to have to shoot Trump with a tranquilizer dart.
i'd pay to watch that.
   3998. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: August 26, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4218852)
I'd pay to watch a crow fly through a window and make off with his hairpiece.
   3999. Ted Without A Kluszewski Posted: August 26, 2012 at 10:51 PM (#4218856)
I gather from Twitter that he was going to "fire" an Obama lookalike.
   4000. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 26, 2012 at 10:51 PM (#4218857)
Obama's all out of ideas. His economic "plan" is just more of the same — borrow and spend, borrow and spend, borrow and spend...
Fortunately, Romney's come up with the revolutionary plan of cutting taxes while increasing military spending. Thank goodness for new ideas!
Page 40 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for 4-24-2014
(61 - 12:02am, Apr 25)
Last: Rickey! In a van on 95 south...

NewsblogNY Times: The Upshot: Up Close on Baseball’s Borders
(60 - 12:00am, Apr 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMatt Williams: No problem with Harper's two-strike bunting
(30 - 11:59pm, Apr 24)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogMichael Pineda ejected from Red Sox game after pine tar discovered on neck
(127 - 11:59pm, Apr 24)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogConnie Marrero, oldest Major Leaguer, dies at 102
(25 - 11:47pm, Apr 24)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogToronto Star: Blue Jays pave way for grass at the Rogers Centre
(21 - 11:41pm, Apr 24)
Last: Cooper Nielson

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(528 - 11:32pm, Apr 24)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogJonah Keri Extended Interview | Video | Late Night with Seth Meyers | NBC
(15 - 11:24pm, Apr 24)
Last: Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016

NewsblogJosh Lueke Is A Rapist, You Say? Keep Saying It.
(260 - 10:13pm, Apr 24)
Last: CrosbyBird

NewsblogColiseum Authority accuses Athletics of not paying rent
(28 - 10:08pm, Apr 24)
Last: bobm

NewsblogIndians Usher Says He Was Fired for Refusing to Wear Pro-Sin Tax Sticker
(25 - 10:05pm, Apr 24)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(2653 - 9:55pm, Apr 24)
Last: CrosbyBird

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(234 - 8:44pm, Apr 24)
Last: zack

NewsblogCalcaterra: Blogger Murray Chass attacks me for bad reporting, ignores quotes, evidence in doing so
(38 - 8:41pm, Apr 24)
Last: Hysterical & Useless

NewsblogThe Five “Acts” of Ike Davis’s Career, and Why Trading Ike Was a Mistake
(68 - 8:24pm, Apr 24)
Last: Walt Davis

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.3618 seconds
52 querie(s) executed