User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6835 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
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.
A riot is an ugly thing...und I think it's about time ve haff one!
False positive means you suck. The 3 clean riders knew that going in, do not feel pity for them.
Conceded. Another good test is "do you know his name?"
They're professional bicyclers. Nobody in America knows their names.
There's still a lot of damage a gerrymandered House can do.
And far fewer people die, if any at all. At least with Kehoskie's talk about slave uprisings there was a moral dimension to his argument, but it's not like the Branch Davidian captives were using their guns against their true slavemasters.
Imagine an international epidemic, like a superflu. A government might want to quarantine infected people until they die, to prevent the spread of the disease. If there are no citizens with guns, this happens pretty easily; there's no way to effectively resist.
Of course if they "successfully resist," then more people die. But with their principles intact, I'm sure.
So my favorite part of this, is it is from the same guy that totally rejects using other countries for control arguments or health care arguments or any other kind of argument - only the Second Amendment is usefully compared across nations I guess. And only cherry picked nations.
PED and Gun Control. Good day to be unable to post much as both topics are more than a little boring IMO.
Wait. Someone is arguing that people who are near-patient zero for a massive pandemic shouldn't be quarantined, because, Freedom Rock, man?
I am sure property rights figure in here somewhere.
Oh. Well then turn it up, man!
To take this scenario in a different direction...
I was thinking today about post-apocalyptic movies and I thought there might be a fun one to be made in terms of looking at the long-term social impact of a superflu. I'm more or less thinking of a modern version of post-Black Death Europe, with all the social, cultural, economic and political outcomes it created both "good" and "bad" (if those words make any sense in this context). So it wouldn't necessarily be a dark movie, just an examination of a different cultural world.
Perhaps it's a better project for a novel. (And knowing the wide range of novels out there, one that I'm sure has already been written).
Public Lice Going Extinct
I don't see a problem with that. It's only private sector lice that contribute to the economy.
Hey, if I could layer two jokes into one sentence I'd...be a funnier person, I guess.
Pure, unadulterated internet WIN!
Which was tactically/strategically the right move:
If they kept the tanks they couldn't win the battle (the battle that day) if it n fact turned into a pitched fight-
If they didn't keep tanks the couldn't win in the army decided to clear the protesters out and take the white house, but an attack on unarmed civilians would have looked bad, deligitimised the coup plotters
If they didn't keep the tanks the troops being commanded by the coup plotters may have refused to shoot (given that the field officers refused to even give such orders, it's likely that the enlisted men would have refused any way if such orders were given)- there was also precedent for this in Russian/Soviet history, troops recalled from the front in 1917 to put down the revolution refused to advance on unarmed crowds (of course according to the Battleship Potemkin the czarist troops had no problem massacring unarmed civilians while putting down the 1905 rebellion - but that movie was propaganda, there was no massacre on the Odessa steps, and while troops did fore on civilians it was usually in response to being attacked in the frost place)
Yeltsin correctly saw that RUSSIAN TROOPS were not going to fire on Russian Civilians in Moscow (Stalin would not have made that mistake, he would have shipped in units of a different ethnicity if he needed to put down a rebellion in Moscow)
with the party "base"
a good chunk of that 63% think the House Republicans are not far enough right
So, what are you proposing?
One drawback to this is that there have been no new, cost-effective, game-changing technologies. There are wonderful developments, like Ken Yeang's Bioclimatic skyscrapers, but those aren't the result of new techologies, but instead are an intelligent combining of existing technologies, whose incremental improvements have made them worth using.
New cities are a nice idea, but Brasilia taught us they don't really work. Would you want to go live in New New York city, 100 miles north of the real thing? What would it have that the original doesn't?
I guess the short question is, if you were going to sketch out your new city in a couple of paragraphs, what tech would it employ that an existing city, with all its amenities, could not incorporate?
(Let's say, for instance, that all the streets have tech that would take your car anywhere in the city at your verbal command. First, where would you keep all the cars needed, second, where would you park when you got where you were going, and third, how would that be an improvement over NYCs very good transportation system?
Keep in mind that in exchange for this kind of improvement, if it is one, you lose the Met, and everything else along with it. And that's forgetting the multi-trillion dollar investment in a new city simply won't happen.
(The things I can see happening are things like, in new buildings in old cities, require that their skins are electric generating ceramic solar tiles; that they go some lengths towards manufacturing their own water; that they use composting toilets, and so on. All things that not only reduce the load on infrastructure, but may actually become energy positive additions.)
"Historian" David Barton
Great amounts of underground mass transit.
Reminds me of some old documentary that the Heritage Foundation or some such conservative think tank put out there back in the 80's. The documentary spent 10 minutes or so quoting founding fathers and other leaders of the time talking about how much of a paradise the new country was and how crime was non-existent.
Yeah, okay. Now pull the other one.
This is simply, preposterously untrue. It's a conservatism that wants to lay a substantial chunk of the debt at the feet of imaginary public sector workers with massive paychecks. In fact,
edit: from the CBO: “For workers at all education levels, the cost of total compensation averaged about $52 per hour worked for federal employees, compared with about $45 per hour worked for employees in the private sector with certain similar observable characteristics,” CBO analysts said in their report."
I'm having a tough time seeing that difference being any kind of legitimate problem.
He does, which is incredible. You'd think committing fraud at the UN, in order to sell a war of choice in full view of the world, would have caused him to slink away in permanent disgrace.
No. traffic is a ##### and there's giant crabs living in the carpool lane.
Given that you want, and need, huge amounts of above-ground transportation in a city, the gain is minor. I'd guess L.A. is one of the cities that would benefit substantially by a significant underground system, while NYC has probably put as much underground as you'd want to. I'm not seeing this as even close to enough reason to build entirely new cities. Anything else?
Extraordinary, isn't it? They've rarely been this successful with anything else. They weren't able to get Americans to privatize (lose) their social security, or really even make headway at all towards privatization, but Unions = Satan to many, even those who would obviously benefit from them.
True, but OTOH, what is a corporation but another kind of
collective?
Yes. Not remotely true.
It imagines that American workers in the private sector have maximized wages to the point that there is nothing more at all significant to be gained through collective bargaining. In a time of whopping corporate profits, that's erroneous on its face. Corporations are obviously able to increase wages, and to do so significantly. That they don't is a combination of lack of union pressure and of government intervention on behalf of business to actively limit or end collective bargaining rights. There is substantial room to increase wages.
Isn't that evidence, though, that owning guns does not reduce crime?
A lot of that has to do with the unions themselves. As a manager in a corporation that employs unions and having worked for 4 different businesses in that corporation I've seen a lot of stupidity from the union organization staff. I know of a lot of union members who are pissed off at their union even though it is the union that is responsible for their employment, wages, and benefits. I've also seen other unions that I don't directly work with but are my customers waste tremendous amounts of their union's money on frivolous stuff and a lot of it probably could be classified under corruption.
Part of the problem is that a lot of union members are poorly educated and when that is the situation the wolves are going to take over.
It's harder to have an "accident" with an effing flintlock than it is with a modern gun- first off, it's much harder to load you have to put in powder, ram the ball down the barrel, put in wadding to keep the powder/ball down the barrel, load powder into the priming pan*, #### the hammer... you don't have a situation like with a modern gun where you pull out the clip and don't realize that there's a round in the chamber... it's much less likely that someone is just going to take a loaded and primed flintlock and stick it in a drawer/hang it on the wall ready to fire than it is for someone to inadvertently do the same with a loaded handgun
nonetheless, despite what the esteemed "historian" claims, people did have accidents with firearms back in the day
*The introduction of percussion caps in the mid 19th made the accidental discharge of a firearm more likely- you really didn't need safeties on guns until then
publishing names and addresses of registered gun owners was a shockingly irresponsible decision imho.
Not so sure. After all, it's supposed to be entirely public information, and it was a fascinating experiment. Why 'shockingly irresponsible'?
And, weren't the damned things about four and a half feet long? It's a lot easier to accidentally aim a pistol, or even a shotgun or short rifle at someone.
Who couldn't possibly be more different in practically every regard from the US. It was intellectual dishonesty of an enduring beauty.
Yes but the difference is that unions have to convince people to join them and to give them money. A crappy business gives people money to work for them. A big difference and why business has the advantage.
If I had to guess which weapon was the most deadly to one's one self back then I would have to guess it would be the blade. Poor sanitary habits and no knowledge of germs/bacteria/viruses means a lot of little nicks and cuts turned into life threatening injuries.
Crotchtacular.
REPORT: LANCE ARMSTRONG USED RUGS
What an #######. #### that guy.
Property Enhancing Decor?
Well, they really tie the room together, man ...
Wow--so something like half the world's population dies,... or are you confining it to a certain area (which would bring about conflicts an Earthwide disaster wouldn't).
I'm also thinking of the scenario where a bomb of sufficient size to kill 20,000 people and devastate a large section of a city. Probably nuclear. Then, the effects on the country. As horrifying as the blast will be, and as devastating the loss of life, another result will be a permanent change in the US. Closed borders, armed guards everywhere, hundreds of billions more spent on internal security, hundreds of billions on top of that spent on armed raids towards the extinction of whatever group was responsible; an end to privacy and an end to civil liberties... all of this and more with almost complete approval from the populace. It'll make the worst of the Patriot Act look utterly benign.
Sort of speaking of which, I'm surprised a Prez as well acquainted with the Constitution as Obama hasn't set up a trial in absentia system for terrorists he wants to assassinate.
@1340: good point. Some elementary education is probably the way to renew and revive the union movement. As simple as educational materials to Dem members of the House. Solidify what support there is. Educate the populace through a concerted campaign with very simple, demonstrable assertions. Make unions seem as American as... cheating on your taxes.
I didn't even know he was bald. I guess that chemo makes the hair fall out.
Because people with guns would see it - everybody knows those folks are shifty.
hmmm...
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/kycrime.htm
1965 : 5.3 murder per 100k
1970 : 11.1 murder per 100k
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/tncrime.htm
1965 : 5.9 murder per 100k
1974 : 13.4 murder per 100k
Breakdown according to race--before and after Civil Rights? In the South and in other places. I bet you'll see a significant difference. It would fly in the face of cause and effect not to.
And I'm not just referring to the Jim Crow South and afterwards. I bet there was an effect throughout the country. It's the price of freedom. Some people use their new-found freedom to commit crime. It's a lesson in negative consequences, and in no longer having them. I remember around 1991 listening to a former Soviet police officer give a speech/lecture/talk. He said that right after the evil empire came apart at the seams, crime in his city suddenly skyrocketed. People in his town (I forget where he was from) used to not lock the doors of their homes and leave the keys of their car in the ignition.
Same with racial apartheid in America. But there is an upside for some a downside for some in any kind of social and governmental arrangement. You can't have a serious discussion about political philosophy unless you acknowledge and appreciate that. It's all right to say that before breaking free in the 1960s blacks didn't commit as much crime, but that is the result of a repressive order, and the very nature of that repressiveness is a crime that doesn't show in stats. Remember, what's a crime and what's not is essentially an artificial, and sometimes arbitrary, distinction. But, also remember, some people had reason to be comfortable with that arrangement. The founts of nostalgia can surprisingly take odd forms.
/attempt at silver lining
As much as I hate to break the streak of 60 consecutive comments (and 78 out of the last 80) by liberals, the two comments above really deserve an "LOL." Well done, boys.
I actually did read the linked article, but I'll need more than an editorial at "Truth-Out.org" -- preferably one without a biased and hysterical closing paragraph that calls the whole thing into question.
On the new Jim Crow, I understand the impulse but I don't think it's useful. Jim Crow signified not general prejudice or divergent outcomes but a particular regime. If we make it into a synonym for vague racism or white supremacy, we lose the ability to say what was specific about the Jim Crow system. I think we live in a system where there are hugely divergent outcomes for racial groups and a fair amount of racial prejudice, as well as a great deal of legacy costs as long-past policies continue to have consequences. But I don't think we live in Jim Crow.
I feel the need to explain to you that just because someone posts an article that talks about things that were discussed here does not mean that they agree with it. Though I'm sure you were already aware of slave patrols.
This is odd, since, just a few minutes ago, you seemed to be complaining in #1365 when you said, "I'm assuming Joe didn't read the link."
If you didn't agree with the article, why would you care if I didn't read it (or if I read it and then mocked it)?
City to pay $22.5 million to bipolar woman released in high-crime area
What on earth does this terrible event have to do with public sector unions?
Did you miss the part where the guilty parties are apparently still employed?
***
Affirmative action has already reached absurd levels, to the point that even liberal areas have pushed back, while welfare spending is crushing budgets from coast to coast. After two or three generations of affirmative action and a massive welfare state, I don't see how government can do much more with regard to any "disparity in resources and opportunities." The breakdown of the family and the illegitimacy rate have far more to do with the "disparity in resources and opportunities" than racism.
Ya think?
Ha ha. Just like with the big healthcare problem that led to Obamacare, the lefties don't want to take action themselves. They want the heavy hand of government to force other people to take action (or have things taken from them, such as money or opportunity).
"An education system that doesn't include lower tiers"? In which century is this going to be rolled out?
In case you hadn't noticed, we have lefties right here on BBTF who fight tooth and nail to maintain the current (government-run) educational system, which is replete with "lower tiers."
I'm not really sure what the threshold is here. I would turn down a job at a company that I knew to be racist, I think. I would work to effect change at any bigoted organization. I don't have any kids, but I'd send my kids to public school. I do live in a historically black neighborhood (not that it's bad or anything). I have advocated at my current job for more childcare leave for colleagues, although I don't have kids.
I think that a lot of problems are impossible to solve by individual action. Things like inequality and racism are among them.
I realize that Joe is just posting bs again, but I really do feel like the conversation is better if people try to provide thoughtful answers rather than just trying to score points.
You are operating under the assumption that the quarantine is necessary, appropriate, and carried out in a reasonable and just manner. Are you so confident that the government would exercise proper restraint in a high-stress situation like a pandemic?
That's not the threshold at all. Turning down a job at a company that is known to be racist wouldn't create an opportunity for a member of the oppressed class.
It's not "B.S." at all. In the last day, we've had BrianBrianson claiming that white guys can commit just about any crime they want without being prosecuted, and then #1375 and #1377 lamenting the "disparity of resources and opportunity" that they apparently believe is due to racism rather than other factors. I'd just like to know if these guys are putting their money and their careers and their kids' education where their mouths are, or if it's only other white people who are undeservedly hogging resources and opportunities.
Guilty of what exactly?
Obviously what happened to the woman is terrible, but I don't see how anybody other than the guys who sexually assaulted her are guilty of anything.
Obviously the story is pretty short on details, but it seems to me that based on the actions of the woman, they had cause for an arrest. Similarly, I think based on medical information which would not have been available to the arresting officers, not pressing charges is justifiable. In which case they have to cut her lose the next day.
The only thing I can see here that any public sector union member did wrong is cost taxpayers money. Which in Joe-Land of course is the most heinous of crimes.
You read the story and this is your conclusion? I guess you missed the parts where (1) the police ignored the "frantic" calls from the woman's parents, (2) a bunch of police testified that other police screwed up, and (3) a federal judge issued a scathing report of police ineptitude and recklessness.
(Anyway, I love the part where "the only thing" that "any public-sector union member did wrong is cost taxpayers money." That's generally the point of these discussions about public-sector unions — a lot of money is spent/wasted with little or no accountability.)
But also think of the social and economic ramifications of mass death. Perhaps increased social mobility, labour shortages could give the working classes leverage. Of course, there's also likely to be significant social unrest and revolts, attacks on ethnic, or religions minorities. Maybe more, or less, faith in government. And who knows what effect on art, popular culture, television, movies, music, spirituality...
When did I ever say I felt guilty? I don't want to live in a world where I get sent to prison for seven years because cops find me smoking a joint in the park; I want to live in a world where they also ask black guys for a toke and then move on.
I work in the Renewable Energy Industry nowadays, my general take is that a new city over a very well established existing one in the Developed world don't make much sense at the moment, your right that there hasn't been enough of a game changer to really warrant that sort of extreme measure, as for Brasilia, I think that worked out alright, at least for a city which wasn't exactly built with economic development in mind. (otherwise they would have choose a coastal area .)
I think at least that water reclamation building technique is very feasible and generally cost effective if we're building something from scratch, though adding one to existing building is much tougher, especially in a city. heat pumps are also a fairly good choice though both would generally require some digging, especially the later.
In which U.S. jurisdictions is this happening?
***
Absolutely. The comments to which I replied seemed to be implying that government should be weighing in more heavily with regards to the "disparity of resources and opportunity." But unless one believes one group of people is unfairly hogging resources or opportunity at the expense of another, the government has no business being involved at all.
Why are we rebuilding cities? To make them more efficient and modern? There's no efficiency discovery in thousands of years that would make the location of the world's great cities not be the most important thing to their successes.
Because only in public sector unions are mistakes made. Only in public sector unions is there no accountability. The entire fiasco was all about rules and procedures insisted on bythe public sector unions.
Except of course all of that is wrong. The story has zero to do with unions (public sector or otherwise), it is just a chance for you to smear them with something bad that happened. I could go through news and find dozens of corporation does horrible thing, costs millions and in each you would suggest it was not the mere existence of corporations that caused the issue, but because there are unions involved to a slight extent and unions are evil therefor it is the unions fault.
Now that the election is over mainlining GOP talking points is much less informative.
This is an oddly "nothing ever changes, ever, and humanity has reached its peak of knowledge and development" position to be taking.
Well, no. It's simply an acknowledgement that place and history matter in human settlement and civilization. Do you really think you could just close down Paris and rebuild it more efficiently 200 miles up the river?
As for history, well yes cities grew up where they are for reasons, but things change and some of those reasons are no longer relevent or were silly or wrong to begin with.
So you're saying I just might want to keep Glenbeckistan on the short list of future vacation travel destinations after all?
/edit - this is absolutely a real ad, although it is most Onionesque.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main