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 0.6234 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.
I think part of the difference there is that MLK wasn't clinically depressed.
I'm involved in civil litigation, and every now and then a businessman unfamiliar with how lawyers negotiate, will get honestly pissed off and walk out the door without bothering to counter an opening offer (or counteroffer) feeling either that the two sides are simply too far apart or that the other side is not negotiating in good faith.
Sometimes you are wiling to initially offer "X" and you tell the other side's atty that, and he'll say "I can't relay that, he won't counter, he'll walk"
and you say, "It's not our last/highest final offer"
he'll say, "I know that, but it's still too low for me to work off of, he' already doesn't think your client is negotiating in good faith, why do you think WE'RE (us lawyers) are here?"
and then you start wondering if the other lawyer is bluffing or not.
I usually represent Banks and Insurers, contrary to what the general public thinks, most time, at least initially, they will offer better terms if you don't have a lawyers than if you do- a good part of that is familiarity with how lawyers negotiate- they know lawyers tend to overshoot, so they will preemptively counter that...
Virtually the entire Islamic world as well...
Truthfully, I'd much prefer not being sent off to Iran, thank you.
Am acquaintance of mine once told me that one of the many studies that failed to find a link between video games and shootings found that the only link they could come up with was that the shooters were predominantly devout Christians. Never saw the study myself, so take it for what it's worth. This was a few years ago, so before any of the recent shootings, but they do seem to be falling into the same pattern.
I always figured, going back to 2007/2008 -- Obama was a centrist/pragmatist who could come off as a true liberal when he had to. I still think he's a lot more center than he is left, but that was most definitely a left-center (not center-left) inaugural.
Still, that's what he ran as, it's what the 'base' that reelected him has wanted for 4 years, and it's been one of the primary complaints Democratic opposition has had about him (that he's too ready to 'compromise', that he lacks sufficiently ironclad progressive principles, etc).
I personally think he's trying to pivot here into 'legacy mode'... I think the genius of Reagan is that, despite running during the 80 primary as a conservative -- by GE and by the time he assumed office, he quite masterfully was able to cloak his conservative principles as less of an 'ideological' agenda -- but more of a mainstream, non-ideological vision of just "good government"... In effect, I think he really DID make the general public view the country as being 'center-right', as in, that's where the national fulcrum should rest. There were plenty of policy changes to support that -- but ultimately, he re-positioned the fulcrum.
I believe very much that Obama sounds like he's looking to do the same -- re-position that national fulcrum... there's a ton in this speech to support that -- gay rights, defense of the very concept of entitlement programs, etc.
As a liberal, I say "bully!". As a pragmatic observer, I say "good luck with that;-))
Me too, but the only way to possibly move that fulcrum is to try.
I'm sure they're using facts and quoting the President verbatim.
that's an absurd comparison
He used to be a boxer, when he was young. Those guys don't usually age like fine wine.
utterly bereft of anything that reaches out to the opposition (meaning the president reaching out to the gop)
It's reasonable, in the sense that any two things can be compared to each other.
This is a creative way of calling your wife old.
well, she is 11 days older than me and i am old so....
but actually, i don't get your joke
sorry
Chris Matthews: This was comparable to Lincoln's 2nd inaugural.
Mrs. HW: That's absurd. I know, I was there.
well, i called it an absurd comparison
but ok
i checked in on msnbc to hear them be gleeful and todd looks awful
Of course -
Lincoln's second inaugural did have to start healing a nation that wasn't just having an ideological debate -- but had actively been killing more than half a million of its fellow citizens for 4 years... To "preserve the union" -- Lincoln had to set the tone that the Union was being restored, not a renegade portion of it subjugated (even if, to some extent, that's what had to and to some extent, did, happen). He had to restore the nation - and even then, that would take time... there's a good historical case to be made that it didn't finally come to pass until the Spanish-American war... that that was the point when, from coast to coast, we were all finally "Americans" again.
Whatever ideological pervades our times -- I would hope we can ALL recognize the difference between 600k dead on battlefields and various blogs and networks calling 'the other side' names.
FWIW - and yeah, I'm partisan - we have heard Boehner, McConnell, et al saying that Obama "needs to lead"... well... OK -- this speech was him doing exactly that. They just don't agree with the direction and philosophy of where he's leading. But - he won reelection (and won it on essentially the same terms of this speech), he's the President, and "leading" can't be wholly telling his own party and base to pipe down.
"by using the savings garned from slashing federal expenditure on public broadcasting, planned parenthood, the EPA and the ATF."
Except the blacks, Irish, and Chinese.
his wife, not so much
i think charles is about 4 years behind the curve
Naaah, the only thing they'd accept would be his resignation and admission that ACORN had stolen the election for him and Dems in the Senate
I think that's what it would take to make them happy.
if his embers are still burning you cna guess why interns are so, ahem, helpful to him
I guess I'd say that he tried playing it nice... 'Grand bargains' in which he, much to Democratic chagrin, did put left/progressive sacred cows on the table, etc... and it really got him nowhere and got him nothing except, well, baseline things the nation needed -- i.e., the original sequester that got conservatives (as Boehner said) "98% of what he wanted"... Obama "got" the debt ceiling increase, which was hardly an ideological desire of any Democrat - merely a sort of baseline thing that any President needs because, well, it's disastrous to undertake a "default by choice". I suppose he also got a payroll tax cut - which is most definitely a fine, targeted stimulus towards low and middle income folks - but it's also a tax cut and also a revenue cut against a dearly held Democratic-loved entitlement.
We can say it's cynical - Obama's doing this now because he's got more election campaigns to worry about... we can take the view of progressives - many of whom would say that Obama has "finally learned his lesson, you can't compromise with these guys"...
I just think it's a matter of Obama telling the Krauthammers of the world, "Hey, guess what... as you've been pointing out - I'm not a conservative."
Like I said above - the GOP should have been careful what it was asking for over the last month when they kept saying "Obama needs to 'lead'" -- well, now he's leading... did they really expect he would "lead" where they wanted to be led?
the president has maybe six months to get things moving before 2014 starts getting in the way
good luck to him
These sort of statements are silly. Obama has declared war on conservatives by trying to pass the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan and refusing to allow any of the Bush administration who tortured people to stand trial.
***
I guess I don't get the chatter about the inaugural. I thought it was a pretty decent speech. I liked the point about takers/vs. taking risks, because I think that's a good argument and the structure was articulated well.
i will stop posting about the inauguration if it's bothersome
i have to rest after seeing the doc all morning so was working to pass the time
I don't mind you posting opinions on the inaugural. I agree that the stuff about Lincoln was silly. I mind the rhetoric that implied that Obama had somehow declared war on conservatives. If you're going to make a statement like that, you could at least back it up with an argument rather than a flat assertion. I think it's sort of overblown, but whatevs.
(side note: I realized that your statement could also be taken as a joke at Krauthammer's expense, if so, I apologize for misunderstanding.)
you need to relax sport. i was just sharing a remark by a fox commentator and you want some long andy like screed
Thing is, though -- he's a bit differently situated than past President.
That is to say - his electoral strength comes more so than almost any other Democrat from urban strongholds. All those are already solid D seats.
I suspect he doesn't have Clinton's suburban strength...
2014 will 'get in the way' for Congress -- but it's clear to me that Obama will really have much of a role.
I suspect a lot depends on whether his approval stays in the mid-50s (or goes higher or lower) - and that, I think will be wholly a function of the economy. If 2013 improves upon 2012, then I suspect higher. If 2013 looks more like 2011, then lower. If 2013 is basically 2012, I think he probably stays about where he is.
They would easily find a way to claim this is a head fake.
"Obama declared war on conservatives" is a stupid statement, so I referred to it as one.
I think Charles forgot who fired on Fort Sumter.
Only relevant question. Are Neanderthal women hot?
Church also says it can't be just one. There should be a "cohort." It might even develop into a race of them.
I say no, because 1)I don't find prominent brows attractive, and 2) I imagine getting stomped on by their war mammoths will hurt.
We're in agreement here, with the caveat that I am in no way whatsoever surprised that entrenched power in the world will respond with asymmetrical force to protect and extend their power in the world, even when the power at hand seems petty and secondary at best to outside observers.
As for that "war on conservatives" BS, today's "conservatives"** simply live to be offended by anything and everything that Obama does, and there's absolutely nothing he can say or do that will ever get them off his back. It's probably going to take at least 12 more years out of the White House for them to get the message.
**the Harveys of the conservative world excluded
You can make a decent argument that a portion of modern humans mated with with some Neanderthals and basically 'bred' them out. Inter-species reproduction isn't unheard of. No reason to think modern humans are above it.
Acknowledged. But I'd phrase that more harshly than you. Most "activists" in the world are dillitentes and trust fund babies playing at class resentment while mommy and daddy foot the bills from the bougie suburbs.
If a republican like Christie or even Jindal gets elected in 2016, I can very much see this current strain of conservative become even more frustrated since I get the sense that people who define themselves as 'Tea Partiers' and the like aren't looking to get answers and services from a well running and efficient government. They're just looking to starve the beast, and and whatever faults Christie or Jindal have, they realize that there's a role for Government and whatever 'intrusions' that might entail.
You'd probably want to avoid either, though admittedly you could blend and pretend better in the Caucus regions.
And the perfect examples you can point to as presaging your predication are Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, and Al Gore.
1857:
That's true. And not only has genetics confirmed it, but so do certain political types every ####### day.
I strongly expect Obama to embrace more of a standard liberal agenda in the second term, rather than working as a Bush I clone in the first. Knowing you're never going to have to run for another office again in your life is liberating.
Have you been keeping up with what Jindal has been doing?
Boy, there are more trust fund babies than I thought.
While I share your sentiment and your reasoning, Obama is a very long-run thinker. If he does shift to the left this term, there are two big possibilities:
a) He completes his turn as the Reagan of the left, moving the national discourse towards politics more like his own (I think this is what is happening right now.) This is doubly true if the economic recovery continues/happens on course over the next few years.
b) The economy fails to recover, Obama's agenda is largely unfinished, and his second term is remembered like George W. Bush's: a failed attempt at governing closer to the party base rather than the national center.
EDIT: Post 1865! How very Lincoln!
Even trying to promote creationism is a sign of wanting government in our lives. =P Considering that Ray Negin just got indicted for corruption last week, I'd take a little crazy and fully honest than another in a long line of crooks that pretend to speak my 'language'.
But then again, I voted for the Arnold in the recall and in 2006. A big part of that was anger at Grey Davis for incompetence, and in 2006 they ran a weak challenger.
Medicaid rejection?
Charity hospital closings?
Vouchers for private/parochial schools?
Support for Creationism, generally and in public schools.
Retrogressive tax plans?
No more Medicaid funded end-of-life hospice care?
Although, from my perspective, that might be good if he runs as the presidential nominee.
This is his current political tightrope, nicely summarized. The hue and cry from the right wings today, and in general, is little more than petulant whining about the fact that they're losing the long game. It's pretty much identical to the left during Reagan's tenure.
Okay, fair enough. I should have said "in America" rather than "in the world."
They apparently want many things. And when they have to bleed for them, they piss themselves and run away.
With less snark: Swartz, an activist with depression issues, killed himself in the face of a prison sentence. That in no way disqualifies the actions or motives of other activists in the movement.
Which part of "clinically depressed" are you not getting?
He had been having suicidal thoughts for a long, long time, and would've still had them even if he hadn't been an activist.
Meh. Have a drink, get laid and move the #### on, Potsie.
1. I haven't questioned or attempted to disqualify his actions or even his motives. I've questioned his dedication to the cause.
2. If Swartz killed himself because he was depressive, then there's a lot of piling on of blame against the (admittedly over the top) prosecutors that needs to be rescinded. If he was destined to off himself, then the prosecutors are not to blame for his death.
Spoken like a man who knows absolutely ####### nothing about depression.
Watch this, for starters.
That may be the most perfect tar baby post of all time. It has nothing to do with reality, but then that wasn't its intent.
The trial was an environmental stress aggravating a pre-existing condition, like taking a guy with bad lungs and locking him in a building full of asbestos. As such, they're still morally culpable.
Then everyone is culpable of anything. Lock up sodas.
if so then the number of people in the world with clean hands in life by your standards is about 3
Seriously, watch the list I posted in #1875. You're being just as embarrassingly clueless on this as Joe is on, well, basically everything.
Harvey, I'm not talking about them forgetting to put the pickles on his hamburger and giving him a sad for five minutes. They were trying to unfairly throw him in jail for the majority of his adult life. It's like deliberately forcing an alcoholic to drink.
no they were not. they were pushing him to admit culpability and then a plea bargain would have been agreed to. if his lawyer didn't explain that to him and his family his lawyer should be disbarred.
i agree that the prosecutors were likely overzealous. but they were working to get a conviction, not put the guy behind bars forever.
Which would be perfectly fine except, again, clinical depression. People with that condition are simply not capable of being rational about environmental stressors. No matter how carefully or exhaustively you explain, they aren't going to believe it.
Like Sam, I would recommend that you watch the link in #1875.
it's a broadly worded law but by any measure the guy broke it. and knew it.
it was if he was surprised that anyone would hold him accountable for publicly spitting in the face of the law.
and i am well aware of depressioon. it is a longstanding malady amongst the wallbangers.
and i do not write that in flip manner. dead serious
A nice night out with a happy ending doesn't fix clinical depression.
"Unfairly" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. The prosecutors of the law, as hired by the state, were leveraging the law of the state to protect and preserve the status quo process of the state, against someone who intentionally broke the law of the state.
If you want to have a conversation about how amoral it is to have a state apparatus set up where this sort of leverage playing games is part and parcel to the "justice system" I'll be your best friend. But if you want to claim "unfair" action? I'm not so sure.
The calls against the Falcons in the 4th quarter yesterday were stupid and wrong. They were by the rule book, more or less, but taht simply points out the stupidity inherent in the rule book. This is similar. Swartz broke the law. The law then came down upon him with a self righteous fury that was almost certainly stupid and wrong, but well within the legal playbook of the United States of America's "justice system."
Swartz should have known the risks going in. If you want to be internet martyr, suck it up and take the body blows.
the law can show some consideration but it cannot just ignore enforcing the law.
and i have read all the literature. thanks.
what you are asking is that the law provide a long-term backdoor for anyone seeking to avoid punishment.
the public won't support that nor should it
Well then, we should probably not prosecute any crimes against anyone making the pouty face then.
Pfffft ... RINO.
Depression is a condition with a biological basis, and telling a person with clinical depression to "snap out of it" is like telling a diabetic to "snap out" of needing insulin.
You are trying to understand depression by comparing it to personal experiences with brief sadness that are not at all similar to the actual condition, but your lack of knowledge and appropriate context is preventing you from understanding this.
No, I am saying that if you intend to try and get someone to go to prison for six months, you shouldn't threaten them with a sentence of 30 years. That's grossly inappropriate. Particularly if you know that you're dealing with a person with clinical depression who as a result of that condition is not going to be capable of understanding the "message" that you are trying to send by overfiling in the first place.
So what's the net net here? If they're depressed, they can't be tried for crimes they commit? Is depression now a debilitating condition that removes culpability for actions in the world?
The perfect does not have to be the enemy of the good. "If you're not willing to spend decades in jail, we don't want you" is not a slogan that will attract many followers.
I'm not sure why you responded to #1869 with "they"-- I was trying to dispel the notion that activists like Swartz are wannabe anarchists. On the previous page, you said:
This is not the online incarnation of the Black Bloc; a lot of people in these groups are on the wonkish side in their advocacy of specific policies, rather than wanting an information system that is without structure. You've very inaccurately caricatured the group you're making claims about here. A lot of these guys are programmers-- and programming depends on having a rule-bound structure to adhere to.
The DA process there is: plea to six months or we'll charge you with the full docket, which carries 30 years. It's an attempt to save the state the fiscal cost of a trial by leveraging the evidence and probability of conviction into a small sentence for the accused.
Swartz refused the plea, which left him in line to go to trial, where he was likely to be found guilty and be sentenced to 2-5 years for his crimes. If Swartz couldn't afford to lose the pot and serve 2-5 years, he should have plead out. If Swartz was incapable of making a rational decision about pleading out, his counsel should have either convinced him or motioned for incompetence.
If they're clinically depressed, you shouldn't threaten them with sixty times as much jail time as you actually intend for them to serve, because they're pretty much axiomatically going to take it the wrong way, and it might be enough to make them kill themselves.
Go back and read that again. Do you have any idea how ####### stupid that sounds?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main