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 41 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 39 40 41
   4001. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 08:07 AM (#4762346)
In point of fact, Algerian natives were allowed to apply for French citizenship as early as 1865. Most declined.

Wikipedia: "Under the Second Empire (1852–1871), the Code de l'indigénat (Indigenous Code) was implemented by the Sénatus-consulte of July 14, 1865. It allowed Muslims to apply for full French citizenship, a measure that few took, since it involved renouncing the right to be governed by sharia law in personal matters and was considered a kind of apostasy."

Then, in the mid-20th century, an even more liberal status was enacted:

After World War II, equality of rights was proclaimed by the Ordonnance of March 7, 1944, and later confirmed by the Loi Lamine Guèye of May 7, 1946, which granted French citizenship to all the subjects of France's territories and overseas departments, and by the 1946 Constitution. The Law of September 20, 1947, granted French citizenship to all Algerian subjects, who were not required to renounce their Muslim personal status.

In other words, they chose sharia over civilization in the 19th century and rejected French citizenship in the 20th century, and instead started bombing cafes and other civilian establishments and driving other Algerians out and murdering 150,000 of the ones that stayed behind.

Yeah, that's worth romantizing and celebrating.
   4002. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 08:10 AM (#4762347)
And here was the proclamation of the FLN upon their institution of mob violence in 1954:

"From Cairo, the FLN broadcast a proclamation calling on Muslims in Algeria to join in a national struggle for the "restoration of the Algerian state – sovereign, democratic and social – within the framework of the principles of Islam."

Yep, they just wanted to be governed better.

Sure they did.
   4003. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 08:12 AM (#4762348)
"An important watershed in the War of Independence was the massacre of Pieds-Noirs civilians by the FLN near the town of Philippeville (now known as Skikda) in August, 1955. Before this operation, FLN policy was to attack only military and government-related targets. The commander of the Constantine wilaya/region, however, decided a drastic escalation was needed. The killing by the FLN and its supporters of 123 people, including 71 French, including old women and babies ...

Now there's something to rally around.
   4004. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:07 AM (#4762360)
You didn't answer it there. You simply hand-waved the idea that your majority-rule position could trample minority rights and lead to some rather dire outcomes.


You asked how I would feel about it and the post I linked to answered the question. If you ask my opinion and I give it then it pretty much answers the question. You want a different answer ask a different question.

Right, so if the Algerians want to be nativists, you have no problem with it and even endorse it. It's only when whitey starts making such noises that you get outraged.


I acknowledge that nations get to decide who their citizens are. You still have not answered what you think the alternative to that is, well?

I'm afraid this was non-responsive, just as I had suspected it would be.


I love how I ask you questions and you response is to call my questions non-responsive and then you ask more questions while being ... wait for it ... non responsive to my questions. If you had answered any of my direct questions I would feel the urge to answer one of your really dumb questions, but you have not and so I don't. I am not on the witness stand, you don't get to randomly grill me and not answer any questions.
   4005. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:16 AM (#4762366)
I acknowledge that nations get to decide who their citizens are.

The entirely-legitimate governing authority of Algeria (*) decided, and a constituent mob violently rejected the decision.

So, no, you don't really believe that nations get to decide who their citizens are.

You're still flailing badly.

(*) France, really.
   4006. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:32 AM (#4762372)
The entirely-legitimate governing authority of Algeria (*) decided, and a constituent mob violently rejected the decision.

So, no, you don't really believe that nations get to decide who their citizens are.


You are missing some steps. And honestly this is so very remedial I am shocked you are still trying to make this into a thing.

A country is founded and governed. As part of that it "decides"* many things. Included in that is who are its citizens, if there are different classes of citizens, protections for its citizens and so on. This has happened for basically every nation ever. Feel free to propose an alternative.

Sometimes nations fall, split apart, merge with other nations and so on. This can happen for a whole host of reasons, one of the being a subset of the citizens are not happy. Out of this process new and/or changed nations appear. These new or changed nations go through the same process again and make the same "decisions".

So Algeria was part of (I will let others argue whether it was a colony or not) France. And a decision was made as to who the citizens were. Then after a revolution a new nation emerged, which made a determination as to who the citizens of the new nation were.

So I have asked before and JoeK has been too afraid to answer (I know, shocking, right?), but maybe just maybe you can reach way down and summon the courage to answer.

If a nation does not get to decide who its citizens are, then who does? What is your alternative? In the "old" nation who should have decided who the citizens were? In the new nation who should have decided who the citizens are?

* Yes, I realize a nation doesn't actually decide anything, it like corporations are not people, nor are they alive. It is the collection of people (and their relative power) and other forces, but for purposes of this discussion I am simplifying it to saying the nation decides. It is hard to be more specific without going into the specifics of the individual country and then we will get bogged down in minutia which is irrelevant.
   4007. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:36 AM (#4762375)
You are missing some steps.

I'm not missing any steps. The legitmate governing authority decided who its citizens were and a violent subset resorted to mob violence to evict and murder hundreds of thousands of those citizens, to the applause of modern liberals worldwide, then and now.

You don't really believe a nation gets to decide who its citizens are if you also believe a violent subset can legitimately reject that decision by violence. Those are fundamentally inconsistent.

If you actually believed what you say you believe, you would reject the mob violence that birthed the "new nation."
   4008. bobm Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:37 AM (#4762376)
If a nation does not get to decide who its citizens are, then who does?

Winston Churchill :)
   4009. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:51 AM (#4762380)
You don't really believe a nation gets to decide who its citizens are if you also believe a violent subset can legitimately reject that decision by violence. Those are fundamentally inconsistent.

If you actually believed what you say you believe, you would reject the mob violence that birthed the "new nation."


Wow are you confused (and afraid to answer my question, it must be sad to be frightened of internet questions).

Of course a nation decides who its citizens are, there is nothing else to do so. However you seem to think that any nation that so declares is automatically legitimate and beloved of its citizens and insured to be a nation forever and ever.

If a nation does so poorly - and again it is really funny you don't seem to understand how this works - that it cannot control its borders, its citizens, then it loses legitimacy. It doesn't matter is some random dude on the internet thinks old School France is the legitimate "ruler" of Algerian or if a bunch of the 1962 version of Modern Liberals cheer the rebels on.

France lost Algeria. According to wikipedia ...

From 1848 until independence, France administered the whole Mediterranean region of Algeria as an integral part and département of the nation. One of France's longest-held overseas territories, Algeria became a destination for hundreds of thousands of European immigrants, who became known as colons and later, as Pied-Noirs. Between 1825 and 1847, 50,000 French people emigrated to Algeria.[49][page needed] These settlers benefited from the French government's confiscation of communal land from tribal peoples, and the application of modern agricultural techniques that increased the amount of arable land.[50]

Gradually, dissatisfaction among the Muslim population, which lacked political and economic status in the colonial system, gave rise to demands for greater political autonomy, and eventually independence, from France. Tensions between the two population groups came to a head in 1954, when the first violent events of what was later called the Algerian War began. Historians have estimated that between 30,000 and 150,000 Harkis and their dependents were killed by the Front de Libération Nationale (FLN) or by lynch mobs in Algeria.[51] The FLN used terrorist attacks in Algeria and France as part of its war, and the French conducted severe reprisals and repression. The war concluded in 1962, when Algeria gained complete independence following the March 1962 Evian agreements and the July 1962 self-determination referendum.


France lost. Before I was born. Algeria is a nation with "complete independence". When that happened France lost its ability to decide regarding Algeria citizenship, but still could have decided that all those people (Current Algerians) were still French citizens. Heck France could decide that everyone in the world is a French Citizen (and of course many could feel free to reject it), because France has control of the rules for its citizenship. But regarding Algerian citizenship Algeria has control of that. The independent nation of Algeria controls who has citizenship of its country.

That doesn't mean that this is true for ever and all time. Algeria might fall the hostile nation of GoodFaceistan or perhaps to the Caliphate of SBB, or it might split into several smaller nations. If any of that happens then those nations will get to make the call, because that is how it works in the real world, no Modern Liberal or Backward Conservative blessing needed.

So, he asks yet again, mostly to point out you keep refusing to answer this most simple and direct question, if the nation in question doesn't determine who its citizens are, who does?
   4010. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:57 AM (#4762381)
If a nation does so poorly - and again it is really funny you don't seem to understand how this works - that it cannot control its borders, its citizens, then it loses legitimacy.

Huh? That's ridiculous. The inability to control a separatist, bloodthirsty mob does not cause the ruling government to "lose legitimacy," anymore than the government of France "lost legitimacy" when Hitler occupied its territory.

You're still flailing.
   4011. spike Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:02 AM (#4762383)
the mob violence that birthed the "new nation."

European colonial government forced out by independence movement. You might as well be describing the Boston Massacre here.
   4012. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:04 AM (#4762384)
European colonial government forced out by independence movement. You might as well be describing the Boston Massacre here.

Except the movement for American independence wasn't for racial/religious reasons, nor did it resort to the type of mob violence against innocents as did the revolt against the legitimate government of Algeria. Nor did the independence-minded Americans slaughter en masse loyalists who stayed in independent America.

There's no serious comparison between the two.
   4013. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:06 AM (#4762385)
Huh? That's ridiculous. The inability to control a separatist, bloodthirsty mob does not cause the ruling government to "lose legitimacy," anymore than the government of France "lost legitimacy" when Hitler occupied its territory.


Well France seemed to think it did because they signed a treaty and everything "The war concluded in 1962, when Algeria gained complete independence following the March 1962 Evian agreements and the July 1962 self-determination referendum."

If you don't like the fact that France surrendered take it up with them, not me. But France, Algeria, the UN and pretty much every nation on Earth is of the opinion that France lost control of Algeria. You can continue to hallucinate if you want, but that doesn't make it so.

So out of morbid curiosity, do you think the US is independent from Britain? Compare and contrast the differences between the US becoming independent and establishing rules for citizenship in it, versus Algeria becoming independent from France.

You're still flailing.


Well I am arguing with a moronic lunatic, so yeah I guess I am, but other than continuing to argue with you, not so much. And the way I know is the fact that you can't answer the most simple and basic question of all.

Who decides on the rules for citizenship of a country, if not that country?
   4014. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:08 AM (#4762389)
Except the movement for American independence wasn't for racial/religious reasons, nor did it resort to the type of mob violence against innocents as did the revolt against the legitimate government of Algeria. Nor did the independence-minded Americans slaughter en masse those who stayed in America who were loyal to the British crown.


What does any of that have to do with the outcome. Whatever the motivation (and your reading is more than a little suspect) FRANCE STILL LOST. They signed an agreement and everything.
   4015. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:08 AM (#4762390)
Well France seemed to think it did because they signed a treaty and everything "The war concluded in 1962, when Algeria gained complete independence following the March 1962 Evian agreements and the July 1962 self-determination referendum."

It signed a treaty with Hitler, too, yet still remained the legitimate government of France.
   4016. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:09 AM (#4762391)
Whatever the motivation (and your reading is more than a little suspect) FRANCE STILL LOST.

Which doesn't have anything to do with their legitimacy. They signed an agreement at bomb-point, after the mob killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Well I am arguing with a moronic lunatic, so yeah I guess I am, but other than continuing to argue with you, not so much. And the way I know is the fact that you can't answer the most simple and basic question of all.

Who decides on the rules for citizenship of a country, if not that country?


Huh? I've answered it ten times now. France decided on the citizenship of the people within France/Algeria. Technically it offered French citizenship rather than just decreeing it, but a separatist mob rejeted the offer and resorted to slaughtering civilians instead -- to modern liberal applause, then and now.
   4017. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:15 AM (#4762393)
It signed a treaty with Hitler, too, yet still remained the legitimate government of France.


Correct it was, until events caused it not to be.

Which doesn't have anything to do with their legitimacy. They signed an agreement at bomb-point, after the mob killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.


So let me get this straight, you are of the opinion that there is a magical factor, let's call it legitimacy. And some nations have it and some don't.

So feel free to provide a list of legitimate and illegitimate nations, with your reasons as to their legitimacy. Right it down on a piece of paper. Take a dump and use the paper to wipe yourself off. Because that is the value of your opinion of various nations legitimacy.

Algeria is legitimate. France says so. The US says so. The UN says so. I suspect virtually every nation on Earth says so. A huge percent of the people on Earth think so. So far in the other direction we have some dude on the internet who says otherwise. Who's flailing?
   4018. spike Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:20 AM (#4762396)
the legitimate government of Algeria.

Ha! Is that like the legitimate government of Belgian Congo?
   4019. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:21 AM (#4762398)
Huh? I've answered it ten times now. France decided on the citizenship of France/Algeria. Technically it offered French citizenship rather than demanding it, but a separatist mob rejeted the offer and resorted to slaughtering civilians instead -- to modern liberal applause, then and now.


Yes France made the decision. Then it lost control. And then Algeria made the decision. This is not hard.
   4020. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:22 AM (#4762399)
Correct it was, until events caused it not to be.

No, there was never a time that it ceased being the legitimate government, even though it did not have temporal control of its borders and territory. Just as it was the legitimate authority in Algeria, whether or not it could control its separatist mob.

So let me get this straight, you are of the opinion that there is a magical factor, let's call it legitimacy. And some nations have it and some don't.

It's not magical, it's simple (*). Some governing authorities have it, some don't.

(*) Though you pretty plainly have no idea what it means.

Algeria is legitimate. France says so. The US says so. The UN says so. I suspect virtually every nation on Earth says so.

Of course it's legitimate. But, notwithstanding your obsession, that's never been the topic under discussion, which has instead been the legitimacy and definition of the governing authority of pre-independence Algeria.

   4021. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:23 AM (#4762400)
to modern liberal applause, then and now


Were they really "Modern" Liberals in 1962? Really? Can you lay out a timeline for when Liberals became Modern Liberals?

Note: I submitted a article for next month. It will come soon. When it does I am done arguing this dumb point.
   4022. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:25 AM (#4762402)
Yes France made the decision.

OK, so then what have you been arguing about? France made the decision. And if Algeria's decision now is to be respected, the same principle would dictate that France's decision then be respected. Yet modern liberals didn't then, and don't now respect that decision.

   4023. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:25 AM (#4762403)
In point of fact, Algerian natives were allowed to apply for French citizenship as early as 1865. Most declined.

So how did the French get to set these terms in the first place? Why would France have wanted Algerians to become French citizens? What did the French get out of it?

Oh, right, they got to rule over a country where they first set up shop all of 35 years earlier. So after coming in uninvited in 1830 and setting up minority rule in Algeria, then 35 years later they square things by benignly offering citizenship in the home country, where surprise surprise, they'll be in a permanent minority.

To use the language of the later colonial era: How white of them.

There was never any way that the French were going to let Algerians rule their own country. The Algerians knew that, the French knew that, and the whole world knew that. At some point, something had to give, and it "gave" in the form of the FLN.

And while you shed your crocodile tears about the FLN's violent methods, you not only ignore the fact that the French famously used napalm and torture in response, but you ignore the fact that it was violence that enabled the French to rule over Algeria in the first place. You act as if the FLN was somehow the instigator of violence in Algeria, which as usual (for you) ignores well over a century of history and pretends that it didn't exist.
   4024. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:27 AM (#4762408)
Were they really "Modern" Liberals in 1962? Really? Can you lay out a timeline for when Liberals became Modern Liberals?

Of course they were. They were obsessed about the races of the various constituents within the territory of Algeria in 1962 as they are obsessed about race today.
   4025. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:28 AM (#4762409)
Of course it's legitimate. But, notwithstanding your obsession, that's never been the topic under discussion, which has instead been the legitimacy and definition of the governing authority of pre-independence Algeria.


Wow you are dumb. Pre-independence Algeria France was the government. There was no nation that I am aware of between France and independent Algeria. Without a nation there is no citizenship. Everyone was however France defined it, until they lost control, surrendered and Algeria was formed.

What on Earth are you trying to get at? You agree that Algeria is legitimate. So it does get to decide who its citizens are. Before that France was legitimate and got to decide who its citizens were. What are you confused by? Were you unfamiliar that nations changed, won wars, lost wars, split and merged? You can't be that stupid, can you?
   4026. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:29 AM (#4762410)
Of course they were. They were obsessed about the races of the various constituents within the territory of Algeria in 1962 as they are obsessed about race today.


And yet the one who keeps bringing race into the discussion is you. You project almost as much as JoeK.
   4027. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:32 AM (#4762414)
And oh look the new thread is up and running.
   4028. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:37 AM (#4762417)
Oh, right, they got to rule over a country where they first set up shop all of 35 years earlier.

They offered it again in around 1945, when they'd ruled for 115 years.

So after coming in uninvited in 1830 and setting up minority rule in Algeria, then 35 years later they square things by benignly offering citizenship in the home country, where surprise surprise, they'll be in a permanent minority.

So what if they're in a permanent minority? What gives them any right to an ethnically-defined polity where they're the ethnic majority? Do American blacks have that right?

There was never any way that the French were going to let Algerians rule their own country.

How was it "their own country"? It became what I think you mean by "their own country" after their bloodthirsty mob violence and mass murder ethnically cleansed it and the French left, but before that there was no "their own country."

And while you shed your crocodile tears about the FLN's violent methods, you not only ignore the fact that the French famously used napalm and torture in response, but you ignore the fact that it was violence that enabled the French to rule over Algeria in the first place.

Of course. There was some violence involved in the inception of the legitimate governing authority of virtually every inch of territory on the planet.

You act as if the FLN was somehow the instigator of violence in Algeria, which as usual (for you) ignores well over a century of history and pretends that it didn't exist.

Of course the FLN was the instigator of the violence that started the war of independence, which included the mass murder of innocent civilians. This isn't even debatable.
   4029. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 01, 2014 at 10:40 AM (#4762422)
I'm moving to the new thread.
Page 41 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 39 40 41

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogThe Jeff Jacobs HOF Ballot: Keep The Voting Serious And Fair
(28 - 10:57am, Dec 21)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(5157 - 10:56am, Dec 21)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(162 - 10:55am, Dec 21)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogGetting ready to gamble on Jung-Ho Kang | FOX Sports
(2 - 10:41am, Dec 21)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogMarty Noble's HOF Ballot
(11 - 10:29am, Dec 21)
Last: bobm

NewsblogThe Yankees’ plan in case A-Rod can’t play at all
(14 - 10:23am, Dec 21)
Last: BDC

NewsblogRuben Amaro Jr. says it would be best if Phillies move on from Ryan Howard
(37 - 10:07am, Dec 21)
Last: BDC

NewsblogOT: Soccer December 2014
(320 - 9:34am, Dec 21)
Last: Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun)

NewsblogDodgers biggest spenders in payroll
(8 - 9:16am, Dec 21)
Last: cercopithecus aethiops

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9190 - 8:37am, Dec 21)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogGiants acquire McGehee to fill third-base spot
(5 - 8:33am, Dec 21)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogAP sources: Umpires, MLB reach 5-year agreement
(3 - 5:48am, Dec 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogAngels, Red Sox discontinue pension plans for non-uniformed personnel - LA Times
(23 - 4:00am, Dec 21)
Last: The TVerik of Lordly Might

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(762 - 3:19am, Dec 21)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogThe right — and wrong — way for Mets to get Tulowitzki | New York Post
(12 - 1:09am, Dec 21)
Last: Cargo Cultist

Page rendered in 0.3988 seconds
48 querie(s) executed