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 34 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 32 33 34 35 36 >  Last ›
   3301. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 28, 2014 at 09:49 AM (#4758893)
Well hell, if we're getting in the time machine, Humphrey has a great shot at beating Nixon, and the Colts can probably beat the Jets while we're at it.

OTOH the Braves will never beat the Yankees in a World Series unless they move back to Milwaukee. Some things are completely immutable.
   3302. The Good Face Posted: July 28, 2014 at 09:51 AM (#4758896)
That woman made the call, multiple times, to go out in public wearing that slutty outfit. That is going to affect how people respond to her. You may not like that, you may not think it's fair, you may find it upsetting, but it comes in large part from her own choices. People may rape women dressed like that, sometimes very harshly.


Fixed your post for you RR. I do love the newfound lefty embrace of "she was asking for it, going around like that!"

LOL. I guess every police agency in the country is doing it wrong.

"Attention, all units:

Be on the lookout for ... humans."


Suspect is hatless. Repeat, suspect IS HATLESS!
   3303. Mefisto Posted: July 28, 2014 at 09:55 AM (#4758898)
Borders imposed from afar, by distant powers with no relation to the land, the peoples or the history of the territory, are artificial. They can be maintained for centuries by imperial dictate and still be fundamentally artificial. Borders established by natural boundaries and the identifications of people living in the territory itself and their histories are natural.


You just ruled out all the US states. Very few actual borders are set by "natural boundaries", for the very good reason that such boundaries are arbitrary and incomplete.

None of which has anything to do with the claim that Iraq's borders are "artificial", while those of Germany are "natural".
   3304. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 09:59 AM (#4758901)

I listed a lengthy set of facts about the records of the two guys and the context thereof.


The discussion about which of the two coaches was better is a silly one, one which you only want to engage because you're trying to make Fisher seem better than he was. Fisher had 17 years in Tennessee, long enough to build and rebuild a team several times over. He went to the playoffs just six times. That is pathetic. (He then handled the Vince Young situation horribly before bolting town.)
   3305. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 10:04 AM (#4758902)
That's why the Crimea thing is so overblown. yes Putin is a lawless thug, and should be spanked whenever practical. But the Crimea as park of Ukraine was just as artificial. Maybe the peninsula was part of Kievan Rus 1000 years ago, but ever since the Mongol invasion, it wasn't, until some Soviet apparatchnik in the 50's deemed it convenient to place it within the administrative borders of the Ukraine SSR. Ethnic Ukrainians were a decided ethnic minority, and the country had no historical ties to the place.
I don't have time to read 3,000 messages before posting to see if someone else made this point earlier, so I'll just say it: to the extent what you're stating is true, I don't know how it helps here. Ukrainians might have been an ethnic minority, but Russians were an ethnic minority, too. And I don't think the Tatars are on Putin's side here.
   3306. Lassus Posted: July 28, 2014 at 10:19 AM (#4758910)
Fixed your post for you RR. I do love the newfound lefty embrace of "she was asking for it, going around like that!"

First communist blacklisting, now this. Your analogies are very, very stupid.
   3307. The Good Face Posted: July 28, 2014 at 10:30 AM (#4758915)
Fixed your post for you RR. I do love the newfound lefty embrace of "she was asking for it, going around like that!"

First communist blacklisting, now this. Your analogies are very, very stupid.


Am I also a big poopyhead? Even you can do better than that Lassus.

Look, the lefties here are falling back on the defense of "Dungy was asking for it by doing what he did, it's his own fault for inviting the response." Well fine. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either people are responsible for their actions and the reasonably anticipated fallout thereof (although the response to Dungy was hardly reasonably anticipated; it's unprecedented and hysterical), or they're not.
   3308. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 10:32 AM (#4758916)
With exceptions and details to be worked out, I'm becoming less opposed and maybe could even support a law outlawing employment discrimination based on non-business-related expression. The idea that Tony Dungy's job could be in danger because of this episode is an utterly appalling state of affairs, and if he's fired, the laws permitting his employment to be terminated for something so vapid should be changed.
Its easy to see why a trial lawyer or communist would take that position; it's hard to see why any sane person would.
   3309. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: July 28, 2014 at 10:33 AM (#4758918)
but Russians were an ethnic minority, too. And I don't think the Tatars are on Putin's side here.


The most recent info on Crimea demographics I can find is the 2001 census which shows 58% Russian, 24% Ukrainian, and 12% Tatar. I'm sure that's changed by now, but I can't imagine it has by so much that Russians aren't still at least a huge plurality, if not small majority.
   3310. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 10:42 AM (#4758924)
Its easy to see why a trial lawyer or communist would take that position; it's hard to see why any sane person would.


SBB -- trial lawyer, communist or insane?

You decide.







(I guess he could be all three ...)

   3311. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 28, 2014 at 10:43 AM (#4758928)
Look, the lefties here are falling back on the defense of "Dungy was asking for it by doing what he did, it's his own fault for inviting the response." Well fine.

Which is all anyone here was saying. Nobody on this thread was demanding that he be fired, and the chances that he will be fired are next to nothing. All we've seen here is a trading of opinions. BFD.

But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either people are responsible for their actions and the reasonably anticipated fallout thereof (although the response to Dungy was hardly reasonably anticipated; it's unprecedented and hysterical), or they're not.

Unprecedented and hysterical, eh? Compared to what? Compared to the reaction to Don Imus or the Dixie Chicks or thousand other such incidents over the past several decades?
   3312. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 10:43 AM (#4758929)
Uh, no. Hispanic is a "national origin" term, not a racial designation. You can easily find Hispanics who also identify as White or Black. However, it was NOT the practice of the New York Times, or any other media of which I am aware, to identify light-skinned Hispanics as "White Hispanics" until they decided to apply such terminology to George Zimmerman. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
Indeed, it's more than that: the whole liberal multicultural/diversity weltanschauung is based on the denial of the existence of such a category. When you hear that the US is becoming less white and will soon be "majority-minority" (ugh!¹), that claim is based on treating all Hispanics as non-white. If one treats the White Hispanic segment as white instead, then the country is not remotely close to the demographic shift that the liberals are pretending.


¹ The grimace is for the linguistic atrocity, not for the demographics.
   3313. BDC Posted: July 28, 2014 at 10:58 AM (#4758937)
Either people are responsible for their actions and the reasonably anticipated fallout thereof … or they're not

Wait, is the analogy here between criticizing discourse and committing a crime? That's just weird.
   3314. The Good Face Posted: July 28, 2014 at 11:06 AM (#4758947)
Wait, is the analogy here between criticizing discourse


So the Hollywood blacklists were just criticizing discourse?
   3315. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 11:10 AM (#4758951)
Look, the lefties here are falling back on the defense of "Dungy was asking for it by doing what he did, it's his own fault for inviting the response." Well fine. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either people are responsible for their actions and the reasonably anticipated fallout thereof (although the response to Dungy was hardly reasonably anticipated; it's unprecedented and hysterical), or they're not.


There is, of course, an important distinction between someone engaging in behavior that "invites" a legal, non-violent response (such as public criticism of that person's statements) and someone engaging in behavior that "invites" an illegal, violent one (such as rape).
   3316. The Good Face Posted: July 28, 2014 at 11:15 AM (#4758959)
There is, of course, an important distinction between someone engaging in behavior that "invites" a legal, non-violent response (such as public criticism of that person's statements) and someone engaging in behavior that "invites" an illegal, violent one (such as rape).


So you don't have a problem with legal, non-violent responses like slut shaming, hooting, catcalling, sexual advances, etc. based on how a woman is dressed? After all, she's inviting the response.
   3317. BDC Posted: July 28, 2014 at 11:24 AM (#4758970)
So the Hollywood blacklists were just criticizing discourse?

One is free speech and the other is suppression of speech? I don't know, man, these comparisons aren't working for me.
   3318. The Good Face Posted: July 28, 2014 at 11:26 AM (#4758972)
One is free speech and the other is suppression of speech? I don't know, man, these comparisons aren't working for me.


So if Dungy gets fired for refusing to back down on his comments, his speech isn't suppressed?
   3319. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 11:27 AM (#4758974)
So you don't have a problem with legal, non-violent responses like slut shaming, hooting, catcalling, sexual advances, etc. based on how a woman is dressed? After all, she's inviting the response.


I have a problem with those because acting like a jackass is wrong. But people have the fundamental right to express their opinions, even when they're wrong and stupid. And other people calling them out for their wrongness and stupidity in response have the right to do that, too.
   3320. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 11:38 AM (#4758987)
So if Dungy gets fired for refusing to back down on his comments, his speech isn't suppressed?


It's not being suppressed in the First Amendment sense of the word, in that he's not subject to any government sanction for his actions. An employer is not obligated to continue to employ an employee whose actions are bringing the company into disrepute, and as long as Dungy cares more about speaking his mind than he does about keeping his current job, he can say whatever the hell he wants.

(The Hollywood blacklist was wrong not because studios didn't have the right to choose not to employ Communists, but because caring about whether or not their employees allegedly had Communist ties/sympathies was a morally objectionable position for them to take.)
   3321. The Good Face Posted: July 28, 2014 at 11:46 AM (#4759000)
I have a problem with those because acting like a jackass is wrong. But people have the fundamental right to express their opinions, even when they're wrong and stupid. And other people calling them out for their wrongness and stupidity in response have the right to do that, too.


And how do you feel about people getting fired or blacklisted for expressing such "wrong" opinions, even if such opinions have no bearing on their job performance?

(The Hollywood blacklist was wrong not because studios didn't have the right to choose not to employ Communists, but because caring about whether or not their employees allegedly had Communist ties/sympathies was a morally objectionable position for them to take.)


Isn't it just a case of the blacklisted writers being "called out" for their wrongness and stupidity?
   3322. Ron J2 Posted: July 28, 2014 at 11:54 AM (#4759005)
In today's (meaningful) news in the Senate race, looks like moderately good news for YC. Upshot's now got the Republican's chances of taking the Senate at 60% (up from 54%) and from what I can see the single likeliest result is now Republicans 51. The key is the increased probability of the Republicans taking at least one of Michigan or North Carolina.
   3323. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 28, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4759029)
If one treats the White Hispanic segment as white instead, then the country is not remotely close to the demographic shift that the liberals are pretending.


It depends on how these "White Hispanics" vote now doesn't it? Because most predictions have to do with future voting patterns and election outcomes then how "dark" the electorate will be. As far as I know various subgroups of Hispanic vote differently, but I have not exactly studied the issue in depth I admit.
   3324. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 12:25 PM (#4759036)
It depends on how these "White Hispanics" vote now doesn't it?


Huh? Maybe I'm missing something but I don't think voting patterns had anything to do with David's point.
   3325. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 28, 2014 at 12:40 PM (#4759042)
Huh? Maybe I'm missing something but I don't think voting patterns had anything to do with David's point.


Given his jab at "the country is not remotely close to the demographic shift that the liberals are pretending" one would think it did.
   3326. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 28, 2014 at 12:42 PM (#4759043)
It's not being suppressed in the First Amendment sense of the word, in that he's not subject to any government sanction for his actions. An employer is not obligated to continue to employ an employee whose actions are bringing the company into disrepute, and as long as Dungy cares more about speaking his mind than he does about keeping his current job, he can say whatever the hell he wants.

(The Hollywood blacklist was wrong not because studios didn't have the right to choose not to employ Communists, but because caring about whether or not their employees allegedly had Communist ties/sympathies was a morally objectionable position for them to take.)


Wow -- one should never underestimate the capacity at work, but it's hard to see this textbook example of modern liberal exaltation of whim over principle ever being topped. It's so perfect, one lingers over the question of whether it was generated by a computer program or robot, instead of a human.

   3327. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 12:43 PM (#4759044)
And how do you feel about people getting fired or blacklisted for expressing such "wrong" opinions, even if such opinions have no bearing on their job performance?


I'm OK with it, as long as the opinion in question is something genuinely offensive. If it's not, then I criticize the company for firing the employee, while recognizing that they have the right to do so.

Isn't it just a case of the blacklisted writers being "called out" for their wrongness and stupidity?


Not really, no - I think that the genuine Communists/socialists caught up in the blacklist, while misguided in some areas, were generally pursuing laudable aims for good reasons. There were also many people, such as Marsha Hunt, who were not Communists/socialists themselves, but were blacklisted simply for having spoken out in favor of the right of genuine Communists/socialists to hold and express those beliefs, as well as people such as Art Babbitt who were denounced as Communists/socialists for attempting to engage in legitimate labor actions (in Babbitt's case, the Disney animators' strike).

I think that the atmosphere of suffocating paranoia created by McCarthy and his ilk was much more damaging to the country than any influence exerted upon Hollywood by leftists, and as such are much more deserving of criticism.
   3328. tshipman Posted: July 28, 2014 at 12:46 PM (#4759045)
The major difference between the Hollywood Blacklist and being fired for being homophobic (which hasn't actually happened to Tony Dungy, of course) is that the Hollywood Blacklist was done in response to HUAC.

I'm not aware of the Senate Committee on Homophobia threatening to shut down entire industries, but maybe I missed that.

Edit: Again, of course, the real victims of hate speech, are of course those who are unable to say awful things in polite company.
   3329. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 12:48 PM (#4759046)
And how do you feel about people getting fired or blacklisted for expressing such "wrong" opinions, even if such opinions have no bearing on their job performance?


(I also disagree with the notion that publicly expressing an unpopular opinion has no effect on the job performance of a talking head like Dungy. He's there to entertain viewers and sell them on watching the network's sports programming. If he's pissing people off with political remarks, he's not doing either of those things.)
   3330. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 12:51 PM (#4759050)
The major difference between the Hollywood Blacklist and being fired for being homophobic (which hasn't actually happened to Tony Dungy, of course) is that the Hollywood Blacklist was done in response to HUAC.


This is a good point.
   3331. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 12:56 PM (#4759051)
Wow -- one should never underestimate the capacity at work, but it's hard to see this textbook example of modern liberal exaltation of whim over principle ever being topped.


The First Amendment isn't a Get Out of Being an ####### Free card. If people think you're a moron, they're allowed to decide that they don't want anything to do with you.
   3332. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 01:02 PM (#4759054)
I think NBC has every right to fire Dungy over his comments (which is not to say that they would necessarily have cause under their contract with him for doing so). I just think it's a sad state of affairs when someone who said something innocuous would be fired for saying something innocuous.

And as to those pointing out that he hasn't been fired: well, yeah. He issued his clarification. But had he doubled down instead of issuing his further statement, he would certainly have been in danger IMO of being fired.

Take the Stephen A Smith issue, which Lassus has been desperate to bait people into a discussion of here. It's a different issue, but in that case Stephen A _did_ double down, and found himself in serious hot water with ESPN, after which he was forced to apologize to save his job. That's how I read it, anyway.
   3333. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 28, 2014 at 01:04 PM (#4759056)
The First Amendment isn't a Get Out of Being an ####### Free card. If people think you're a moron, they're allowed to decide that they don't want anything to do with you.

Then if they think you're a Communist, they're allowed to decide that they don't want anything to do with you.
   3334. Srul Itza Posted: July 28, 2014 at 01:04 PM (#4759057)
Borders established by natural boundaries and the identifications of people living in the territory itself and their histories are natural.


Actually, they are not. Consider river borders -- the riverine people on either side of the river border are more likely to have the same culture and family ties to each other than they are to the inland people further from the river.

The same holds true for mountain barriers -- the upland people on either side of the mountain barrier will have much more in common than they do with their lowland countrymen.

"Natural" boundaries may be considered such by nation states from the perspective of what is militarily defensible and/or is easy to demarcate (although given the difficulty of pinpointing the high points of mountains, and the way rivers will move over time, this latter point is less compelling). In terms of the people themselves, not so much.

EDITED to clarify I am talking about so-called "natural borders". The identification of peoples is a different issue.
   3335. Lassus Posted: July 28, 2014 at 01:06 PM (#4759059)
I just think it's a sad state of affairs when someone who said something innocuous would be fired for saying something innocuous.

Even if you think everyone who doesn't agree with you is a lunatic buffoon or a liar, tell me you at least understand that "innocuous" is a subjective term.


Take the Stephen A Smith issue, which Lassus has been desperate to bait people into a discussion of here.

Mentioning it once in reference to reactions to public opinion by commentators, with no link, no quote, no specifics, and no repeat effort is a desperate bait attempt. Glad to see you're maintaining your operatic level of accurate discourse.
   3336. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 01:11 PM (#4759062)
Then if they think you're a Communist, they're allowed to decide that they don't want anything to do with you.


Oh, of course. As I said above, they were within their rights. But just because you're allowed to do something doesn't mean that you should.
   3337. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4759063)
(The Hollywood blacklist was wrong not because studios didn't have the right to choose not to employ Communists, but because caring about whether or not their employees allegedly had Communist ties/sympathies was a morally objectionable position for them to take.)
it's hard to see how taking money from an enemy totalitarian government to support an evil ideology is objectionable to care about.
   3338. rr Posted: July 28, 2014 at 01:13 PM (#4759064)
one which you only want to engage because you're trying to make Fisher seem better than he was.


Naw. I brought it up because you and your buddies have argued that Dungy knows better than Fisher does what is good for Fisher's team because of Dungy's career record as a coach--more than half of which, of course, was accumulated with Peyton Manning as his QB. None of this is to say that Dungy was not an excellent pro football coach; he was. But I don't see his record vs. Fisher's as a reason to assume that Dungy is right about this and Fisher is wrong, particularly given the rest of the context.

Dungy in TB: 54-42
Dungy in IND: 85-27

   3339. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 28, 2014 at 01:18 PM (#4759067)
Naw. I brought it up because you and your buddies have argued that Dungy knows better than Fisher does what is good for Fisher's team because of Dungy's career record as a coach--more than half of which, of course, was accumulated with Peyton Manning as his QB.

As a throwaway, tertiary matter.

But I don't see his record vs. Fisher's as a reason to assume that Dungy is right about this and Fisher is wrong.

Fisher has direct managerial responsibiilty, which limits his ability to speak freely about the matter.


   3340. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 28, 2014 at 01:24 PM (#4759069)
Oh, of course. As I said above, they were within their rights. But just because you're allowed to do something doesn't mean that you should.

And under no circumstances should NBC invade the soveriegnty of Dungy's conscience -- a fundamental American treasure -- by firing him for expressing it.

Nor should anyone advocate such a thing, lest they deviate from their appropriate role as citizens of a pluralistic and diverse society, bound to respect that pluralism and diversity so all can be free to flourish and exercise their consciences within it.

Now, had Dungy done something akin to what First Amendment jurisprudence permits the government to sanction citizens for -- e.g., used fighting words, uttered words inciting immediate violence, etc. -- NBC could legitimately sanction him.(*) Of course, he did no such thing or even close.

(*) As it could for running afoul of the reasonable expectations of loyalty an employer has of its employees -- such as engaging in insubordiate or critical speech about the employer directly.
   3341. The Good Face Posted: July 28, 2014 at 01:27 PM (#4759070)
Then if they think you're a Communist, they're allowed to decide that they don't want anything to do with you.


Being a communist is certainly "genuinely offensive", so I can't see why Vlad would have any problems with the Hollywood blacklistings.
   3342. BDC Posted: July 28, 2014 at 01:27 PM (#4759071)
When Tony Dungy is imprisoned for refusing to name names of people he might once have shared tepid qualms about gay linebackers with, I'll be right out there picketing.

Meanwhile, as Vlad says, though American Communists may have been wrong about Stalin, and many come to realize that wrongness late or never, they were Americans as well as Communists and most of their political energies were exerted domestically, often in support of very laudable ideals. I recently ran across Dalton Trumbo's name on the letterhead of the Sleepy Lagoon Defense Committee, a group that fought the perversely unfair murder conviction of twelve Mexican-Americans in the mid-1940s. Racial issues made up a large part of Communist activism in this country and were a big reason why Communists are feared. As everyone here knows, The Daily Worker and in particular Lester Rodney were major advocates for the integration of baseball, so while America pats itself on the shoulder every year about Branch Rickey and #42, they ought to thank some Communists as well :)
   3343. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 28, 2014 at 01:29 PM (#4759073)
Then if they think you're a Communist, they're allowed to decide that they don't want anything to do with you.


So you would be OK with your employer finding out your political affiliation (who you voted, volunteered, and donated to - using rumor and innuendo as solid evidence, with no way to appeal) and feeling OK for firing you for it? And equally OK if virtually every employer in your industry banded together, conspired, and created a black list of everyone who shared your political affiliation?

Because this wasn't a single employer being affronted by public political outrageous comments. The hollywood blacklists were much worse than just that.
   3344. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 01:29 PM (#4759074)
.
   3345. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 28, 2014 at 01:33 PM (#4759076)
So the Hollywood blacklists were just criticizing discourse?

One is free speech and the other is suppression of speech? I don't know, man, these comparisons aren't working for me.


So if Dungy gets fired for refusing to back down on his comments, his speech isn't suppressed?

The Hollywood blacklisting would actually be a very good comparison to the Dungy case----if Dungy actually were to be fired. In both cases the blacklisting/firing would have been the result of organized pressure, not because of the government. Red Channels, which was the main force behind the blacklist, wasn't a government publication.

But again, until Dungy actually gets fired, the blacklisting comparison is, er, more than a bit hysterical.

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

it's hard to see how taking money from an enemy totalitarian government to support an evil ideology is objectionable to care about.

That'd be a good point if the blacklists had been directed only against Soviet spies, which was hardly the case, as you well know, or should know.

EDIT: cokes to anyone above who's made the same point. I haven't yet read most of the comments.
   3346. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 28, 2014 at 01:40 PM (#4759081)
The Hollywood blacklisting would actually be a very good comparison to the Dungy case----if Dungy actually were to be fired. In both cases the blacklisting/firing would have been the result of organized pressure, not because of the government. Red Channels, which was the main force behind the blacklist, wasn't a government publication.

We're talking here about power and principle. If NBC can fire Dungy for what he said, it can fire an SNL writer for being a Communist. (Subject to any individual contractual provisions to the contrary, of course.)
   3347. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 28, 2014 at 01:46 PM (#4759084)
We're talking here about power and principle. If NBC can fire Dungy for what he said, it can fire an SNL writer for being a Communist. (Subject to any individual contractual provisions to the contrary, of course.)

Well, duh. But what makes you think I wouldn't agree with what you're saying? Just because I've criticized Dungy for his comments doesn't mean for a second that I think he should be fired. You keep trying to typecast "liberals", but round pegs don't fit into square holes.

What I'm saying is to hold the blacklisting comparison until conjecture becomes fact. Hundreds or thousands of people were fired because of the blacklist. AFAIK Dungy still has his job.
   3348. JE (Jason) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:05 PM (#4759098)
The most recent info on Crimea demographics I can find is the 2001 census which shows 58% Russian, 24% Ukrainian, and 12% Tatar. I'm sure that's changed by now, but I can't imagine it has by so much that Russians aren't still at least a huge plurality, if not small majority.

Hmmm, what was Chechnya's ethnic makeup before the Kremlin twice went to war -- once by Yeltsin, later by Putin -- to keep the region inside Mother Russia?

No matter what the Crimea demographics said, there's nothing "overblown" about defending Ukrainian sovereignty against armed attack.
   3349. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:12 PM (#4759099)
So you would be OK with your employer finding out your political affiliation (who you voted, volunteered, and donated to - using rumor and innuendo as solid evidence, with no way to appeal) and feeling OK for firing you for it? And equally OK if virtually every employer in your industry banded together, conspired, and created a black list of everyone who shared your political affiliation?

If your "political affiliation" was belonging to a party dedicated to the overthrow of the U.S. Gov't, and bought and paid for by a genocidal dictator, yes. If it's a normal American political party, no.

The guiding principle is that you can't invoke the liberties of an American citizen while directly seeking to undermine those liberties.
   3350. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:13 PM (#4759100)
No matter what the Crimea demographics said, there's nothing "overblown" about defending Ukrainian sovereignty against armed attack.


I would expect Ukraine to defend itself certainly. Nations have been defending borders, no matter the demographic breakdown, since there were nations. I think the discussions gets more involved as we move farther away from Ukraine, and ask if other countries should care.
   3351. spike Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:13 PM (#4759101)
4 more state marriage bans overturned today:

Link

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday struck down bans on same sex marriage in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

   3352. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:14 PM (#4759103)
If your "political affiliation" was belonging to a party dedicated to the overthrow of the U.S. Gov't, and bought and paid for by a genocidal dictator, yes.

If it's a normal American political party, no.


So does voting for an avowed communist count? Because I am pretty sure the communist party is not illegal in the US. How about voting for a Governor of a state that talks repeatedly about secession?

EDIT: Random type, not caught by spellchecker, because it was a word.
   3353. Lassus Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4759104)
If your "political affiliation" was belonging to a party dedicated to the overthrow of the U.S. Gov't

The Communist Party in America came as close to overthrowing the U.S. Gov't as I did to throwing Jason Epstein over Citifield.
   3354. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:16 PM (#4759108)
The guiding principle is that you can't invoke the liberties of an American citizen while directly seeking to undermine those liberties.


Really? I think that is an interesting take on liberties. And of course the words "directly seeking to undermine" is delightfully grand sounding but very squishy in actuality.

EDIT: And I imagine burning the flag has to count as undermining, no?
   3355. zonk Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:16 PM (#4759109)
The Hollywood blacklisting would actually be a very good comparison to the Dungy case----if Dungy actually were to be fired. In both cases the blacklisting/firing would have been the result of organized pressure, not because of the government. Red Channels, which was the main force behind the blacklist, wasn't a government publication.

We're talking here about power and principle. If NBC can fire Dungy for what he said, it can fire an SNL writer for being a Communist. (Subject to any individual contractual provisions to the contrary, of course.)


I think another big difference is that the Hollywood blacklists were essentially an industry-wide ban and came in response to government pressure.

I don't think it's splitting hairs to see a difference between a single company terminating someone's employment over comments and entire industry basically shutting you out of your livelihood. If NBC (or whomever employs Dungy, I really don't care about the NFL) were to fire Dungy - I'm willing to bet one of their competitors would offer him a job pretty quickly (assuming he's as good as folks say).

As Vlad noted, the other big difference is that I'm not aware of any government pressure regarding Dungy... Obviously, the Hollywood blacklists were a documented different story.
   3356. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:18 PM (#4759111)
So does voting for an avowed communist count? Because I am pretty sure the communist party is not illegal in the US. How about voting for a Governor of a state that talks repeatedly about succession?

We have the secret ballot for a reason. And the Communist Party today is not the Communist Party of the 1930's-50's.

The Communist party of the 1930's-50's should have been illegal. They were an out and out front group for the Soviet Union, not a legitimate domestic movement.
   3357. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:21 PM (#4759114)
Really? I think that is an interesting take on liberties. And of course the words "directly seeking to undermine" is delightfully grand sounding but very squishy in actuality.

EDIT: And I imagine burning the flag has to count as undermining, no?


Not squishy when you are in the direct pay of the USSR and follow orders to the letter. Most of the core of the CPUSA in the Stalinist era should have been in Leavenworth or executed for treason.

No, burning the flag could be protesting any number of things. It's misguided, but not necessarily treasonous.

Taken money and orders directly from the USSR was treasonous.
   3358. spike Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4759115)
I think another big difference is that the Hollywood blacklists were essentially an industry-wide ban and came in response to government pressure.

IOW, the kind of pressure the 1st is specifically written to outlaw.
   3359. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:25 PM (#4759117)
Most of the core of the CPUSA in the Stalinist era should have been in Leavenworth or executed for treason.


And how many people do you think constituted "the core of the CPUSA in the Stalinist era"? Not trying to play "gotcha," BTW, but genuinely curious as to whether anyone here happens to be willing to venture even a ballpark figure.

Once upon a time, I could've come up with an educated guess, but I haven't delved into that part of my library in decades. I'm thinking the number is pretty paltry, though -- probably in the low double digits.

(Admittedly, "core" is a very imprecise term.)
   3360. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:34 PM (#4759129)
And under no circumstances should NBC invade the soveriegnty of Dungy's conscience -- a fundamental American treasure -- by firing him for expressing it.


I don't think that NBC should fire Dungy, but if they want to do it, that's their call.

Firing someone for expressing an unpleasant opinion is no different than firing that person for having, say, a strong and unpleasant personal odor and a persistent unwillingness to adhere to social conventions regarding bathing and hygeine. In America, you have the right to be as stinky as you want, but that doesn't mean that your boss has to put up with it in the workplace, particularly if it's costing him business.
   3361. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:35 PM (#4759130)
Not squishy when you are in the direct pay of the USSR and follow orders to the letter.


So what kind of salary was Dalton Trumbo drawing from his socialist paymasters?
   3362. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:35 PM (#4759132)
And how many people do you think constituted "the core of the CPUSA in the Stalinist era"? Not trying to play "gotcha," BTW, but genuinely curious as to whether anyone here happens to be willing to venture even a ballpark figure.


Well and that is not at all what what done regarding people blacklisted. It was a totally different animal. Especially since if something is illegal and the government is punishing then there is no need for a blacklist. The guilty get punished the innocent walk. Hiring and firing are irrelevant.

And I am not picking on snapper, I just think a media spokesman being put under pressure because of outrage and an industry wide blacklist are such different animals as to make the analogy really bad.
   3363. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:36 PM (#4759133)
The most recent info on Crimea demographics I can find is the 2001 census which shows 58% Russian, 24% Ukrainian, and 12% Tatar. I'm sure that's changed by now, but I can't imagine it has by so much that Russians aren't still at least a huge plurality, if not small majority.
I wasn't entirely clear; I wasn't talking about at the time of the Russian occupation this year, but in the bigger picture, more recently than the 1000 years ago you were discussing. Crimea was primarily Tatar until the middle of the 20th century; Stalin essentially deported the entire Tatar population.
   3364. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:40 PM (#4759137)
So what kind of salary was Dalton Trumbo drawing from his socialist paymasters?


In dollars or rubles, comrade?
   3365. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4759150)
And how many people do you think constituted "the core of the CPUSA in the Stalinist era"? Not trying to play "gotcha," BTW, but genuinely curious as to whether anyone here happens to be willing to venture even a ballpark figure.

Once upon a time, I could've come up with an educated guess, but I haven't delved into that part of my library in decades. I'm thinking the number is pretty paltry, though -- probably in the low double digits.

(Admittedly, "core" is a very imprecise term.)


No real idea. Probably a few dozen who knew about the direct Soviet ties, or were Soviet spies themselves. Whitaker Chambers identified more than a dozen himself.
   3366. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:50 PM (#4759153)
Well and that is not at all what what done regarding people blacklisted. It was a totally different animal. Especially since if something is illegal and the government is punishing then there is no need for a blacklist. The guilty get punished the innocent walk. Hiring and firing are irrelevant.

Right, not defending the blacklist, the Gov't should have been the ones doing the punishing.
   3367. Lassus Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:51 PM (#4759155)
Most of the core of the CPUSA in the Stalinist era should have been in Leavenworth or executed for treason.

Maybe I'm just too removed, but your current hysteria over a political party that did as much damage to the United States as Stalin farting seems a little odd.

   3368. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:56 PM (#4759161)
Maybe I'm just too removed, but your current hysteria over a political party that did as much damage to the United States as Stalin farting seems a little odd.

Did you miss the release of the Venona project? Whitaker Chambers was right. Most of these hardcore CPUSA members were actual Soviet spies, delivering actual secret intelligence to the USSR. How do you think the Soviets got the bomb so fast?
   3369. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4759165)
Romney Would Beat Obama In 2012 Re-Run, 53%-44%

Well hell, if we're getting in the time machine, Humphrey has a great shot at beating Nixon, and the Colts can probably beat the Jets while we're at it

Just in case some are missing the point, Obama is still in office - those disaffected Obama voters will have a chance to express themselves again in 2014.
   3370. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4759166)
How do you think the Soviets got the bomb so fast?


ESP.
   3371. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 28, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4759168)
IOW, the kind of pressure the 1st is specifically written to outlaw.

Not exactly. The 1st forbids only "laws," not pressure.

That said, I'd certainly agree that pressure to violate the spirit of the First Amendment is a bad thing, but then again so is private conduct that violates that spirit -- as an NBC firing of Dungy would.
   3372. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 28, 2014 at 03:01 PM (#4759169)
Firing someone for expressing an unpleasant opinion is no different than firing that person for having, say, a strong and unpleasant personal odor and a persistent unwillingness to adhere to social conventions regarding bathing and hygeine.

It's completely different.

Nor, of course, was Dungy's opinion in any way "unpleasant." Some people may not like it, but that hardly makes it "unpleasant." Some people don't like mayonnaise, but it's perfectly pleasant.

   3373. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: July 28, 2014 at 03:02 PM (#4759170)
I wasn't entirely clear; I wasn't talking about at the time of the Russian occupation this year, but in the bigger picture, more recently than the 1000 years ago you were discussing. Crimea was primarily Tatar until the middle of the 20th century; Stalin essentially deported the entire Tatar population.


Well, right, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish. The question is, who has a greater claim to Crimea right now, assuming it's not going to be turned into an autonomous homeland for the Tatars (and if we are going there, then why not return Georgia to the Cherokees?)? Going back to the Mongol invasion, it was an independent Khanate, then a semi autonomous fiefdom of the Ottoman Empire, then it was conquered by Russia, then administratively attached to the Ukrainian SSR, and then went with Ukraine upon independence. I'm not happy about the way things went down, but due to the historical circumstances, I'm not all that outraged either. The Politburo made it part of Ukraine in the first place. If Putin tries to retake Kiev, then I can muster some outrage.
   3374. GregD Posted: July 28, 2014 at 03:02 PM (#4759171)
I think spies should be prosecuted.

The Red Scare gets confused by two positions: 1) everyone was equally innocent, 2) everyone involved was equally guilty.

The vast majority of people blacklisted and called before congressional committees were guilty of things like adding their names to organizations started for issue-specific lobbying. anti-racial discrimination, peace groups, etc. These organizations were alleged to have communist ties, sometimes based on overt involvement, sometimes based on seed money sent in a way no personal outside the leaders likely figured out, sometimes based on simple overlap between membership, sometimes based on fantasy.

By this standard, everyone who subscribed to Ms. was a CIA agent, since Steinem took CIA money to get her magazine projects off the ground. But since basically no one else knew it, and since there was no obvious way to know it from the content, the more sensible explanation is that Ms. Magazine subscribers have relatively little relationship to the CIA.

And most people in the Red Scare had just as little connection to the CP, much less to Stalin.
   3375. BDC Posted: July 28, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4759172)
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday struck down bans on same sex marriage in Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina

To paraphrase an old question, when a couple gets divorced in West Virginia, will they still be sisters?
   3376. BDC Posted: July 28, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4759173)
Probably a few dozen who knew about the direct Soviet ties

snapper, I think the exact number was 57.
   3377. GregD Posted: July 28, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4759174)
Evidence #148,321 that Republicans truly are the party committed to rewarding work and helping the working poor:
Bill that passed House would cut $2200 in taxes for families making $160,000, eliminate the current $1700 tax benefit for single parent working full time at minimum wage
   3378. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4759177)
How do you think the Soviets got the bomb so fast?
Of course, the communists in Hollywood weren't Klaus Fuchs; they weren't infiltrating DoD installations and smuggling blueprints to the Soviets. They were on the propaganda side of things. But it wasn't all harmless; they were anti-Nazi until Molotov-Ribbentrop, and then did an about-face and began promoting pacifism, and then switched to being pro-war after the Nazi invasion of Russia began.
   3379. tshipman Posted: July 28, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4759178)
That said, I'd certainly agree that pressure to violate the spirit of the First Amendment is a bad thing, but then again, so is private conduct that violates that spirit -- as an NBC firing of Dungy would.


Let's be clear here: you're equating government action with private action? So NBC firing someone for saying stupid #### is the same as the government suppressing speech?

And you're accusing "modern leftists" of being incoherent and whimsical in their decisions?

See, this is why SBB is the greatest troll of all time. His logic is so transparently bad that it sucks you in. You cannot avoid responding to him, even as his madness draws you closer to the abyss.
   3380. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 28, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4759182)
Let's be clear here: you're equating government action with private action?

Are you equating government pressure with a law? Because that was what I was responding to.

On your broader question, no, I wasn't "equating" them. I'm not sure how you could think I was. Perhaps a closer read would help.
   3381. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 28, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4759183)
You cannot avoid responding to him, even as his madness draws you closer to the abyss.


SBB is Cthulhu? Huh.
   3382. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 03:15 PM (#4759189)
SBB is Cthulhu? Huh.


More Nyarlothotep, I'm thinking.
   3383. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 03:16 PM (#4759191)
Evidence #148,321 that Republicans truly are the party committed to rewarding work and helping the working poor:
Bill that passed House would cut $2200 in taxes for families making $160,000, eliminate the current $1700 tax benefit for single parent working full time at minimum wage
That's not what the link says. According to the link, it's not this bill that does the latter. Rather, current law would restore a higher threshold for poor families, thus costing them the $1,700 "tax benefit"¹. This bill doesn't change current law in that respect, but it doesn't cut anything, either.


¹ It's a so-called "refundable" tax credit, which means that people who don't make enough money to pay that much in taxes get mailed a check.
   3384. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: July 28, 2014 at 03:25 PM (#4759205)
That's not what the link says. According to the link, it's not this bill that does the latter. Rather, current law would restore a higher threshold for poor families, thus costing them the $1,700 "tax benefit"¹. This bill doesn't change current law in that respect, but it doesn't cut anything, either.


This part from the linked article is a bit humorous:

As a result, a married couple with two children making $160,000 a year would receive a new tax cut of $2,200 in 2018 under the bill. But a single mother with two children who works full time throughout the year at the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour (which House leaders oppose raising) and earns just $14,500 would lose $1,725. Her CTC would disappear altogether (see Figure 1).


Figure 1 is a simple bar graph with 2 entries , one of which is titled "Married Couple $160,000 income" showing +$2200, the other titled "Single Mother, full time minimum wage $14,500" showing -$1725.

Uh, thanks for the clarification there. I didn't get it until then. It's like something you would see in a Monty Python sketch.


   3385. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4759228)
The Red Scare gets confused by two positions: 1) everyone was equally innocent, 2) everyone involved was equally guilty.

The vast majority of people blacklisted and called before congressional committees were guilty of things like adding their names to organizations started for issue-specific lobbying. anti-racial discrimination, peace groups, etc. These organizations were alleged to have communist ties, sometimes based on overt involvement, sometimes based on seed money sent in a way no personal outside the leaders likely figured out, sometimes based on simple overlap between membership, sometimes based on fantasy.


Agreed.
   3386. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 28, 2014 at 04:05 PM (#4759248)
I wasn't entirely clear; I wasn't talking about at the time of the Russian occupation this year, but in the bigger picture, more recently than the 1000 years ago you were discussing. Crimea was primarily Tatar until the middle of the 20th century; Stalin essentially deported the entire Tatar population.



So I take it you are OK with all the Palestinians who in lived or whose ancestors lived in (What is now) Israel until the middle of the 20th century returning to Israel and voting and whatnot?
   3387. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 28, 2014 at 04:13 PM (#4759252)
Most of the core of the CPUSA in the Stalinist era should have been in Leavenworth or executed for treason.

Maybe I'm just too removed, but your current hysteria over a political party that did as much damage to the United States as Stalin farting seems a little odd.


Stalin did infiltrate the US's nuclear weapons programme, but it's unclear that the CPUSA had any real role in that.

OTOH the CPUSA in the Brezhnev years, in some small minute part possibly hastened the fall of the Soviet Union, Gus Hall and friends, rather than being real revolutionaries or foreign agents, were basically a bunch of grifters living off the Soviet dime.

   3388. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 28, 2014 at 04:17 PM (#4759254)
Romney Would Beat Obama In 2012 Re-Run, 53%-44%

***

Just in case some are missing the point, Obama is still in office - those disaffected Obama voters will have a chance to express themselves again in 2014.


Same Poll that had Romney beating Obama 53-44 had Hilary Clinton beating Romney 55-42

   3389. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 28, 2014 at 04:53 PM (#4759264)
Same Poll that had Romney beating Obama 53-44 had Hilary Clinton beating Romney 55-42

Which is hilarious, since liberals tossed Hillary aside like an old newspaper in 2008, and are increasingly agitating to toss her aside again in 2016.
   3390. spike Posted: July 28, 2014 at 04:54 PM (#4759265)
Romney Would Beat Obama In 2012 Re-Run, 53%-44%

***

Just in case some are missing the point, Obama is still in office - those disaffected Obama voters will have a chance to express themselves again in 2014.



Same Poll that had Romney beating Obama 53-44 had Hilary Clinton beating Romney 55-42


“Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, 'It might have been.” - John Greenleaf Whittier
   3391. GregD Posted: July 28, 2014 at 04:56 PM (#4759268)
That's not what the link says. According to the link, it's not this bill that does the latter. Rather, current law would restore a higher threshold for poor families, thus costing them the $1,700 "tax benefit"¹. This bill doesn't change current law in that respect, but it doesn't cut anything, either.


¹ It's a so-called "refundable" tax credit, which means that people who don't make enough money to pay that much in taxes get mailed a check.
Good catch and I'm glad you posted this.

The bill still demonstrates where Republican priorities lay.
   3392. GregD Posted: July 28, 2014 at 04:56 PM (#4759269)
double post
   3393. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 28, 2014 at 04:58 PM (#4759270)
I don't think it's splitting hairs to see a difference between a single company terminating someone's employment over comments and entire industry basically shutting you out of your livelihood. If NBC (or whomever employs Dungy, I really don't care about the NFL) were to fire Dungy - I'm willing to bet one of their competitors would offer him a job pretty quickly (assuming he's as good as folks say).

Obviously the effects would be as different as night and day, since if Dungy were to be fired (which he's not going to be), he wouldn't have to assume an entire new identity in order to work for some competitor. And Dungy would be but one person.

BUT (big "but"), that said, the spirit behind his firing wouldn't be all that different. In both cases it would be an attempt to silence people for their beliefs.** The true counterpart of the great majority of Dungy's critics, including all of them here, would be groups like the ADA or the ACLU, which criticized all forms of totalitarianism while at the same time defending their constitutional rights. Distinctions like this often get blurred over the years, but they were real, and they were spectacular. David at least should understand this.

**I'm not talking about spies, but that's not whom the blacklisters were after.

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

And the Communist Party today is not the Communist Party of the 1930's-50's.

That's certainly true. By the 1950's the CPUSA was so thoroughly infiltrated by FBI agents that J. Edgar Hoover knew far more about what the Party was up to than did most of the non-FBI agent rank and file members.

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

Not squishy when you are in the direct pay of the USSR and follow orders to the letter. Most of the core of the CPUSA in the Stalinist era should have been in Leavenworth or executed for treason.

Again, you have to distinguish between actions and beliefs. The Rosenbergs were executed, and perhaps some more spies should have been, but you have to remember that we often let spies remain under observation in order not to tip off the Soviets as to how much we knew about their activities. IOW it wasn't necessarily out of kindness that we didn't start executing them. It was often simply a strategic choice combined with a lack of hard evidence, much of which didn't surface until the 90's.

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

Of course, the communists in Hollywood weren't Klaus Fuchs; they weren't infiltrating DoD installations and smuggling blueprints to the Soviets. They were on the propaganda side of things. But it wasn't all harmless; they were anti-Nazi until Molotov-Ribbentrop, and then did an about-face and began promoting pacifism, and then switched to being pro-war after the Nazi invasion of Russia began.

But aside from thoroughly embarrassing themselves with those famous flip-flops, what harm did they actually do? Certainly not as much harm as was done by Father Coughlin, Charles Lindbergh, quasi-Nazi sympathizers like Joe Kennedy and John Foster Dulles, and the isolationists in Congress who fought tooth and nail against U.S. aid to the allies at a time when Europe was tottering on the brink.


   3394. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 28, 2014 at 05:03 PM (#4759271)
The bill still demonstrates where Republican priorities lay.

Republicans remain opposed to wealth redistribution. News at 11.

Meanwhile, the Dems are "solving" the problem of stagnant wages for low-skilled workers by ... facilitating a massive influx of low-skilled workers.
   3395. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 28, 2014 at 05:05 PM (#4759272)
Same Poll that had Romney beating Obama 53-44 had Hilary Clinton beating Romney 55-42


Which is hilarious, since liberals tossed Hillary aside like an old newspaper in 2008, and are increasingly agitating to toss her aside again in 2016.

RCP poll averages for Hillary vs her Democratic rivals:

Hillary 65.8%
Biden 10.8%
Warren 8.5%

Oh, and in case you missed the poll matching Hillary and your Mancrush, here it is again:

Hillary 51.8%
Cruz 38.0%
   3396. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4759273)
Naw. I brought it up because you and your buddies have argued that Dungy knows better than Fisher does what is good for Fisher's team because of Dungy's career record as a coach--more than half of which, of course, was accumulated with Peyton Manning as his QB. None of this is to say that Dungy was not an excellent pro football coach; he was. But I don't see his record vs. Fisher's as a reason to assume that Dungy is right about this and Fisher is wrong, particularly given the rest of the context.

Dungy in TB: 54-42
Dungy in IND: 85-27


Fisher has taken his teams to the playoffs just 6 times in 19 years. How much more pathetic could an NFL head coach be?

Answer: Not much.

You want to smear Dungy's record by shouting "Peyton Manning! Peyton Manning!" but even without Manning, while in Tampa, Dungy took his teams to the playoffs 4 times in 6 years.

In any event, Fisher twice got to draft 3rd in the draft - twice selecting the 1st quarterback overall - and he chose Steve McNair and Vince Young. They may not have been Manning but both were highly regarded and I do think that a head coach has an enormous impact over how well a QB performs in the NFL. So I do think Fisher had an enormous influence over how McNair's and Young's careers turned out. And if Dungy had to do nothing other than to get the hell out of Manning's way that level of awareness and discipline is to Dungy's credit.
   3397. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 28, 2014 at 05:07 PM (#4759274)

Andy, we just went through this a few days ago. At this point, the average voter couldn't pick Ted Cruz or Elizabeth Warren out of a police lineup. Bill Clinton was at ~6 percent in January 1991.
   3398. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 28, 2014 at 05:13 PM (#4759277)
Meanwhile, the Dems are "solving" the problem of stagnant wages for low-skilled workers by ... facilitating a massive influx of low-skilled workers.

Not to mention ranting about "Economic Patriotism" and "Corporate Deserters" instead of proposing meaningful changes to tax and trade policy that would address the issue.
   3399. McCoy Posted: July 28, 2014 at 05:16 PM (#4759278)
The question is, who has a greater claim to Crimea right now, assuming it's not going to be turned into an autonomous homeland for the Tatars (and if we are going there, then why not return Georgia to the Cherokees?)?

Stalin was Cherokee?
   3400. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 28, 2014 at 05:21 PM (#4759284)
Andy, we just went through this a few days ago. At this point, the average voter couldn't pick Ted Cruz or Elizabeth Warren out of a police lineup. Bill Clinton was at ~6 percent in January 1991.

That'd be relevant if Cruz's appeal could ever extend beyond Tea Party sympathizers and other Angry White Men and The Women Who Put Up With Them for God knows what reason.

Bill Clinton was one of the four greatest natural politicians among all the presidential candidates of the 20th century, along with FDR, Kennedy and Reagan.** Don't embarrass yourself by trying to pretend that Ted Cruz will ever be included in that category. You get to that level by projecting wit and optimism, not by sourly railing against the demons in your head while alienating one key group after another.

**You could include Eisenhower in that group, though without his WWII credentials he wouldn't have even been considered a candidate.
Page 34 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 32 33 34 35 36 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Page rendered in 0.7198 seconds
48 querie(s) executed