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

Tuesday, July 01, 2014

OTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game

As Time magazine recently reported, Republicans, frustrated by their 22-0 loss in last year’s game, sought a new coach to shake things up on the field this year. Some members even appealed to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to fire the coach, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas). But Boehner said he wasn’t powerful enough to control the baseball diamond, and Barton refused to walk away after spending 28 years with the game. Instead, he brought on Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas), a former professional baseball player and coach at Texas Christian University, to coach while he stayed on as the team’s manager.

In the face of Wednesday’s loss, according to The Washington Post, Republicans are once again asking Boehner to remove Barton from the game. But with multiple pitchers giving up walk after walk, it seems that what the Republicans really need is a pitcher who can better match Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), who previously pitched on Morehouse College’s varsity baseball team.

Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2014 at 07:53 AM | 4025 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics, winning is fun

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 14 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >  Last ›
   1301. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 09, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4747142)
see any conflict between this and your answer in # 1266?

None. There is a difference between direct killing, and taking risks that may end up with deaths.

In the "Trolley example" you are not trying to save eveybody, you are deliberately killing one to save the rest.

The hypothetical pilot isn't directly killing anyone. He's trying to land his plane. He should look for the least occupied piece of straight road, but if somebody happens to die, that's not the direct intended result of his action.

It's the same reason why an induced early labor/or early c-section (with every effort to save the child), isn't the same as an abortion.
   1302. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 09, 2014 at 03:16 PM (#4747144)
By writing this, I meant (mean) to say that if you watch AJA telecasts, you'll be far better informed of the background and the totality of events

Oh don't get me wrong, I find Al Jazeera to be very valuable, but then I also find Fox News to be valuable on occasion- but if either is your SOLE source of information- you are not going to be getting an unbiased and objective view on things.


That's exactly my sentiment, though I can think of better ways to keep up with right wing talking points than by tuning into Fox News. It's not as if those viewpoints are exactly buried elsewhere. (smile)

And if you've read my commentary on this thread and similar threads, you'll hardly find much anti-Israel bias on my part, only a feeling that we're watching a genuine human tragedy in the Mideast, and not a rerun of U.S. v. Hitler.
   1303. zonk Posted: July 09, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4747146)

If one follows the logic through (Yeah, I know, Sarah Palin, but) — it would seem that the Republican right would expressly prefer a situation of full employment. That would lead to strong unions and higher standards of living ("sustainable jobs") for lower-skilled workers. I am glad to see the right coming around on this issue after decades of trashing labor and bemoaning the leverage exerted by unions.


I don't think the right's base was ever any more divorced from this idea than the left's base...

I mean, however you want to slice and dice demographics -- the simple fact is that most Democratic voters are not rich and plenty have significant financial concerns (be it buying/keeping a house, paying for college for kids, retiring, etc) and the same is also true of most Republican voters.

BOTH parties tell voters they want to provide the same thing -- the divide is that the Democratic path is paved with beefing up collective bargaining capabilities, strengthening various support programs (be it college or late career education funding, unemployment support, safety nets, et al) while the Republican path has been paved with the same sauce since Reagan -- get government out of the way and growth/financial security will blossom...

Personally, I think that regardless of what you think about NAFTA from a class-neutral policy perspective (and I'm probably and always was lukewarm pro - if only because globalization is inevitable and a long-term good thing for humanity in general) - this really still hurts the Democrats 20 years later. I'm betting there are plenty of 40/50/60 yos that haven't forgotten that when they hear Democrats talk about sticking it to companies that offshore jobs, etc.
   1304. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 09, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4747150)
More Democrats distancing themselves from Obama - Texas Dem: Obama Actions 'Bizarre':
Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar isn’t happy about President Barack Obama’s night out in Colorado. The Texas congressman, whose district sits along the U.S.-Mexico border, said the president’s decision not to visit the border this week while he still found time to drink beer and play pool in Denver was “bizarre.”
. . .
After an economic speech in Colorado Wednesday, Obama will travel to Texas primarily to attend several Democratic fundraisers. His trip to the Lone Star State has received heavy scrutiny due to his decision not to tour the U.S.-Mexico border, which has experienced a major influx in undocumented children trying to enter the country. While in Texas, the president plans to meet with Republican Gov. Rick Perry and community leaders to discuss the situation.

Cuellar has recently stepped up his criticism of the Obama administration for being “one step behind” on the border crisis and earlier this week said he hoped the president’s refusal would not become his “Katrina moment,” a reference to then-President George W. Bush’s widely criticized response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. . . . Cuellar also called into question the president’s meeting with local leaders. “When he talks about meeting with local leaders, last night I got some calls, saying, ‘Who are those local leaders?’ They’re certainly not the local leaders from the border,” he said.

Maybe not enforcing the immigration laws isn't the political winner Obama thought.

   1305. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 09, 2014 at 03:29 PM (#4747163)
I have no doubt that if the Palestinians & their allies somehow got the upper hand militarily, and were able to create their long sought state from "the river to the sea", with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Israeli casualties, Bitter Mouse would again tell us how unfortunate it is that both sides didn't listen to his suggestions.


Snort. Giggle. Yes, exactly. If something horrible and extremely unlikely happens I am sure it will be my fault, or at least I am certain to say something which offends you.

What a giant pile of horsehockey. How about you address what I am saying now versus some bizarre future world where the voices in your head channel what I might say?

And yes Andy I love how it is Cuba attacking the US, because we are totally pure and innocent where Cuba is concerned. Next we will hear about how if the Vietnamese attacked the US (Hawaii perhaps) without provocation, what then! Well!?!
   1306. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 09, 2014 at 03:42 PM (#4747180)
And yes Andy I love how it is Cuba attacking the US, because we are totally pure and innocent where Cuba is concerned.

Yeah, it's been all downhill since this and this, hasn't it?
   1307. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 09, 2014 at 03:56 PM (#4747192)
. . . Andy I love how it is Cuba attacking the US, . . .

Looks like you and Andy are going to some lengths to avoid addressing how the U.S. would respond to a hypothetical missile attack on its territory. The question doesn't really have anything to do with Cuba, make it Mexico, Canada, or Haiti, if you like. Bottom line is that no country would have a non-response policy to such an attack like some here suggest Israel should adopt.
   1308. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:10 PM (#4747216)
. . . Andy I love how it is Cuba attacking the US, . . .


Looks like you and Andy are going to some lengths to avoid addressing how the U.S. would respond to a hypothetical missile attack on its territory. The question doesn't really have anything to do with Cuba, make it Mexico, Canada, or Haiti, if you like. Bottom line is that no country would have a non-response policy to such an attack like some here suggest Israel should adopt.

Sorry, but "some here" doesn't include me, unless you're talking about the suggestion of killing 50,000 Palestinians in order to achieve some utterly hypothetical lasting "peace". I've certainly not condemned Israel's current retaliation for the Hamas attacks, nor would I.

As for Cuba and the U.S., where would Castro be getting his missiles from these days? North Korea? Freedom Group The Obamacare Death Panels?
   1309. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:11 PM (#4747221)
How far are some Democrats going to distance themselves from Obama? Udall Skipping Obama Fundraiser For His Own Campaign:
President Barack Obama on Wednesday will headline his first fundraiser for a Senate Democrat in danger of losing this fall - but the candidate, Colorado Sen. Mark Udall, won't be by his side. In a last minute switch, Udall's campaign said the senator planned to stay in Washington to vote on Obama's nominee to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development, who was confirmed by a wide margin. The decision is likely to spark new questions about the political risks for vulnerable Democrats in being linked with an increasingly unpopular president.
. . .
Udall had already been planning to limit his appearances with the president. The fundraiser is off limits to news cameras. And Udall's campaign announced earlier in the week that the senator would not attend the president's economic speech in Denver Wednesday morning, ensuring that there would be no photos of the two men together. . . . Before Wednesday's schedule shake-up, Udall consultant Mike Stratton had said the campaign saw no reason to avoid a fundraiser with Obama.
. . .
A recent Quinnipiac University Poll put Obama's approval rating in Colorado at a measly 38 percent.

This seems more telling than any poll. Afraid to be seen with Obama. In Colorado, even.
   1310. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:20 PM (#4747233)
Looks like you and Andy are going to some lengths to avoid addressing how the U.S. would respond to a hypothetical missile attack on its territory.


9/11

I think the problem with the Cuban missile hypothetical is that it's basically coming out of the blue.... in needs to be fleshed out a bit


Let's say one Party hold the WH and The Senate but the House is deadlocked 217-217 because one hold out a Florida rep (of Cuban descent) tells the President and party leaders, "You want my vote? You want to finally end gridlock in DC? You have to give me what I want, I want the screws put to the Castro regime, forget the sanctions, I want that Island blockaded, I want a no fly zone so Brothers to the Rescue can drop leaflets without being shot down."

So we do that, and we randomly accuse Cuban UN consulate workers of espionage and kick them out of the country. Cuba complains to the UN, the General Assembly vote against is, we veto the Security Counsel Resolution... nothing happens...

We demand that property seized from US businesses and citizens in 1960 be returned,,,

then they lob a missile at Miami.
   1311. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:22 PM (#4747239)
The hypothetical pilot isn't directly killing anyone. He's trying to land his plane. He should look for the least occupied piece of straight road, but if somebody happens to die, that's not the direct intended result of his action.

I'm not sure if I'm buying this. Unless the pilot sees a mile or two of empty road, he knows he's going to be killing people on the ground, and events that can be foreseen can't be said to be unintended. The above just seems like the Trolley Problem but with more personal urgency on the part of the pilot.

(I don't have a problem with flipping the switch in the Trolley Problem or with this hypothetical pilot trying to land his plane in a way that results in the maximum number of combined survivors on the air and on the ground.)
   1312. JE (Jason) Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:26 PM (#4747249)
Maybe not enforcing the immigration laws isn't the political winner Obama thought.

Clapper, it's also worth noting that Cuellar is usually a reliable Obama ally. Having him wonder out loud if what's happening at the border today is Obama's "Katrina Moment" isn't exactly what the White House wants cable networks to broadcast to their viewers.
   1313. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:31 PM (#4747263)
Every time I check, Gaza's southern border is with Egypt, not Israel.

EDIT: Coke Zero to Krusty.


Are you suggesting that Egypt is enforcing the sea blockade, as well as the blockade through Israeli territory as well? Yes, they blockade their border as well. What the hell does that have to do with whether or not Israel also blockades the strip? "Sorry officers, while I knocked him down and took his wallet, that guy over there kicked him after I had left, so he's really the one to blame?"

Gaza is blockaded. This is a pure, unadulterated fact of the world. The blockade is enforced by Israel and Egypt, where Israel enforces the primary blockade via the sea. (I'll take new information if Egypt is patrolling the Medi as well, but we know for a fact Israel is.) Al-Jazeera running a story about life inside the blockaded strip is in no way whatsoever "bias." It's just reportage of the facts of the world.
   1314. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:34 PM (#4747269)
Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar...


...is from Texas.
   1315. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:34 PM (#4747271)
Speaking of immigration, really good article at 538.

Not really.

But while the rhetoric has stayed largely the same, immigration hasn’t. The immigration debate, now as then, focuses primarily on illegal immigration from Latin America. Yet most new immigrants aren’t Latinos. Most Latinos aren’t immigrants.

And? What does the latter two sentences have to do with anything? Immigration hawks have been clear that they want less legal low-skilled immigration and zero illegal immigration, regardless of national origin. Politics being the art of the possible, it makes no sense for the GOP to make noise about chain migration when Obama is refusing to seal the border against illegal immigration.

And, based on the best available evidence, there are fewer undocumented immigrants in the U.S. today than there were in 2007. Even the latest immigration crisis — a sudden influx of unaccompanied minors, for which President Barack Obama requested $4 billion in emergency funding to address on Tuesday — represents a break from past patterns: The children are from Central America, not Mexico, and are primarily escaping violence in their home countries, rather than seeking jobs in the U.S.

In other words, the number of undocumented immigrants remains high, but illegal immigration — the number of new undocumented workers entering the country each year — has fallen close to zero. On a net basis — people entering minus those leaving or being deported — illegal immigration was probably negative between 2007 and 2012.

"Probably" negative, despite the U.S. economy cratering and remaining in the ditch for well over 5 years. Color me unpersuaded that illegal immigration is no longer a problem.
   1316. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:35 PM (#4747273)
Looks like you and Andy are going to some lengths to avoid addressing how the U.S. would respond to a hypothetical missile attack on its territory.


If history is any guide we should assume "by invading Iraq."
   1317. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:38 PM (#4747283)
Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar...


...is from Texas.

Facts ... still stubborn.
   1318. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:38 PM (#4747286)
Having him wonder out loud if what's happening at the border today is Obama's "Katrina Moment" isn't exactly what the White House wants cable networks to broadcast to their viewers.


A Bush era law that says minors not from Mexico or Canada can't be sent directly home, combined with violence and disarray in Central and South American countries, has created a flood of non-Mexican minors at the border, and the admin is legally bound to not send them home, per said Bush era law, barring some sort of change of immigration law (i.e. "immigration reform")? That's an unintended consequence of that law, I suppose, and of course of the violence in Central America.

The fact that the retards on the right are blaming Obama for this (while the House refuses, of course, to address immigration reform because of freedom and stuff) is not surprising at all. Teapers are morons, at the heart of the matter.
   1319. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:40 PM (#4747291)
Facts ... still stubborn.


Joe, buddy, you wouldn't know a fact if I beat you to death with one in a dark alley. I might have to use an attack sidewalk too.
   1320. JE (Jason) Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:41 PM (#4747294)
Gaza is blockaded. This is a pure, unadulterated fact of the world. The blockade is enforced by Israel and Egypt, where Israel enforces the primary blockade via the sea. (I'll take new information if Egypt is patrolling the Medi as well, but we know for a fact Israel is.) Al-Jazeera running a story about life inside the blockaded strip is in no way whatsoever "bias." It's just reportage of the facts of the world.

My point was simple: If neither you nor the Emir are willing to mention both Israel and Egypt when bringing up a Gaza blockade, then it's best not to say anything.
   1321. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:43 PM (#4747299)
Joe, buddy, you wouldn't know a fact if I beat you to death with one in a dark alley. I might have to use an attack sidewalk too.

Yes, Sam, the guy who voted with Pelosi 87 percent of the time is a big Texas right-winger. You're right.

***
A Bush era law that says minors not from Mexico or Canada can't be sent directly home, combined with violence and disarray in Central and South American countries, has created a flood of non-Mexican minors at the border, and the admin is legally bound to not send them home, per said Bush era law, barring some sort of change of immigration law (i.e. "immigration reform")? That's an unintended consequence of that law, I suppose, and of course of the violence in Central America.

Wow, Obama finally found a law he believes he's bound to uphold to the letter? Shocking stuff.
   1322. Lassus Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4747307)
The facts in the 538 immigration article were not as stubborn as the facts of their election forecasts, I suppose?
   1323. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:48 PM (#4747308)
The facts in the 538 immigration article were not as stubborn as their election forecasts, I suppose?

Sadly for the lefties at 538, no.
   1324. JE (Jason) Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:50 PM (#4747313)
Yes, Sam, the guy who voted with Pelosi 87 percent of the time is a big Texas right-winger. You're right.

Applying Sam's standard, Sheila Jackson-Lee and Ted Cruz look alike.
   1325. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 09, 2014 at 04:55 PM (#4747318)
Wow, Obama finally found a law he believes he's bound to uphold to the letter? Shocking stuff.


You're adorable, fuctard. Obama uses executive authority to attempt to manage the nation's business despite a do-nothing Congress? IMPEACH HIM! Obama follows the law on the border? IMPEACH HIM!! You nutfuckers are consistent, I'll give you that.
   1326. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 09, 2014 at 05:01 PM (#4747331)
Obama uses executive authority to attempt to manage the nation's business despite a do-nothing Congress?

Under our system of checks & balances, Congress is not supposed to be a rubber stamp for the President. When Congress balks at Presidential initiatives or uses its power of the purse in ways different than the President suggests, it is doing its duty as provided for in the Constitution. That doesn't increase the Executive Branch's power to act in the absence of Congress. Funny how no one here ever makes that argument when there is a GOP President.
   1327. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: July 09, 2014 at 05:02 PM (#4747332)

Applying Sam's standard, Sheila Jackson-Lee and Ted Cruz look alike.


In fairness, he's to the left of Pol Pot.
   1328. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 09, 2014 at 05:05 PM (#4747342)
   1329. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 09, 2014 at 05:12 PM (#4747349)
Funny how no one here ever makes that argument when there is a GOP President.


I realize you actually eat your own dogfood, but this is utter bullshit. Obama is far below the level of the last few GOP presidents on using executive authority (i.e. orders) to move forward where roadblocks exist.
   1330. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 09, 2014 at 05:13 PM (#4747352)
In fairness, he's to the left of Pol Pot.


I'm willing to foot the bill for your holiday in Cambodia, Danny. Don't forget to pack a wife.
   1331. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 09, 2014 at 05:44 PM (#4747399)
In fairness, he's to the left of Pol Pot.

I'm willing to foot the bill for your holiday in Cambodia, Danny. Don't forget to pack a wife.


Tsk Tsk Tsk and you two used to be such good internet friends...
   1332. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 09, 2014 at 06:28 PM (#4747445)
Tsk Tsk Tsk and you two used to be such good internet friends...


Did you know that Dan once crashed at my apartment. We drove up to a Rome Braves game together. This was before ##### went nuts, of course.
   1333. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 09, 2014 at 06:46 PM (#4747482)
A Bush era law that says minors not from Mexico or Canada can't be sent directly home, combined with violence and disarray in Central and South American countries, has created a flood of non-Mexican minors at the border, and the admin is legally bound to not send them home, per said Bush era law, barring some sort of change of immigration law (i.e. "immigration reform")? That's an unintended consequence of that law, I suppose, and of course of the violence in Central America.

The usual Democrat talking point - Blame Bush - is particularly weak on this issue. The law in question deals with human trafficking and even Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein has said the claim doesn't hold water. Democrats own the immigration crisis. They have spent more than a decade advocating for looser immigration laws and numerous benefits for illegal aliens, including fewer work restrictions, drivers licenses, in-state tuition rates, and reduced enforcement and deportation. Obama himself bragged about acting unilaterally to dramatically reduce deportations. He's not going to be able to walk away from that, or blame "violence in Central America" - a ridiculous claim. Anyone fleeing such violence would have a much shorter and easier journey to perfectly stable countries elsewhere in Central or Latin America. These folks are coming to the United States for the same reasons other illegal immigrants do. You always get more of what you incentivize, and voters almost certainly will hold Obama responsible for doing that.
   1334. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 09, 2014 at 06:54 PM (#4747504)
I am shocked Clapper is a willful toady of whatever spin he thinks will benefit the GOP. Shocked.
   1335. greenback calls it soccer Posted: July 09, 2014 at 06:57 PM (#4747508)
Obama himself bragged about acting unilaterally to dramatically reduce deportations.

Yeah, but he's a liar, right? He's deported two million people.
   1336. BDC Posted: July 09, 2014 at 07:07 PM (#4747521)
zonk, your elaboration in #1303 is very interesting. Republican & Democratic rhetorics both privilege workers. But I do think that Republicans see a job as something you get out of college, work for a while, start your own business as a result of, sell out, and retire at 45 to go sailing in the Caribbean. Democrats see a job as something you get out of high school or community college, work your whole life, retire at 65 (67, 69, 70, depending on when your Social Security finally kicks in in), draw your pension, and go on bus tours to Branson.

This may be purely a class distinction (the eventual income differences may not be all that huge), but I think it's a significant difference in vision, and hence in policy.
   1337. Lassus Posted: July 09, 2014 at 07:14 PM (#4747524)
I'm willing to foot the bill for your holiday in Cambodia, Danny.

That is seriously not a punishment. Cambodia is gorgeous, and it's right next to Vietnam, which is even better.


Obama Down To 41.1% Approval In The RCP Presidential Job Approval Poll Average. Under 40% by Election Day? Sooner?

I'm willing at this point to impeach Obama solely to get the right to stop talking about him. I suppose that's a victory of sorts.

Although as I write this, I know that's a total pipe dream. Obama's going to be a metaphorically beaten with hockey sticks from now until the heat death of the universe by the Clappers of the world. He is going to be fueling political hate-####### for lifetimes.
   1338. BDC Posted: July 09, 2014 at 07:31 PM (#4747539)
Oddly, or not so oddly, enough, I don't think there's been any particular change in Obama's effectiveness or even his luck since his relatively successful first term. (And by "relatively successful" I mean "handily re-elected" :)

I do think that lameduck Presidents under the 22nd Amendment lose control of the news cycle. The half of the media that isn't obsessed with the next campaign is circling for blood in the water because they know the Chief won't get re-elected.
   1339. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: July 09, 2014 at 08:25 PM (#4747583)
Airforce and Navy pilots are trained to try to steer/redirect their planes before ejecting,


No they aren't. You're taking too many cues from Hollywood.
   1340. Howie Menckel Posted: July 09, 2014 at 09:48 PM (#4747633)
"A Bush era law that says minors not from Mexico or Canada can't be sent directly home, combined with violence and disarray in Central and South American countries, has created a flood of non-Mexican minors at the border,"

the right-wing radio talking point is that it's really a 2000 Clinton law and not a 2002 Bush law that is in force here. I have no idea if that's accurate, but the track record for talking points from either side is - not good.
   1341. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 09, 2014 at 10:21 PM (#4747647)
Of course they are.

H.R. 7311 (110th): William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008

It was an appropriations bill to continue and fund the law from 2000. It passed bipartisan in 2008 as the name would imply.
   1342. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 09, 2014 at 10:43 PM (#4747654)
H.R. 7311 (110th): William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008

Notice that Sam repeats the silly talking point without providing any analysis, or even linking to the statute in question? That tells you all you need to know.

Kind of funny, too, that it took 6 years to discover that 2008 trafficking law opened the border to all comers. That's not going to fly. The 2008 law protects "victims of trafficking" which these illegal aliens clearly are not. Maybe we should listen to the one of the Democratic Senators who drafted the law:
Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who helped write the measure, said the White House does not need new power to act. “That law already provides the administration with flexibility to accelerate the judicial process in times of crisis,” she said. “The administration should use that flexibility to speed up the system while still treating these children humanely, with compassion and respect.”

This is a crisis of Obama's own making. Amazing how unwilling he is to take responsibility for what happens on his watch.
   1343. greenback calls it soccer Posted: July 09, 2014 at 11:31 PM (#4747664)
Kind of funny, too, that it took 6 years to discover that 2008 trafficking law opened the border to all comers.

LOL. Two million deportees and the border is open to all comers.
   1344. Lassus Posted: July 09, 2014 at 11:34 PM (#4747666)
Kind of funny, too, that it took 6 years to discover that 2008 trafficking law opened the border to all comers.

Clapper, do you feel 538's analysis on the previous page is simply all lies?
   1345. tshipman Posted: July 10, 2014 at 12:37 AM (#4747680)
This is a crisis of Obama's own making.


I did not know that Obama controlled gangs in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. You learn something new every day.
   1346. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 10, 2014 at 12:38 AM (#4747682)
#1344: Clapper, do you feel 538's analysis on the previous page is simply all lies?

#1343: Two million deportees and the border is open to all comers.


I wouldn't necessarily sign-on to all the guesstimates & speculation, but I don't have any particular problem with the article. Nothing in it contradicts what I have said. Neither does the fact that a lot of people were rightfully deported earlier in the Obama Administration. Obama quite openly changed the Administration's approach. Don't you folks listen to what he says?
   1347. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 10, 2014 at 12:43 AM (#4747683)
I did not know that Obama controlled gangs in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. You learn something new every day.

Weak sauce. Anyone fleeing violence in Central America has options that are closer and safer than going to the US. These illegal aliens are coming to the US for same reasons others do - economic opportunity. Claims to the contrary are being created out of thin air.
   1348. tshipman Posted: July 10, 2014 at 12:44 AM (#4747684)
Weak sauce. Anyone fleeing violence in Central America has options that are closer and safer than going to the US. These illegal aliens are coming to the US for same reasons others do. Economic opportunity. Claims to the contrary are being created out of thin air.


Like, do you really believe that? I mean, are you for serious?
   1349. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 10, 2014 at 01:01 AM (#4747694)
Like, do you really believe that? I mean, are you for serious?

The idea that 9-year-olds are fleeing gang violence is comical. They're being smuggled north to rejoin their illegal-immigrant parents, as a direct result of Obama's DACA program.

Per news reports, the going rate for being smuggled from Central America into the U.S. is $5,000 to $10,000. Given that the per capita income in Honduras and El Salvador is only ~$4,000, that's more than enough money to move to a different area of Honduras or El Salvador, if they're indeed "fleeing violence."
   1350. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 10, 2014 at 01:07 AM (#4747695)
Like, do you really believe that? I mean, are you for serious?

Please. Nothing much has changed in Central America lately. These asylum claims claims are being fabricated by people who are being released on their promise to appear at their immigration hearing, and less than 20% show up at that hearing. How gullible are you? They are gaming the system.
   1351. tshipman Posted: July 10, 2014 at 01:11 AM (#4747698)

The idea that 9-year-olds are fleeing gang violence is comical. They're being smuggled north to rejoin their illegal-immigrant parents, as a direct result of Obama's DACA program.

Per news reports, the going rate for being smuggled from Central America into the U.S. is $5,000 to $10,000. Given that the per capita income in Honduras and El Salvador is only ~$4,000, that's more than enough money to move to a different area of Honduras or El Salvador, if they're indeed "fleeing violence."


Please. Nothing much has changed in Central America lately. These asylum claims claims are being fabricated by people who are being released on their promise to appear at their immigration hearing, and less than 20% show up at that hearing. How gullible are you? They are gaming the system.


Okay, so epistemic closure is complete. There's absolutely no point in my discussing this further with you because you obviously don't care about things like facts or logic.

GRARRR!! FUURRRINERS BAAAAD! RAWWWWR!
   1352. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 10, 2014 at 01:22 AM (#4747705)

LOL. If you're worried about facts, maybe you should consider the fact that violence has actually been decreasing in various Central American countries. This is a mess of Obama's creating, not an exodus caused by a sudden spike in violence.

On Sunday, Guatemala's ambassador scoffed at the idea that violence is causing the surge of unaccompanied minors.
   1353. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 10, 2014 at 01:26 AM (#4747706)
Not seeing any facts or logic from tshipman in #1351, just a hissy fit because his unsupported assertions have been challenged.
   1354. greenback calls it soccer Posted: July 10, 2014 at 01:27 AM (#4747707)
Obama quite openly changed the Administration's approach. Don't you folks listen to what he says?

Yes, he wants $4 billion to secure the border.

Seriously, you are hanging your hat on a couple of speeches? You are that gullible?
   1355. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 10, 2014 at 01:30 AM (#4747709)

I distinctly remember Obama laughing at Romney's claim that the border was insecure, with Obama claiming the border was "more secure than ever." To me, "more secure than ever" implies that 10-year-olds can't walk into the U.S. illegally. Was Obama wrong, or was Obama lying?
   1356. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 10, 2014 at 01:31 AM (#4747710)
Yes, he wants $4 billion to secure the border.

Uh, no. Obama wants half of that money to go for "resettlement", with very little going to enforcement. Not likely to happen.
   1357. BrianBrianson Posted: July 10, 2014 at 04:37 AM (#4747726)
To me, "more secure than ever" implies that 10-year-olds can't walk into the U.S. illegally.


Why? Historically, entering the US illegally has been easier than pissing in the shower. I know at least two people who've done it by accident (I meant entering the US, but I assume pissed in the shower as well)
   1358. formerly dp Posted: July 10, 2014 at 06:58 AM (#4747731)
Okay, so epistemic closure is complete.
This is the problem with trying to engage with raving partisans like Clapper. Ideology will not let them confront the situation as it is. They're not interested in addressing problems, they just want to #### on Obama. It's a childish way to approach the world, but this is the Republican party as it exists today.
Not seeing any facts or logic from tshipman in #1351, just a hissy fit because his unsupported assertions have been challenged.
You can confirm the reports of escalating violence in Honduras really easily if you actually want to have a fact-based discussion. But as usual, you'd rather point-score and flaunt your fealty...
   1359. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 10, 2014 at 07:19 AM (#4747734)
Historically, entering the US illegally has been easier than pissing in the shower. I know at least two people who've done it by accident (I meant entering the US, but I assume pissed in the shower as well)

During the days leading up to the Cambodian invasion of 1970, a friend of mine's platoon was stationed just inside the Vietnamese/Cambodian border in preparation for the assault. On the day of the invasion, they were all given "new" maps of the area that showed that they had really been in Cambodia all along. I know that's not really germane to the U.S./Mexican border, but it does show that borders aren't always as rigidly defined as we might imagine.
   1360. JE (Jason) Posted: July 10, 2014 at 07:31 AM (#4747735)
   1361. Lassus Posted: July 10, 2014 at 07:38 AM (#4747737)
I wouldn't necessarily sign-on to all the guesstimates & speculation, but I don't have any particular problem with the article. Nothing in it contradicts what I have said.

You:
Kind of funny, too, that it took 6 years to discover that 2008 trafficking law opened the border to all comers.
The article:
In other words, the number of undocumented immigrants remains high, but illegal immigration — the number of new undocumented workers entering the country each year — has fallen close to zero. On a net basis — people entering minus those leaving or being deported — illegal immigration was probably negative between 2007 and 2012.


To me, this is a contradiction. If I'm missing something, let me know. If YOU think immigration is a current problem, how does that not contradict 538?
   1362. Lassus Posted: July 10, 2014 at 07:58 AM (#4747741)
I will also flatly state that I am at a loss for front page Yahoo news and senate hearings about an immigration crisis today in lieu of 538 yesterday. Clapper and Kehoskie are clearly not the only ones who think there is an immigration problem. Is it like Yahoo stories about Derek Jeter's superior fielding? Is it like senate hearings for steroids?
   1363. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 10, 2014 at 08:24 AM (#4747751)
I did not know that Obama controlled gangs in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. You learn something new every day.


Exactly like he controlled Putin and his actions in Russia.

I also love how from one moment to the next the story changes (but it is always bad and always Obama's fault). One minute the border is weak and it is Obama's fault, the next well can't appropriate any money towards fixing things Obama is lawless, and besides there is plenty of money there alread. Obama is the deporter in chief and so very mean, but he is also soft on immigrants and that's the problem. He is causing the crisis because reasons, but is ineffectual and won't do anything except when he is being a lawless dictator which is why no laws can be passed - which means do nothing (Obama's fault!) or do something (he is a despot!).

The complete lack of any sort of actual principles (other than lower taxes and fear and loathing of sex and minorities) is always so depressing. If the right had any principles there could be some coherent criticism which might do some good, actually improve things. Of course the modern GOP doesn't ant to improve things, so I guess functioning as designed.
   1364. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 10, 2014 at 08:53 AM (#4747759)
I will also flatly state that I am at a loss for front page Yahoo news and senate hearings about an immigration crisis today in lieu of 538 yesterday. Clapper and Kehoskie are clearly not the only ones who think there is an immigration problem. Is it like Yahoo stories about Derek Jeter's superior fielding? Is it like senate hearings for steroids?


Essentially, yes. Yahoo! runs an algorithm that's based loosely on noise. This issue generates noise, so Yahoo! runs the noise. The Gooper foot soldiers are correct in so far as they and their ilk are making a lot of noise, and that noise is generating news cycles churn, which is generating page hits, which makes the optics and politics of this a "story." Thus, they are happy with the effect. "Story" equals news cycles equals story. In the midterm of a second admin, when the infotainment complex is jonesing for anything they can print. And the Goopers are happy to generate as much "story" on any issue they can churn in a direct attempt to drive optics, and thus opinion polling. This is what they've been trying to do since day one of admin two. This is what they've been trying to do with Benghazi, with IRS-gate, with Hillary-said-she-was-poor-gate. Find a story that sticks. The facts are irrelevant to the optics, and thus the politics.

Always keep in mind that 1) the political operatives don't care about facts, they care about spin and daily opinion polls. This is YC's bread and butter. He may actually do it for a living; 2) the foot soldiers don't care about facts, they care about maintaining their worldview and making sure Obama is evil and Democrats are responsible for all of the world's ills. This is the Kehoskies of the world; and 3) the media in general don't care about facts, because political reportage, especially in the long, slow fade out of a second administration is essentially TMZ-DC.

And otherwise intelligent folks like Jason have so internalized this sequence, they have eaten their own dogfood for so long, that they believe everyone does the same thing, and thus anyone who reports facts that disagree with their preferred spin (538, Vox, etc) are simply spinning themselves. Basically, the entire "conservative" sphere has fallen so deeply into the cheapest of post-modern relativism that they don't even realize they're doing it any more.
   1365. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:00 AM (#4747761)
William Saletan, Slate: The Gaza Rules (Israel, unlike Hamas, isn’t trying to kill civilians. It’s taking pains to spare them.)

This is more a commentary on Palestinian inefficiency than their humanity, but according to today's Washington Post, Hamas has landed over 200 rockets from Gaza into Israel, with no reported casualties. By contrast, more than 500 sites in Gaza have been hit in Israeli counterattacks, with 41 deaths, including 13 minors and at least 7 women, and 300 hospitalizations,more than half women and children.

Again, that's more a sign of the advanced state of the Israeli military---their Iron Dome missile defense system has intercepted 53 Hamas rockets---and the primitive state of the Palestinian weaponry, but it's also a telling rebuttal to the insane implications on this thread that Israel's state is so perilous that it should be considering all-out warfare as an alternative to the current situation.
   1366. formerly dp Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:05 AM (#4747762)
more than 500 sites in Gaza have been hit in Israeli counterattacks, with 41 deaths, including 13 minors and at least 7 women, and 300 hospitalizations,more than half women and children.
Yeah but just think how much higher those numbers would be if the Israeli military wasn't "taking pains" to spare civilians!
   1367. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:10 AM (#4747764)
   1368. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:10 AM (#4747766)
This is more a commentary on Palestinian inefficiency than their humanity, but according to today's Washington Post, Hamas has landed over 200 rockets from Gaza into Israel, with no reported casualties. By contrast, more than 500 sites in Gaza have been hit in Israeli counterattacks, with 41 deaths, including 13 minors and at least 7 women, and 300 hospitalizations,more than half women and children.

Again, that's more a sign of the advanced state of the Israeli military---their Iron Dome missile defense system has intercepted 53 Hamas rockets---and the primitive state of the Palestinian weaponry, but it's also a telling rebuttal to the insane implications on this thread that Israel's state is so perilous that it should be considering all-out warfare as an alternative to the current situation.


Well, here's the thing. If you're shitty at fighting wars, maybe you should be more conciliatory in avoiding them.

Of course, Hamas dosn't care one bit about the Palestinian casualties. They're up against it b/c Egypt and Syria cut off their money, and Hamas can no longer pay its thugs. Rather than go gently into that goodnight, they're trying a desperate gambit.
   1369. formerly dp Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:11 AM (#4747767)
If the right had any principles there could be some coherent criticism which might do some good, actually improve things
Specific to the problem at hand: given all of the violence related to drug production and trafficking, it seems like across-the-board legalization of drugs would be a net positive, in spite of the obvious social problems that would accompany increased access to hard drugs. Of course, that option will never get put on the table, because the US is happier offshoring and disavowing the consequences of its drug habit.
   1370. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:11 AM (#4747768)
Find a story that sticks. The facts are irrelevant to the optics, and thus the politics.

And it isn't just yahoo! that rises to the bait. The New York Times itself isn't immune to it. Today's edition has this full page headline:

Following Her Parents’ Lead, Chelsea Clinton Takes Stage as a Paid Speaker

But then when you actually read the article, you get this:

There is a new Clinton paid to deliver speeches — Chelsea, the former first daughter — and she is commanding as much as $75,000 per appearance.

Aides emphasized that while Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton often address trade groups and Wall Street bankers, Ms. Clinton, now 34, focuses on organizations whose goals are in line with the work of the family’s philanthropic organization, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Organizers said her star power helped sell tickets and raise money.

And unlike her parents’ talks, Ms. Clinton’s speeches “are on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, and 100 percent of the fees are remitted directly to the foundation,” said her spokesman, Kamyl Bazbaz, adding that “the majority of Chelsea’s speeches are unpaid.” The Harry Walker Agency, the firm that represents her parents’ engagements, handles Ms. Clinton’s talks on behalf of the family foundation.


and this:

Ms. Clinton has avoided the controversies that have lately accompanied her mother’s speeches, particularly at public universities. Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state and a potential presidential candidate, also donates her university fees to the family foundation, but critics have said that as taxpayer-supported institutions, the schools should put that money to better use.

In New York on Monday, Assemblyman Kieran Michael Lalor, a Republican, called on the University at Buffalo to disclose how much it paid Mrs. Clinton, who spoke there in October. She will get $225,000 for a coming speech at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and the University of California, Los Angeles, paid Mrs. Clinton $300,000 to speak in March.

University administrators have said that private donations cover the fees. “No revenues from tuition or state support were put toward the speaking fee,” said Jean-Paul Renaud, a U.C.L.A. spokesman.


And yet you know that the Wacko Bird blogs will pick up on the headline and carefully omit the details, in yet another attempt at a "gotcha". I'm only mildly surprised that YC hasn't tried this already.

   1371. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:14 AM (#4747770)
If you're shitty at fighting wars, maybe you should be more conciliatory in avoiding them.


This may be the most unChristian thing you've ever said, buddy. The morality of fighting does not pivot on whether or not you're good at it. If it did, might would always make right.
   1372. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:16 AM (#4747771)
This is more a commentary on Palestinian inefficiency than their humanity, but according to today's Washington Post, Hamas has landed over 200 rockets from Gaza into Israel, with no reported casualties. By contrast, more than 500 sites in Gaza have been hit in Israeli counterattacks, with 41 deaths, including 13 minors and at least 7 women, and 300 hospitalizations,more than half women and children.

Again, that's more a sign of the advanced state of the Israeli military---their Iron Dome missile defense system has intercepted 53 Hamas rockets---and the primitive state of the Palestinian weaponry, but it's also a telling rebuttal to the insane implications on this thread that Israel's state is so perilous that it should be considering all-out warfare as an alternative to the current situation.


Well, here's the thing. If you're shitty at fighting wars, maybe you should be more conciliatory in avoiding them.


No, here's the thing: The Israelis don't need internet chickenhawks telling them to inflict Palestinian 50,000 deaths in an attempt to achieve a "lasting peace".

Of course, Hamas dosn't care one bit about the Palestinian casualties. They're up against it b/c Egypt and Syria cut off their money, and Hamas can no longer pay its thugs. Rather than go gently into that goodnight, they're trying a desperate gambit.

All that's true, but irrelevant to any larger point about how Israel should be responding to the attacks.
   1373. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:21 AM (#4747773)
This may be the most unChristian thing you've ever said, buddy. The morality of fighting does not pivot on whether or not you're good at it. If it did, might would always make right.

No, not at all. You need to read more.

One of the key considerations of Just War doctrine is that there be a reasonable probability of success.

It's right there in the Catechism. See #3 below.


"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3. there must be serious prospects of success;

4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition" [CCC 2309]
   1374. bobm Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:21 AM (#4747774)
I also love how from one moment to the next the story changes (but it is always bad and always Obama's fault). One minute the border is weak and it is Obama's fault, the next well can't appropriate any money towards fixing things Obama is lawless, and besides there is plenty of money there alread. Obama is the deporter in chief and so very mean, but he is also soft on immigrants and that's the problem. He is causing the crisis because reasons, but is ineffectual and won't do anything except when he is being a lawless dictator which is why no laws can be passed - which means do nothing (Obama's fault!) or do something (he is a despot!).

Maybe the story changes when the person in question talks out of both sides of one's mouth.

The deportations are real. The crisis on the border is real. The endless jawing and PR and blaming Congress about immigration are all real.
   1375. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:22 AM (#4747776)
No, here's the thing: The Israelis don't need internet chickenhawks telling them to inflict Palestinian 50,000 deaths in an attempt to achieve a "lasting peace".

Don't peg me with zop's mass murder plans.
   1376. Lassus Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:28 AM (#4747780)
The crisis on the border is real.

I'll ask the same as I did to Clapper. Is 538 lying, or wrong, or what? I'm confused reconciling that article with "crisis" unless I'm shown the lies or errors being told by 538.
   1377. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:31 AM (#4747782)
One of the key considerations of Just War doctrine is that there be a reasonable probability of success.


Dude. I've read your spin on just war theory, and I think you get it wrong far more often than not. This would be a long tangent to get into, probably tedious to most of the class, but suffice to say, you don't really get the entirety of just war theory right.

It's right there in the Catechism.


Well. If it's in the Catechism...
   1378. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:33 AM (#4747784)
Maybe the story changes when the person in question talks out of both sides of one's mouth.


What does this mean? Please elaborate.
   1379. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:34 AM (#4747786)
This is more a commentary on Palestinian inefficiency than their humanity, but according to today's Washington Post, Hamas has landed over 200 rockets from Gaza into Israel, with no reported casualties. By contrast, more than 500 sites in Gaza have been hit in Israeli counterattacks, with 41 deaths, including 13 minors and at least 7 women, and 300 hospitalizations,more than half women and children.


I like to use the punching statistics from the 1988 Mike Tyson vs Michael Spinks bout as evidence Mike Tyson is a mean jerk. Spinks couldn't hurt him, why not ease off and go for a nice friendly judge's decision?
   1380. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:36 AM (#4747787)
Of course, Hamas dosn't care one bit about the Palestinian casualties. They're up against it b/c Egypt and Syria cut off their money, and Hamas can no longer pay its thugs. Rather than go gently into that goodnight, they're trying a desperate gambit.

All that's true, but irrelevant to any larger point about how Israel should be responding to the attacks.


I think you are both a bit wrong. Hamas wants Palestinian casualties. Rage against the Israelis strengthens their position since they are currently the most "credible" outlet for that rage. Hamas is Brer Rabbit. Seriously if you were Hamas what is a better recruiting tool than to have Israel striking and killing people?

Hamas (and Palestinians) believe the deck is stacked against them, they are outgunned and outnumbered. They likely see their choices as lie down and let Israel do whatever they want and maybe throw them some crumbs later OR they can fight. That is the choice they see. When thinking about their actions you have to look at it from their perspective. Even if they are wrong, so what, people are wrong all the time.

And anything that reinforces that narrative, that strict dichotomy of the two choices, helps Hamas because enough people will take the "Fight" option and since they are a credible "Fight" outlet they get more support.

This is why, even if Israel has the moral authority to strike back, even if it is in their short term interest to attack those who attack them, in reality they are also doing what their enemy wants and strengthening the narrative that insures no peace, and thus is destructive in the long run.

And by the way this exact scenario with very minor word switches applies to the other side of the coin. Israel also has its own narrative where their (false) choices are strike back and kill Palestinians or surrender to them, and so on. Palestinian actions are strengthening the narrative and essentially aiding their worst enemies in Israel through their violence.

The violent elements on both sides are strengthened because of acts the violent elements on the other side. It is like the violent parts of the two societies are allied against the peaceful ones. In a symbolic sense the war is between the violent and the non-violent, and in that region of the world the violent are clearly and unambiguously winning. Go team.
   1381. bobm Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:36 AM (#4747788)
Aides emphasized that while Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton often address trade groups and Wall Street bankers, Ms. Clinton, now 34, focuses on organizations whose goals are in line with the work of the family’s philanthropic organization, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Organizers said her star power helped sell tickets and raise money.

And unlike her parents’ talks, Ms. Clinton’s speeches “are on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, and 100 percent of the fees are remitted directly to the foundation,”


Faint praise.



ABC: Clinton Under Fire For Hefty Fees

"I have been very excited to speak to many universities during the last year and a half, and all of the fees have been donated to the Clinton Foundation for it to continue its life-changing and lifesaving work," [Hillary] Clinton said. "So it goes from a Foundation at a university to another foundation."

After the interview, ABC News reached out repeatedly to representatives from both the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton's office requesting documents to support Clinton's claim, but none were provided.

As a nonprofit, the Clinton Foundation is required by law to turn over detailed financial information to the IRS and release much of that to the public upon request. But the foundation has yet to file its annual IRS form No. 990, which would include donation and expenditure details, for the period since she left the State Department at the start of President Obama's second term. The deadline for filing is Nov. 15, 2014.
   1382. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:39 AM (#4747792)
I like to use the punching statistics from the 1988 Mike Tyson vs Michael Spinks bout as evidence Mike Tyson is a mean jerk. Spinks couldn't hurt him, why not ease off and go for a nice friendly judge's decision?


Which totally justifies biting off Holyfield's ear.
   1383. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:40 AM (#4747793)
No, here's the thing: The Israelis don't need internet chickenhawks telling them to inflict Palestinian 50,000 deaths in an attempt to achieve a "lasting peace".

Don't peg me with zop's mass murder plans.


Point taken. We argue enough without having to engage with phantom opponents. It was indeed 'zop's fantasy that I was thinking of, but I should have made it clear that you didn't necessarily share it.
   1384. Ron J2 Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:41 AM (#4747794)
Vox article on projected medicare spending

Intro starts ... the government is expected to spend about $50 billion less paying for the Medicare program this year than it had expected to just four years ago.

What's driving these numbers is not completely clear but the report authors have a few guesses. Their first is that unnecessary readmissions are down. This is an unambiguously good thing. They're both expensive and (pretty much by definition) bad for patients. They're still higher than anybody would like. Still, as the report notes "Obamacare now penalizes hospitals when their patient shows up for a second visit that didn't need to happen, if everything had gone right the first time."

And yes, for YC and company, this is a reform that you can keep even if you repeal Obamacare.

EDIT: Fixed one typo. No doubt there are more.

   1385. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:45 AM (#4747797)
It is like the violent parts of the two societies are allied against the peaceful ones. In a symbolic sense the war is between the violent and the non-violent, and in that region of the world the violent are clearly and unambiguously winning. Go team.


There's nothing wrong with violence winning out over peace. So this isn't necessarily a bad outcome.

Point taken. We argue enough without having to engage with phantom opponents. It was indeed 'zop's fantasy that I was thinking of, but I should have made it clear that you didn't necessarily share it.


The fantasy I don't have, but you love to strawman because you don't have anyone as dimwitted as you on the thread to argue against when Joey B isn't posting. My point has been that you and BM and snapper et al have a fantasy of conducting a moral war; there is, of course, no such thing. A war is a means to an end. It is neither moral or amoral, it just "is". And it should be fought - if at all - to maximize the chances of achieving that end. The Israelis behavior makes no sense if they're worried about morality, it makes a lot of sense if they are seeking to achieve what is, for them (and not bleeding hearts like BM) the most attractive outcome.
   1386. The Good Face Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:45 AM (#4747798)
The deportations are real.


The deportations are an accounting gimmick. People caught at the border have always been shipped back. The Obama administration started calling those people shipped back "deportations" to buff their numbers and make it look like they're actively enforcing immigration laws in a different and more vigorous fashion. They're not.
   1387. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:46 AM (#4747799)
Aides emphasized that while Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton often address trade groups and Wall Street bankers, Ms. Clinton, now 34, focuses on organizations whose goals are in line with the work of the family’s philanthropic organization, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Organizers said her star power helped sell tickets and raise money.

And unlike her parents’ talks, Ms. Clinton’s speeches “are on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, and 100 percent of the fees are remitted directly to the foundation,”


Faint praise.


So what's your point? That the original headline quoted in #1370 was an accurate reflection of the actual story? Do you actually believe that?

ABC: Clinton Under Fire For Hefty Fees

Or is it that Chelsea Clinton and Hillary Clinton are the same person? The ABC article was about Hillary, not Chelsea.
   1388. Ron J2 Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:51 AM (#4747802)
#1360 Stipulated. And yet the death toll is always so much higher on the Palestinian side. As in now stands at 74 (minimum) in the current round. Mostly civilians. And a single targeting error killed more Palestinian civilians (family of 8 including 5 children) than Israel lost to deliberate acts.

   1389. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:53 AM (#4747805)
I like to use the punching statistics from the 1988 Mike Tyson vs Michael Spinks bout as evidence Mike Tyson is a mean jerk. Spinks couldn't hurt him, why not ease off and go for a nice friendly judge's decision?

Which totally justifies biting off Holyfield's ear.


One has nothing to do with the other of course, but watch the second Tyson vs Holyfield fight again. What you may not know, and what was rarely mentioned during his boxing career, was that Evander Holyfield was one of the dirtiest fighters in the heavyweight division. I'm talking Andrew Golota-level dirty, without the Andrew Golota-level scrutiny. He headbutted Tyson repeatedly prior to the infamous "bite", including one that opened up a cut over Tyson's left eye. Holyfield was notorious in boxing circles for his aggressive use of butting, including this this result against Haseem Rahman (possible NSFW) as well as this near-legendary combination headbutt and groin strike against former WBA heavyweight champ Michael Dokes.

None of this excuses Tyson's actions of course, but Holyfield had been allowed to bend the rules with impunity much of his career and Tyson, who was weak mentally, just got frustrated.

As an aside, some may ask "why didn't the referee penalize Holyfield?" There's a long history of hands-off referees in boxing. One of my favorite examples involves former heavyweight champion James Jeffries, one of the true rugged men of the sport whose 1899 defense against Sailor Tom Sharkey was one of the most brutal and violent ever witnessed. After retirement Jeffries would occasionally referee bouts, and in 1908 he refereed a title match between legendary middleweight brawler Stanley Ketchel and tough challenger Billy Papke. After several rounds of spirited action Papke grew tired of Ketchel's aggressive head-first lunges and complained, "Come on Jeff, he's butting me, make him stop," to which the taciturn Jeffries replied, "You've got a head too Billy."
   1390. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:54 AM (#4747806)
#1360 Stipulated. And yet the death toll is always so much higher on the Palestinian side. As in now stands at 74 (minimum) in the current round. Mostly civilians. And a single targeting error killed more Palestinian civilians (family of 8 including 5 children) than Israel lost to deliberate acts.


The Israelis clearly have a "one of us is worth 20 or 30 of them" mindset going on, and are playing at the "if we kill enough of them they'll stop fighting back" theory that 'zop was promoting earlier. That's not the way to peace. It's the way to endless war, or ethnic cleansing/genocide. But not peace.
   1391. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:55 AM (#4747807)
Point taken. We argue enough without having to engage with phantom opponents. It was indeed 'zop's fantasy that I was thinking of, but I should have made it clear that you didn't necessarily share it.

The fantasy I don't have,


If you don't have it, you sure have a way of advancing it without having it.

My point has been that you and BM and snapper et al have a fantasy of conducting a moral war; there is, of course, no such thing. A war is a means to an end. It is neither moral or amoral, it just "is". And it should be fought - if at all - to maximize the chances of achieving that end. The Israelis behavior makes no sense if they're worried about morality, it makes a lot of sense if they are seeking to achieve what is, for them (and not bleeding hearts like BM) the most attractive outcome.

I guess it's futile to repeat two basic points, but I'll do it anyway:

1. I haven't opposed the Israeli response to those Hamas rockets, and I don't want to install the ghost of Gandhi into the Israeli cabinet.

2. The Israelis are a lot more humane than you are, since they have no more intention of pursuing your fantasy strategy of 50,000 Palestinian deaths = a lasting peace than BM or snapper would.
   1392. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:58 AM (#4747808)
Well. If it's in the Catechism...

Well, you called me un-Christian. I think the Church is an authority on what is and is not Christian thinking.
   1393. bobm Posted: July 10, 2014 at 09:58 AM (#4747809)
So what's your point?

No doubt that headlines and stories about the Clintons (here about Chelsea) are slanted to grab attention.

However, when all one can say, in effect, is, "well, she's not as grasping as her parents," that doesn't make Hillary's issues with speaking fees look any better. The story I quote is an example of that.
   1394. bobm Posted: July 10, 2014 at 10:03 AM (#4747814)
[1378]
Maybe the story changes when the person in question talks out of both sides of one's mouth.

What does this mean? Please elaborate.


OK - one small example.

Moreover, according to Eli Kantor, an immigration attorney in Beverly Hills, Calif., Obama appears to be winking at Hispanic immigrants. For example, while Obama warned Central Americans this week that their children will be sent back if they cross the border, he also earlier appropriated $2 million for legal groups to help make asylum claims for children who have managed to arrive there.

“The president is talking out of both sides of his mouth,” says Mr. Kantor.


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2014/0627/Border-crisis-With-immigration-reform-dead-will-Obama-act-alone-video
   1395. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 10, 2014 at 10:05 AM (#4747816)
The Israelis clearly have a "one of us is worth 20 or 30 of them" mindset going on, and are playing at the "if we kill enough of them they'll stop fighting back" theory that 'zop was promoting earlier. That's not the way to peace. It's the way to endless war, or ethnic cleansing/genocide. But not peace.

The only way there'll ever be real peace in the Mideast will be when both Israel and the Palestinians stop clinging to the argument that "we got here first" is the end of the discussion. But unfortunately no argument that's that deeprooted in history is ever likely to be unilaterally dropped at any realistically foreseeable point.

For the Palestinians it's a matter of theft and identity, and for the Israelis it's a matter of survival, and how are bedrock positions like these ever going to be compromised? You can get temporary truces and cease-fires, but that's about it.
   1396. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 10, 2014 at 10:09 AM (#4747818)
Well, you called me un-Christian. I think the Church is an authority on what is and is not Christian thinking.


I know quite a few folks who would argue that notion. Hell, I know a couple who would tell you that the Church is the most direct route to Hell on the planet.
   1397. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 10, 2014 at 10:10 AM (#4747819)
For the Palestinians it's a matter of theft and identity,


Theft by the Jews. Theft by the Jordanians has never been a concern. I wonder how King Abdullah would respond to rockets being fired at his own citizens?
   1398. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 10, 2014 at 10:11 AM (#4747820)
So what's your point?

No doubt that headlines and stories about the Clintons (here about Chelsea) are slanted to grab attention.


Which was the only point I was making in the first place when I noted the complete disconnect between the Times headline and the actual facts presented in the article.

However, when all one can say, in effect, is, "well, she's not as grasping as her parents," that doesn't make Hillary's issues with speaking fees look any better. The story I quote is an example of that.

So you're still trying to say that it's kosher for any article about Chelsea to drag in Hillary, just because what?

If the Times article I originally quoted had been about Hillary rather than about Chelsea, I never would have raised the issue. You can talk about Hillary's speech fees all you want, but when it comes to personal gain for speechmaking, her case has nothing at all to do with Chelsea's, as the body of that Times article makes perfectly clear.
   1399. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 10, 2014 at 10:13 AM (#4747821)
For the Palestinians it's a matter of theft and identity, and for the Israelis it's a matter of survival

Theft by the Jews. Theft by the Jordanians has never been a concern. I wonder how King Abdullah would respond to rockets being fired at his own citizens?


That's a fair point, but I was only representing those conflicting worldviews, not endorsing them.
   1400. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 10, 2014 at 10:18 AM (#4747828)
The violent elements on both sides are strengthened because of acts the violent elements on the other side. It is like the violent parts of the two societies are allied against the peaceful ones. In a symbolic sense the war is between the violent and the non-violent, and in that region of the world the violent are clearly and unambiguously winning. Go team.


Northern Ireland in a nutshell

Well, here's the thing. If you're shitty at fighting wars, maybe you should be more conciliatory in avoiding them.

Of course, Hamas dosn't care one bit about the Palestinian casualties. They're up against it b/c Egypt and Syria cut off their money, and Hamas can no longer pay its thugs. Rather than go gently into that goodnight, they're trying a desperate gambit.


Militarily they are trying to get Israel to move into Gaza, at close range they can set up ambushes, use IED's etc. and inflict at least some Israeli casualties. From Hezobollah's POV that worked great a few year ago- sure they got thrashed pretty good by the IDF, but by coming out of it still standing they declared victory and improved their political position in Lebabnon. There are of course quite a few reasons why adopting the Hezbo's strategy may not work for Hamas:
1: Hezbollah was militarily a heck of a lot stronger than Hamas- Hezbo's militia is actually an army- and by ME standards a pretty damn good one man for man
2; Hezbollah had essentially no significant rivals among its support base- Lebanese Shiites really weren't in danger of splintering off or backing someone else.
3: Hezbollah's non-military wing literally had sent out roving groups of (for lack of a better term) insurance adjusters all throughout Lebanon- they promised that they'd pay for any damage to businesses and homes when it was all over (Iran ultimately footed the bill)- even if Hamas had the foresight to think of such a thing they utterly lack the $
4: Which brings us to #4, the Hezbo's had/have a very dedicated sugar daddy- Hamas is a bit cut off now- they broke with Hezbollah over Syria, and the Islamic Brotherhood got booted out of power in Egypt, there is no significant source of $/food/weapons/etc. on the immediate horizon- and that's a big problem because unlike groups like Al Qaeda and co.- they are not a rootless international terrorist group- they are a land occupying quasi-state, with all the duties that entails, maintaining roads, picking up garbage, providing police, courts, water supplies, social services- and they can't, they're out of money and being blockaded.

I think agreeing to a "National Unity" with Fatah was the first sign of sheer desperation, the PA would the pay Gaza's civil servants, Hamas would get few cabinet seats- but after the deal was done Abbas reneged on making Hamas' payroll, Israel had a massive hissy fit and tightened the blockade even more, the cabinet seats were predictably useless window dressing.

I think Hamas saw two options- ignite a Palestinian civil war with Fatah or pick a fight with Israel, the civil war option was useless, they'd hold Gaza and get thumped in the West Bank- so pick a fight with Israel- which brings us back to the 4 points above- unlike Hezbollah a few years ago, Hamas' odds of increasing power through this are very slim- Hamas may not survive at all- trouble is that Hamas likely knows that- but they see the only other option as doing nothing- but they'e already up against the wall, they're gonna be out of power in a year or less if they do nothing.

There is of course an option that Hamas won't even consider- give up, cry uncle, recognize Israel, publicly destroy the mortars, etc.
Page 14 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
A triple short of the cycle
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(535 - 7:48pm, Nov 22)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(956 - 7:45pm, Nov 22)
Last: The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy

NewsblogFriars show interest in dealing for Bruce | MLB.com
(17 - 7:43pm, Nov 22)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(20 - 7:41pm, Nov 22)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(9 - 7:39pm, Nov 22)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(9 - 7:33pm, Nov 22)
Last: Bruce Markusen

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(9 - 7:26pm, Nov 22)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4160 - 7:12pm, Nov 22)
Last: GregD

NewsblogPirates DFA Ike Davis, clear path for Pedro Alvarez - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(2 - 7:11pm, Nov 22)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(90 - 7:06pm, Nov 22)
Last: Shredder

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(23 - 5:40pm, Nov 22)
Last: Kiko Sakata

NewsblogMatthews: Cashman sleeps on the street, says all is quiet on the free-agent front
(20 - 5:23pm, Nov 22)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(407 - 4:51pm, Nov 22)
Last: Howling John Shade

NewsblogMLB.com: White Sox Land Adam LaRoche With 2 Year/$25M Deal
(18 - 4:14pm, Nov 22)
Last: Kiko Sakata

NewsblogJosh Lueke and the Ways of Anger
(11 - 3:55pm, Nov 22)
Last: Tom Nawrocki

Page rendered in 1.2055 seconds
53 querie(s) executed