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

Thursday, February 28, 2013

[OTP - March] Scott wants money for spring training teams

While working at the Detroit Tigers’ spring facility in Lakeland, Gov. Rick Scott announced today he will ask the Florida Legislature to set aside $5 million a year for projects specifically aimed at improving the Major League Baseball training facilities in the state.

“It’s my job as governor to make sure Florida remains the number one destination for spring training and that is why we will work to provide $5 million annually to only be used for spring training facilities,” Scott said in a statement that was released while Scott was participating in one of his “work days” with the Tigers at Joker Marchant Stadium in Lakeland.

Tripon Posted: February 28, 2013 at 02:05 PM | 2909 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: baseball, florida, ot, politics, spring training

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 2 of 30 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›
   101. PreservedFish Posted: March 03, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4379744)
I remember looking up that apostrophe question and finding a source that claimed that "Jesus" had different rules than other names that ended in S. I forget if it was "Charles' and Jesus's" or "Charles's and Jesus'."

> Oh snap, #100 beat me to it.
   102. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 03, 2013 at 02:02 PM (#4379746)
Sorry, it's the latter. Singular plural, you add apostrophe S. I don't think there are any exceptions.


Unless you're using AP style. Which, y'know, thousands & thousands -- probably millions -- of writers & editors do. Unless I'm still so asleep that I'm getting that wrong, but I don't think that's the case.

I found an online cite for that just a couple of minutes ago, but my tortie decided to stand on my keyboard & reduce the type to the point that it'd probably all fit on the head of a pin. Oh, well.
   103. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: March 03, 2013 at 02:04 PM (#4379747)
Also, I've changed my tune on words and expressions, figuring that things just change over time. But the apostrophe thing does really bug me for some reason.

However, there is one apostrophe/plural rule that I break on purpose. It's pluralizing acronyms. Officially, to pluralize "PC", you're supposed to write "PCs". But with the proliferation of acronyms, I find that confusing. Especially because some acronyms have lowercase letters (BoA for Bank of America, etc.). Because acronyms aren't "real" words, you often can't tell whether the lower case "s" is part of the acronym or not. So instead of "The PCs are in the closet" or "The BoAs of the world are a bunch of crooks", I'll write "The PC's are in the closet" or "The BoA's of the world are a bunch of crooks". I know it's wrong, but I think it's clearer.

Acronyms have only been around in full force since about WWII so I think language is still adapting to them.
   104. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: March 03, 2013 at 02:06 PM (#4379748)
Unless you're using AP style. Which, y'know, thousands & thousands -- probably millions -- of writers & editors do. Unless I'm still so asleep that I'm getting that wrong, but I don't think that's the case.

OK, OK, no need to get snarky about it. I've looked this up a lot and every time I have, I come to the conclusion that "'s" is proper. I either missed AP or forgot about it.
   105. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 03, 2013 at 02:06 PM (#4379749)
Here we go --


In AP style, if a proper noun ends in s or an s sound, add an apostrophe only.
Chris‘ exam scores were higher than any other students.
   106. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 03, 2013 at 02:08 PM (#4379751)
OK, OK, no need to get snarky about it.


Sorry -- no particular snark intended. If you don't work for a newspaper or a publication that follows AP, there's no reason for you to take it into consideration. But I do, so I do. And the people I work with violate it all the goddamned time, so I'm probably more militant about it than I would otherwise be. (Of course, my genius bpss has asked me twice whether Obama is or isn't spelled "O'bama," as if he were Irish, so I'm not dealing with one of the great minds of the Western world to start with.)
   107. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: March 03, 2013 at 02:12 PM (#4379754)
Not sure if this is too much to quote here, but here's the Wikipedia* section of the apostrophe entry:

Many respected authorities recommend that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe so that the spelling reflects the underlying pronunciation. Examples include Oxford University Press, the Modern Language Association, the BBC and The Economist.[19] Such authorities demand possessive singulars like these: Senator Jones's umbrella; Tony Adams's friend. Rules that modify or extend the standard principle have included the following:

-If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added sibilant, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by The Guardian,[20] Yahoo! Style Guide,[21] The American Heritage Book of English Usage.[22] Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates' later suggestion; or Achilles' heel if that is how the pronunciation is intended.

-Classical, biblical, and similar names ending in a sibilant, especially if they are polysyllabic, do not take an added s in the possessive; among sources giving exceptions of this kind are The Times[23] and The Elements of Style, which make general stipulations, and Vanderbilt University,[24] which mentions only Moses and Jesus. As a particular case, Jesus' is very commonly written instead of Jesus's – even by people who would otherwise add 's in, for example, James's or Chris's. Jesus' is referred to as "an accepted liturgical archaism" in Hart's Rules.

However, some contemporary writers still follow the older practice of omitting the extra s in all cases ending with a sibilant, but usually not when written -x or -xe.[25] Some contemporary authorities such as the Associated Press Stylebook[26] and The Chicago Manual of Style recommend or allow the practice of omitting the extra "s" in all words ending with an "s", but not in words ending with other sibilants ("z" and "x").[27] The 15th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style still recommended the traditional practice, which included providing for several exceptions to accommodate spoken usage such as the omission of the extra s after a polysyllabic word ending in a sibilant. The 16th edition of CMOS no longer recommends omitting the extra "s".[28]


So, the use of "s'" for singular instead of "s's" is "older" and at this point only indicated as proper by AP.

I think I'll stick with the "just always add 's".

EDIT: Composed before 105 and 106 were there.

*Clearly Wikipedia isn't definitive, but it's all I'm willing to search for on a Sunday morning.
   108. PreservedFish Posted: March 03, 2013 at 02:13 PM (#4379755)
Also, I've changed my tune on words and expressions, figuring that things just change over time.


Sometimes that change doesn't strike me as necessarily bad or good (eg "impact" as a verb) but I think it's worth fighting over the changes that denude our language. Disinterested is a great word, with a useful specific meaning, so it's a shame that it's being used as an unnecessary synonym of "uninterested."
   109. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 03, 2013 at 02:15 PM (#4379756)
The Times (assuming that that's what the Wikipedia excerpt is referring to; I'm too lazy to go look) & any other publication still using courtesy titles are too hidebound to cite as any authority for anything.

Would they refer to "Mr. Jesus"? I suppose so.
   110. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: March 03, 2013 at 02:15 PM (#4379757)
I need a new ruling on style, though. I composed post 107 and put in an asterisk. Then I wanted to edit it to add a comment about the two posts that were put in while I was writing. Does the EDIT go before or after the asterisk. In general I think EDIT should go at the end of the post to be clear. But I didn't want it to be thought of as part of the asterisked section.
   111. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: March 03, 2013 at 02:18 PM (#4379759)

Sometimes that change doesn't strike me as necessarily bad or good (eg "impact" as a verb) but I think it's worth fighting over the changes that denude our language. Disinterested is a great word, with a useful specific meaning, so it's a shame that it's being used as an unnecessary synonym of "uninterested."


I agree, but I've moved on to "language exists to convey ideas", so when someone says "I could care less", every single English language speaking person knows what they mean, so it's a perfectly fine expression.

I've said this before, but I came to this conclusion after reading The Word Detective columns. It's fascinating how words change their meaning over time, and what you learned as a kid and think is the right way to speak was probably horrifying to adults at the time. As it was to their parents, and theirs, etc. So many words and expressions that we use today didn't exist 200 years ago, it's astounding.
   112. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 03, 2013 at 02:19 PM (#4379760)
110 -- Good question. If you stick the EDIT after the asterisk, I for one would assume that you were editing your asterisked pasage.
   113. PreservedFish Posted: March 03, 2013 at 02:21 PM (#4379761)
I think EDIT should be below the footnote.
   114. PreservedFish Posted: March 03, 2013 at 02:23 PM (#4379762)
I agree, but I've moved on to "language exists to convey ideas", so when someone says "I could care less", every single English language speaking person knows what they mean, so it's a perfectly fine expression.


I agree with this. "Could care less" doesn't bother me. But in the case of disinterested/uninterested, the change actually makes the language less capable of conveying ideas with specificity. That's why it's worth fighting.
   115. Morty Causa Posted: March 03, 2013 at 03:06 PM (#4379785)
What's the standard for possessive when the word ends with an S? Charles' or Charles's?


It's rule #1 in Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. It says "[f]orm the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's." It then adds "[f]ollow this rule whatever the final consonant." After being so definite, as was Strunk's want, there are of course exceptions.


Confusion in the mind prevails, which has led to confusion in practice through the years. Practice has changed, it seems, recently and in the past, although the Strunk & White rule has been more or less dominated until fairly recently . The two editions of Fowler I possess both foreshadow Strunk & White. Fowler, though, goes into more detail in his entry noted under the rubric "possessive puzzles." He also provides an explanation for why the difference between common or regular proper nouns ending in s and ancient names ending in s. Had to do with the practice long ago, which when change took place was retained for "verse and reverential context." Thus began the confusion. Fowler held that you always add 's if the word is monosyllabic "and preferably when it is longer." Jones's children, St. James's Street, the Rev. Septimus's surplice, Pythagoras's doctrines, but Jesus' Achilles'. Would you refer to John Updike's classic account of Ted Williams's last at-bat or...?

By the way, Word's checker tells me it should be Williams’.

I have a collection of grammar books (elementary, secondary, and college) schools in my area used in the '50s through the '70s. They more or less adhere to what Fowler/Strunk&White; advocate. That becomes attenuated as we progress forward until now I'm not sure what's standard.

Preference of the sources seems to be arbitrary and according to personal taste, if not whim. Likewise, a similar evolution has occurred wrt the serial comma. (That was the second rule in The Elements of Style.)
   116. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 03, 2013 at 04:58 PM (#4379853)
So, regarding politics, I have a question for the conservative elements and camp here. Are the conservatives in the capital and on the hill upset at the sequester because they are being BLAMED for it? Because the American people are being told it's terrible when it is what the conservatives are saying is what needs to happen?
I'm not their spokesperson, but I think they're upset at the fraudulent reporting about how it's going to cause terrible problems.
   117. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 03, 2013 at 05:27 PM (#4379872)
Jesus' is referred to as "an accepted liturgical archaism" in Hart's Rules.

*whistles*
   118. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 03, 2013 at 05:33 PM (#4379875)
Disinterested is a great word, with a useful specific meaning, so it's a shame that it's being used as an unnecessary synonym of "uninterested."

Yes, it's important that we keep it around as an unnecessary synonym of "impartial".

Edit: Since this is the Grammar Nazi thread, I am 87% sure that it should be 'synonym for', but went with the original.
   119. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 03, 2013 at 05:35 PM (#4379878)
I'm not their spokesperson, but I think they're upset at the fraudulent reporting about how it's going to cause terrible problems.

Here are two rather typical articles that ran on the front page of today's Times, along with a third one that directly faces the jump page of the first two. All deal with the sequestration.

Cuts to Achieve Goal for Deficit, but Toll Is High

Virginia’s Feast on U.S. Funds Nears an End

Across-the-Board Cuts Take Effect, but Their Impact Is Not Immediately Felt

Forget the blame game, which is a whole separate topic, and there are three undeniable truths about the sequestration. The first truth is that the effects of it will be felt more down the road than immediately. The second truth is that the effects will vary significantly by state and by region. The third truth is that the effects will impact younger adults more than older ones, since the former are more likely to depend on their salaries and less likely to have paid up their homes or built up any sort of independent financial cushion.

Taken together, these articles do a very good job of explaining these points. So where's the "fraud"? What's your complaint?
   120. PreservedFish Posted: March 03, 2013 at 08:30 PM (#4379907)
I don't think that "disinterested" and "impartial" are quite the same. Because the word is a negation of "interested" it lays emphasis on a lack of selfishness. You don't often call an umpire "disinterested" because he's not expected to have any skin in the game.

At least I think.

Edit: Since this is the Grammar Nazi thread, I am 87% sure that it should be 'synonym for', but went with the original.


I was wondering about that.
   121. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 03, 2013 at 10:29 PM (#4379934)
I don't think that "disinterested" and "impartial" are quite the same. Because the word is a negation of "interested" it lays emphasis on a lack of selfishness. You don't often call an umpire "disinterested" because he's not expected to have any skin in the game.

They're pretty much synonymous, but since "impartial"'s meaning is understood by everyone, it makes more sense to use that word when talking about an umpire, since no casual fan will then scratch his head trying to figure out what you mean.

But when I hear someone say "disinterested" when they really mean "not interested", I get the same chalk on the blackboard sensation that I do from hearing "between you and I". It's one thing to hear it from a half educated person who probably doesn't know any better, but IMO the only excuse for someone who knows better to use it incorrectly is when they're using it for purposes of parody. It didn't originate from any particular street language, either ethnic or age-related, and it doesn't really add anything to the language as a whole, like "ain't". It just sounds stupid.
   122. Jim Wisinski Posted: March 04, 2013 at 12:43 AM (#4379965)
This politics thread was good at first but then the style manual discussion went too far.
   123. SteveF Posted: March 04, 2013 at 01:07 AM (#4379972)
This politics thread was good at first but then the style manual discussion went too far.


I'd agree. I find the whole discussion rather disinteresting.
   124. Morty Causa Posted: March 04, 2013 at 01:26 AM (#4379975)
Irregardless, let us endeavor to persevere.
   125. Morty Causa Posted: March 04, 2013 at 01:47 AM (#4379980)
   126. Morty Causa Posted: March 04, 2013 at 02:13 AM (#4379986)
Speaking of rehab, what ever happened to Chosen Joe Kehoskie?

121: How are you on "mother-####### disinterested" spoken by the right sort of guy in a hoodie with the waistband of his pants around the back of his knees? Does that grate on you like fingernails on a blackboard?
   127. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 04, 2013 at 08:28 AM (#4380023)
121: How are you on "mother-####### disinterested" spoken by the right sort of guy in a hoodie with the waistband of his pants around the back of his knees? Does that grate on you like fingernails on a blackboard?

Nah, I'd just challenge him to a 50 yard dash with our hands behind our backs.
   128. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 04, 2013 at 08:34 AM (#4380025)
More class warfare promoted by the press. How dare they report facts like these!

Recovery in U.S. Is Lifting Profits, but Not Adding Jobs

With the Dow Jones industrial average flirting with a record high, the split between American workers and the companies that employ them is widening and could worsen in the next few months as federal budget cuts take hold.

That gulf helps explain why stock markets are thriving even as the economy is barely growing and unemployment remains stubbornly high.

With millions still out of work, companies face little pressure to raise salaries, while productivity gains allow them to increase sales without adding workers.

“So far in this recovery, corporations have captured an unusually high share of the income gains,” said Ethan Harris, co-head of global economics at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “The U.S. corporate sector is in a lot better health than the overall economy. And until we get a full recovery in the labor market, this will persist.”

The result has been a golden age for corporate profits, especially among multinational giants that are also benefiting from faster growth in emerging economies like China and India....

With $85 billion in automatic cuts taking effect between now and Sept. 30 as part of the so-called federal budget sequestration, some experts warn that economic growth will be reduced by at least half a percentage point. But although experts estimate that sequestration could cost the country about 700,000 jobs, Wall Street does not expect the cuts to substantially reduce corporate profits — or seriously threaten the recent rally in the stock markets.

“It’s minimal,” said Savita Subramanian, head of United States equity and quantitative strategy at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Over all, the sequester could reduce earnings at the biggest companies by just over 1 percent, she said, adding, “the market wants more austerity.”...
   129. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: March 04, 2013 at 10:13 AM (#4380059)
My god, I'm surrounded by nerds.
   130. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 04, 2013 at 10:37 AM (#4380077)
My god, I'm surrounded by nerds.


Your mom really needs to be more selective in choosing occupants for her basement.
   131. PreservedFish Posted: March 04, 2013 at 11:56 AM (#4380135)
I think the prescriptivist / descriptivist thing is a false dichotomy. We all agree that language can be used poorly and incorrectly. Don't we?
   132. Morty Causa Posted: March 04, 2013 at 12:10 PM (#4380141)
How can that be? What's the basis for deciding when language is used poorly and incorrectly? And why poorly and incorrectly instead of poorly or incorrectly. Is the basis communication? Elegance? Disinterested incorporated as its meaning uninterested for ages, then for a short while there was a trend to isolating that part of its meaning out. That seems to have reversed back to what was previous. Rather than think of change in this censorious mode, why not look at it from a mental or psychological standpoint. Why does the mind of so many want to conflate this? (And, no, because they are lazy, stupid, ignoramuses is not the answer if you are going to try to see this scientifically.)
   133. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 04, 2013 at 12:31 PM (#4380152)
Morty, you're just complicating it unnecessarily. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and "disinterested" used for "uninterested", "I don't care", or "I don't give a ####" just sounds stupid in the same way that "between you and I" does. It may not have sounded stupid 200 years ago and it may not sound stupid fifty years from now, but it does today. YMMV and all that, and I don't make it a point of correcting people when they misuse the word, since it's not worth the effort and anyway, it's borderline rude to do so. It's a purely internal thought that comes to me whenever I hear it spoken.
   134. PreservedFish Posted: March 04, 2013 at 12:36 PM (#4380157)
What's the basis for deciding when language is used poorly and incorrectly?


Pinker is right that the rules for language are arbitrary and fluid. But I bet that when he was rearing* his children, he taught them that cars are called cars and not trains, and that hot dogs are called hot dogs and not hamburgers. There are rights and wrongs in the English language.

Rather than think of change in this censorious mode, why not look at it from a mental or psychological standpoint. Why does the mind of so many want to conflate this?


You're right. Both points of view (what language is, and what language ought to be) are worth considering. My #131 was poorly stated!


* Looking up disinterested/uninterested led me to a Safire column where he also stated that one raises cattle but rears children. I have no opinion on the accuracy or importance of this distinction.
   135. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 04, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4380228)
Safire should have had his cattle taken away.
   136. Morty Causa Posted: March 04, 2013 at 09:43 PM (#4380605)
   137. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 04, 2013 at 10:06 PM (#4380613)
Morty, it's like dressing in different clothes for different occasions. How you dress depends on the crowd and the event. I've been in jail more days of my life than I've been in a suit, but I wouldn't have gotten far in the corporate world with that sort of ratio.

Same thing with using words properly: If you hang with a crowd that doesn't pay attention to usage, then Cletus-like misuses of words are fine. But if you don't like having many people think you're half-educated in a less informal setting, it might be better to drop the "disinterested" when you really mean "uninterested".

This is not about "communication", because you can get a point across in a million ways, many times with body language rather than words. It's simply how you choose to present yourself to whatever part of the world you happen to occupy at any particular moment, and that's for you alone to decide. But don't kid yourself into thinking that others won't take note of your choices, either fairly or unfairly, and think of you accordingly without ever mentioning it to you.

   138. Morty Causa Posted: March 04, 2013 at 10:12 PM (#4380615)
Morty, you're just complicating it unnecessarily.


Me complicate things unnecessarily? That's unpossible.

Everything eventually gets down to chacun à son goût lately with you, it seems. You find that intellectually very fulfilling? Is that a genuine principle of yours or a get out of jail card when you don't have much of a defense for a view? As to the public policies important to you, do you allow others to get away with that? How did that play out on those freedom rides in the South in the '60s?

"Between you and I". I said I wouldn't link Pinker, but I'll link someone intelligent about language who references Pinker.
   139. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 04, 2013 at 10:20 PM (#4380623)
Everything eventually gets down to chacun à son goût lately with you, it seems. You find that intellectually very fulfilling? Is that a genuine principle of yours or a get out of jail card when you don't have much of a defense for a view?

What "view" am I defending, other than "disinterested" means without skin in the game, and "uninterested" means "don't give a ####"?

As to the public policies important to you, do you allow others to get away with that? How did that play out on those freedom rides in the South in the '60s?

I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean. I don't correct anyone's grammar or usage. Never have and I never will. If people with college degrees want to sound like simpletons, that's their business.
   140. Morty Causa Posted: March 04, 2013 at 10:30 PM (#4380628)
134:

Clarification and amplification of your point noted and taken.

I still remember when I was very young in grammar school using the expression "raising children" and being slammed hard by the teacher. It was very much a distinction at one time that has with the passage of time not been deemed worth preserving. Whether it is "rear v. raise" or "disinterested v. uninterested", and there are others, there are shades of meaning involved, and to that extent, I welcome chewing that over (and over), but there's no call for the supercilliousness, even if it is only a mindset and not expressed to the transgressors.
   141. PreservedFish Posted: March 04, 2013 at 11:31 PM (#4380652)
Did I express superciliousness in this thread?
   142. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 04, 2013 at 11:43 PM (#4380663)
Did I express superciliousness in this thread?

I think he was immediately referring to my unspoken thoughts rather than your written words. He seems to think that my overall opinion about people is based more than .00001% on the correctness of their word usage, whereas in fact it's based almost entirely on their taste in movies.
   143. Morty Causa Posted: March 04, 2013 at 11:45 PM (#4380665)
141:

No.

But it has been expressed, here and now, and in the past.

Maybe, mirabile dictu, even by me at times.
   144. PreservedFish Posted: March 04, 2013 at 11:59 PM (#4380673)
So do you think I'm an ass for caring about disinterested/uninterested?
   145. Morty Causa Posted: March 05, 2013 at 12:04 AM (#4380678)
No. Not the way you've gone about it--tenor and tone.
   146. Morty Causa Posted: March 05, 2013 at 12:58 AM (#4380719)
Let me just say more thing, then I will clear the floor as to this subject. I just think it's sad and unfortunate that so many of us (and I can do the same thing, or feel it, anyway, just like anybody else) all too often are unwilling to get beyond viewing how people use language except in terms of censorship and one upmanship, and we impute those deficiencies as we see them saying something about character, intellect, and even morality. We may not have the courage to out-right say so, but let's not kid ourselves: it's about values.

We discuss a wide range of subjects here--sex, race, baseball, religion, politics--and we assign and impute attributes on these terms as to all those subjects. But, here, it's as if there is some special pride to be taken into pretending all you need to know about language, grammar, and usage was taught to you in the ninth grade. People are condemned just as they are if they don't hold the right racial or gender values and attitudes. It's actually argued as if it’s an ideology. I bet most of us have evolved considerably on those other subjects since we were children. We might consider that maybe should have as to our views on language. At least, maybe we should exhibit some tolerance. I mean, just think of the language used in public and in private now that would be simply unthinkable not that long ago. Yet, "irregardless" or "disinterested", throws us into a tizzy. We might just countenance the idea that it is not the linguistic scofflaws’ fault they don't meet those standards--it's that those standards that have not been renovated since the ninth grade are now outmoded and insufficient.
   147. zenbitz Posted: March 05, 2013 at 12:59 AM (#4380720)
oooh March is Grammer month!

In the previous subthread - global warming, public tranportation, and accidental death and dismemberment will both be solved by self-driving electric cars. Eventually.
   148. PreservedFish Posted: March 05, 2013 at 01:18 AM (#4380735)
#146, 147: Word.
   149. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 05, 2013 at 08:40 AM (#4380881)
We discuss a wide range of subjects here--sex, race, baseball, religion, politics--and we assign and impute attributes on these terms as to all those subjects. But, here, it's as if there is some special pride to be taken into pretending all you need to know about language, grammar, and usage was taught to you in the ninth grade. People are condemned just as they are if they don't hold the right racial or gender values and attitudes. It's actually argued as if it’s an ideology.

The only "ideology" being argued here is the one that says that everyone should suppress not only the urge to correct someone when they hear them misusing words---a thought I completely agree with, on many grounds---but that everyone should suppress their internal reactions as well, at least if they don't want you to think of them as nasty "elitists".

Talk about a creepy concept. What should we do, Morty, have a smartphone monitor our thoughts and transmit an electric shock whenever it detects that we're rolling our internal eyes at "between you and I"? Should it transmit a shock to a 90-year old nun who thinks unkind thoughts about an atheist denouncing the Pope in scatological terms?

Missing in this is the simplest of distinctions: The distinctions among thoughts, words, and deeds, although those last two can often merge together in practice.

I can't speak for the "grammar police", since I'm not one of them. As I said, I don't correct people's usage, and I make allowances for individuals when I have those horrible internal thoughts upon hearing "disinterested" used as a synonym for "uninterested". I don't react to a high school dropout's speech the way I react to the speech of a college graduate. But until you wire me with one of those smartphone shock administrators, I'm afraid that there's no way those eyes of mine won't roll inside when I hear allegedly educated people sounding like high school dropouts.

It doesn't mean that this "judgment" of mine extends beyond that. I'm fully aware of the fact that some of these dumb sounding word butchers may be a lot smarter than I am in every other way, not to mention being better people. It just means that when I hear chalk on a blackboard, I react. And if that makes me some kind of an "elitist" in modern academia, I'm not "disinterested", I just don't give a ####. To repeat my own cliche, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

   150. formerly dp Posted: March 05, 2013 at 08:59 AM (#4380891)
Let me just say more thing, then I will clear the floor as to this subject.
Promise? Because you're boring the #### out of everyone right now, Morty, even more than usual.
   151. zonk Posted: March 05, 2013 at 09:40 AM (#4380910)
Speaking of fraudulent reporting...

The supposed prostitute who had previously claimed relations with Bob Menendez is now saying that she was paid to make the whole thing up. I suppose it's entirely possible she's now being paid to say that, but Menendez's denials always were particularly strong and absolute.

Another fine bit of work by ###### Carlson and his beacon of journalistic integrity.
   152. formerly dp Posted: March 05, 2013 at 09:48 AM (#4380916)
sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
And sometimes...
   153. Morty Causa Posted: March 05, 2013 at 12:13 PM (#4381053)
150:

It's called a scroll bar. It can be your best friend. I know it's been mine. I don't have anyone on ignore, but I do ignore. And when people discuss something I'm not interested in, I do something else. What a concept.
   154. Steve Treder Posted: March 05, 2013 at 01:39 PM (#4381152)
I'm inclined to agree with this.

... for all the institutional benefits of being a Bush—a ready-made political and fundraising structure fueled by the promise of restoration to power—the reality is that his prospects would be far better if his last name were anything but “Bush.”

With another surname, Jeb would have catapulted to the top ranks of contenders back in 2012 on his own merits, as a popular former swing-state governor with a bold record as an education reformer and demonstrated success at winning over Hispanic voters. After Mitt Romney tanked the party’s performance with Hispanics in the last election, most Republicans realize that they need to change course and begin reaching out in earnest. That’s why Jeb’s leadership pushing for comprehensive immigration reform, alongside his brother’s Commerce secretary Carlos Gutierrez and Jeb’s Florida mentee Marco Rubio, is one of the most hopeful prospects for breaking through Washington gridlock this Congress.

A mark of Jeb’s seriousness is his willingness to criticize party power players. Romney comes under particular fire in Immigration Wars for his primary-campaign tactics. “By sharply criticizing Texas governor Rick Perry for his in-state tuition program for certain children of illegal immigrants, and by making his leading immigration advisor a prominent proponent of ‘self-deportation,’ Mitt Romney moved so far to the right on immigration issues that it proved all but impossible for him to appeal to Hispanic voters in the general election,” Bush and Bolick write. “However little or much anti-immigration rhetoric counts in Republican primaries, it surely succeeds in alienating Hispanic voters come the general election.”

This is true—and rarely said so bluntly by Republicans with presidential aspirations.
   155. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 05, 2013 at 01:53 PM (#4381174)
The thought of a President raised by the same parents who raised W. is enough to make me howl a considered, albeit agonized "Oh, fuck no. Not this. Anything but this."
   156. Steve Treder Posted: March 05, 2013 at 02:03 PM (#4381184)
The thought of a President raised by the same parents who raised W. is enough to make me howl a considered, albeit agonized "Oh, #### no. Not this. Anything but this."

Certainly, but it remains the fact that W. was always the f@ck-up (and continued to be through 8 years in the White House), and Jeb was always the smart one. And if in fact Jeb wasn't a Bush, there's no question that he would be on the very short list of serious early contenders for the 2016 nomination.
   157. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 05, 2013 at 02:05 PM (#4381188)
I wouldn't worry about Jeb Bush.

He's fat and dorky looking, with zero kavorka. In today's image-dominated political age, that's strike one.

He's got the Bush name. That's strike two.

And no matter how brave he sounds in 2013, if he wants to win the 2016 nomination he's going to have to kiss the butt of the crazies who currently dominate the GOP primary electorate. McCain and Romney once sounded statesmanlike, too, until they were forced to grovel to the mob and reduced to a shadow of their former selves. And that's strike three.
   158. Steve Treder Posted: March 05, 2013 at 02:07 PM (#4381190)
McCain and Romney once sounded statesmanlike, too, until they were forced to grovel to the mob and reduced to a shadow of their former selves.

Indeed, all too true.
   159. cardsfanboy Posted: March 05, 2013 at 02:13 PM (#4381197)
Certainly, but it remains the fact that W. was always the f@ck-up (and continued to be through 8 years in the White House), and Jeb was always the smart one. And if in fact Jeb wasn't a Bush, there's no question that he would be on the very short list of serious early contenders for the 2016 nomination.


If Jeb wasn't a Bush, would he have gotten the resume he has? It's a two way street. His name got him places that he wouldn't have had access to, but he has to take the bad along with the good.
   160. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 05, 2013 at 02:19 PM (#4381207)
If Jeb wasn't a Bush, would he have gotten the resume he has? It's a two way street. His name got him places that he wouldn't have had access to, but he has to take the bad along with the good.

Absolutely true. And if you want to take it back a bit, you can blame the whole damn thing on Prescott.
   161. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 05, 2013 at 02:21 PM (#4381210)
Thing is, if the electorate -- or, rather, a somewhat substantial portion of it, aided & abetted by Three-Finger Tony Scalia & his amazing non-talking puppet, Li'l Clarence -- could put a known quantity like Bush into the White House in 2000 & then repeat its grievous error in 2004, the election of Jeb "I'm Less Obviously Corrupt & Stupid!" Bush in 2016 or whenever wouldn't surprise me in the least.
   162. cardsfanboy Posted: March 05, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4381230)
aided & abetted by Three-Finger Tony Scalia & his amazing non-talking puppet, Li'l Clarence


I like that terminology.
   163. Tripon Posted: March 05, 2013 at 03:21 PM (#4381274)
I know most people associate 'Bush' with Duyba, but if Republicans want to rehabilitate the name, they need to do a stronger linking with Daddy Bush, who was seen as a pragmatic person who was willing to lose (and did) an election by raising taxes and getting the country back on track.

You even got Obama saying that Walker was a good president.
   164. Steve Treder Posted: March 05, 2013 at 03:35 PM (#4381293)
You even got Obama saying that Walker was a good president.

Indeed, but this shrewd move by Obama guarantees that no Republican may ever mention Walker's name, ever again.

The extent to which the GOP is profoundly effed up right now continues to amaze me. I truly wonder what in the world they're going to do. When even Newt Gingrich is saying you're dysfunctional, you're pretty damn dysfunctional:

Gingrich offers this assessment of 2012:

“I think conservatives in general got in the habit of talking to themselves. I think that they in a sense got isolated into their own little world. So [did] our pollsters, many of whom were wrong about turnout … You just sort of have to say that to some extent the degree to which we believed that the other side was kidding themselves, it turned out in fact in the real world—this is a part of what makes politics so fascinating—it turned out in the real world we were kidding ourselves.”

That’s a stunning admission. He’s obviously including himself in this indictment, saying he was simply out of touch with objective reality.

Gingrich calls Karl Rove the “final symbol” of this disconnect for arguing with the Fox News decision desk’s election night call on Ohio. That moment, he told Steve Kornacki, “personified a mindset that I was part of and that an amazing number of people were part of.”
   165. Morty Causa Posted: March 05, 2013 at 04:23 PM (#4381340)
And many Republicans, Tea-partiers, and right-wingers are still part of. There still is the attitude of we either get our way or we're driving this thing off the cliff. They are in suicide-martyr mode. Like withthose mass shootings, they just want to bring down as many as possible with them.
   166. BDC Posted: March 05, 2013 at 04:33 PM (#4381347)
it turned out in the real world we were kidding ourselves

Mitt Romney isn't giving in!:

Making his first public comments since losing November's presidential election, Romney appeared mystified still that the country didn't see things his way. … Explaining the defeat, Romney and wife Ann spread the blame around -- Mitt to Obama winning over so many blacks and Hispanics by enacting universal healthcare, Ann to a news media she believed unfairly caricatured her husband. … Up until Election Day, husband and wife said, they thought they would win. "We were a little blindsided," Ann Romney told Fox anchor Chris Wallace.
   167. Steve Treder Posted: March 05, 2013 at 04:36 PM (#4381352)
There still is the attitude of we either get our way or we're driving this thing off the cliff. They are in suicide-martyr mode. Like withthose mass shootings, they just want to bring down as many as possible with them.

There certainly is that (and thus they're truly impossible to negotiate with, or to be "led" anywhere, by Obama or anyone else). But that's a different layer of dysfunctionality than the one Gingrich is acknowledging. What he's talking about is the systematic refusal to even consider, much less believe or act upon, any manner of evidence that doesn't fully conform with their theoretical expectations -- thus the active denial of objective reality.

It's a scary combination.
   168. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 05, 2013 at 04:41 PM (#4381356)
One unintended consequence of Ray putting me on ignore is that whenever I make a new thread, he doesn't see it. That's probably the reason why he hasn't commented recently in these threads.


Huh? I don't have anyone on ignore, and I can't fathom a reason why I would put you there.

(Well, unless you're saying something about me in that cesspool of a lounge I never visit. But who knows.)

I haven't clicked into the political thread lately. Can't point to a reason why. Sometimes you people bore me.

   169. Morty Causa Posted: March 05, 2013 at 04:46 PM (#4381361)
Point taken, although I think there's a connection, both conceptually and at the level of the psyche. Those people are jidhaist mental types (they saw you hate what calls to you), Dr. Strangelove and radical chic style.
   170. GregD Posted: March 05, 2013 at 04:50 PM (#4381367)
Explaining the defeat, Romney and wife Ann spread the blame around -- Mitt to Obama winning over so many blacks and Hispanics by enacting universal healthcare
Passing popular policies? That's outrageous! Have they at last no sense of decency? When will this plague end?
   171. Morty Causa Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:00 PM (#4381381)
Sure, you can win if you give people what they want, but that's too easy. That's not for me.
   172. Steve Treder Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:02 PM (#4381387)
Passing popular policies? That's outrageous! Have they at last no sense of decency? When will this plague end?

It's worse than that. It's the glib assumption that healthcare is perceived differently by blacks and Hispanics than by whites. Gosh, why might black and Hispanic voters be less than delighted by that?
   173. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:17 PM (#4381412)
It's worse than that. It's the glib assumption that healthcare is perceived differently by blacks and Hispanics than by whites. Gosh, why might black and Hispanic voters be less than delighted by that?


I think health insurance is perceived differently by people who think it's something to be earned through working to pay for it, and people who think it's something to be handed to them by others who work to pay for it.

This isn't exactly shocking. If you give people a lot of free stuff paid for on the backs of others, they will gladly take it and will happily vote for you.

The key to the 2012 election summed up. Obama promised Pet Liberal Victims that he would give them a bunch of free stuff, and that caused enough of them to vote for him to make the difference.
   174. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:21 PM (#4381415)
Mitt to Obama winning over so many blacks and Hispanics by enacting universal healthcare

I would love to see the actual quote on this, considering it gets the "enacting," "universal," and "healthcare" parts wrong.
   175. Steve Treder Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:23 PM (#4381419)
If you give people a lot of free stuff paid for on the backs of others, they will gladly take it and will happily vote for you.

Uh-huh. Especially if they're, you know, black or Hispanic.
   176. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:25 PM (#4381420)
Uh-huh. Especially if they're, you know, black or Hispanic.


No, especially if they're liberal.

By general rule of thumb, liberals on the lower end of the wealth scale want free stuff; conservatives on the lower end of the wealth scale don't.

See the difference?
   177. Rickey!'s people were colonized by wankers Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:26 PM (#4381425)
The key to the 2012 election summed up. Obama promised Pet Liberal Victims that he would give them a bunch of free stuff, and that caused enough of them to vote for him to make the difference.


Ah, the stories we tell ourselves to preserve our own pet narratives...

The actual summary, Ray: if you fail to offer the electorate any positive solution to the nation's problems, the electorate will fly from you in droves.
   178. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:31 PM (#4381429)
By general rule of thumb, liberals lazy, leeching minorities on the lower end of the wealth scale want free stuff; conservatives good, hard-working white people on the lower end of the wealth scale don't.


Translated from Rayspeak.
   179. Rickey!'s people were colonized by wankers Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:35 PM (#4381434)
Translated from Rayspeak.


Ray has never made any indication that he has any racialist or racist component to his ideological beliefs. This is unsourced, unnecessary and slanderous. Many people who say the things Ray constantly says believe the things you say @178, but there is absolutely no indication in his posting history that Ray is one of those people.
   180. Steve Treder Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:35 PM (#4381435)
Translated from Rayspeak.

But that's just it: it isn't just Ray saying it. It's Mitt Freaking Romney attributing "Obama winning over so many blacks and Hispanics by enacting universal healthcare".

This isn't just your garden-variety obliviousness, here. This is inner-circle spectacular obliviousness.
   181. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:38 PM (#4381439)
Many people who say the things Ray constantly says believe the things you say @178,


It it walks like a duck ...
   182. Rickey!'s people were colonized by wankers Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:38 PM (#4381440)
It it walks like a duck ...


It is sometimes a goose. If Ray says something racist, I'll be one of the first to take him down for it. But he hasn't, and your accusation above is out of line.
   183. GregD Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:39 PM (#4381441)
By general rule of thumb, liberals on the lower end of the wealth scale want free stuff; conservatives on the lower end of the wealth scale don't.
Absolutely true! You just cannot find a Republican-voting senior citizen who will accept a dime more from Social Security than he put into it. And just try getting those old Republicans to accept Medicare. No sirree! And we all know the principled stance against accepting farm subsidies by the family farmers of the Plains. None of that free government money for them, fine sir. You just could not run for the Republican primary in Kansas or Nebraska or the Dakotas without promising to end farm subsidies immediately. No margin there. And we all remember the pressure put on Paul Ryan to make sure that people in their 60s would get benefit cuts; republican voters just would not tolerate any flim-flammery about putting off the cuts for later generations. No, start with me, they demanded!
   184. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:42 PM (#4381443)
It is sometimes a goose. If Ray says something racist, I'll be one of the first to take him down for it. But he hasn't, and your accusation above is out of line.


Very well. For "Rayspeak," substitute "Republicanspeak." And then see if you can detect Ray's lips moving when the words are read out loud.
   185. ASmitty Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:43 PM (#4381444)
The key to the 2012 election summed up. Obama promised Pet Liberal Victims that he would give them a bunch of free stuff, and that caused enough of them to vote for him to make the difference.


This seems, to me, to imply a lot more thought on the part of voters than they actually exercise. I highly doubt the liberal base voted for Obama because of anything he promised; they voted for him because he was a Democrat.

With the possible exception of senior citizens, I don't actually know many significant voting groups that get out and vote because of some particular campaign threat or promise. People just tend to align to one group for whatever reason (often completely irrationally) and then just go with the group.

Now, the legit independents may have given thought to those sorts of things, but they aren't "pet liberal victims."
   186. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:45 PM (#4381448)
But that's just it: it isn't just Ray saying it.


It isn't me saying it at all. This doesn't turn on race.

   187. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:46 PM (#4381450)
Of course, what we have seen with regard to the issue of race is that liberal policies have done great harm to the black community by (1) telling minorities they are victims and condescending to them, and (2) marginalizing the father since the ever-increasing welfare state replaces the father meaning that there's no longer any need for the father. And that's what we see in minority communities far too often: children being raised by mothers and aunts and grandmothers, no father in the picture. This is a stark contrast with other communities. Do people dispute this?
   188. Rickey!'s people were colonized by wankers Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:47 PM (#4381453)
This seems, to me, to imply a lot more thought on the part of voters than they actually exercise. I highly doubt the liberal base voted for Obama because of anything he promised; they voted for him because he was a Democrat.


Obama voters voted for Obama because they agreed with his vision of what government is there for - social justice and defense of the weak against the predation of the strong - moreso than they agreed with Mitt Romney's vision of what government was for.
   189. Steve Treder Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:49 PM (#4381457)
It isn't me saying it at all. This doesn't turn on race.

I'm sincerely glad you agree. But you responded directly to my post:

It's the glib assumption that healthcare is perceived differently by blacks and Hispanics than by whites.


with:

I think health insurance is perceived differently by people who think it's something to be earned through working to pay for it, and people who think it's something to be handed to them by others who work to pay for it.


Do you see how the inference could reasonably be made?
   190. Rickey!'s people were colonized by wankers Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:50 PM (#4381458)
Of course, what we have seen with regard to the issue of race is that liberal policies have done great harm to the black community by (1) telling minorities they are victims and condescending to them, and (2) marginalizing the father since the ever-increasing welfare state replaces the father meaning that there's no longer any need for the father. And that's what we see in minority communities far too often: children being raised by mothers and aunts and grandmothers, no father in the picture. This is a stark contrast with other communities. Do people dispute this?


Yes, I dispute this. Not necessarily the problem of broken families, but the mechanism. Father's have disappeared from the African American community not because of some terribly misdirected, condescending policy program from "liberals." Father's have disappeared from the AA community because "conservative" "tough on crime" laws and a police state apparatus that is still functionally, if not intentionally, racialist in practice, has thrown the fathers in prison in a fit of drug and culture hysteria.
   191. ASmitty Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:52 PM (#4381463)
Obama voters voted for Obama because they agreed with his vision of what government is there for - social justice and defense of the weak against the predation of the strong - moreso than they agreed with Mitt Romney's vision of what government was for.


I don't disagree. My point was that Obama, by virtue of being a Democrat, never even had to promise anything along those lines. The label comes with those promises assumed, and the Republican label carries the opposite. It's why Obama can use drones the way he has, and escape the scrutiny that liberals would direct towards Bush, and why Bush could spend like a drunken sailor and avoid the criticism that conservatives directed at Obama.

The diea I was expressing was that Obama's promises didn't move the needle much, his affiliation did much more legwork. Which is in line with what you wrote.
   192. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4381464)
Do you see how the inference could reasonably be made?


Not at all. I specifically refused to adopt race as the dividing line from your post. Instead, I instituted my own dividing line.

----

Thanks for the defense, Sam.
   193. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:56 PM (#4381468)
Father's have disappeared from the AA community because "conservative" "tough on crime" laws and a police state apparatus that is still functionally, if not intentionally, racialist in practice, has thrown the fathers in prison in a fit of drug and culture hysteria.


I will grant that this is part of it. But not the most significant part, which is liberal white guilt and the conferred victimhood status and welfare policies borne out of it.

   194. GregD Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:56 PM (#4381469)
Of course, what we have seen with regard to the issue of race is that liberal policies have done great harm to the black community by (1) telling minorities they are victims
Absolutely! Before those dadgum libruls came along, black people thought everything was great. It wasn't enforced legal segregation, it wasn't deliberately substandard schools, it wasn't employment discrimination, it wasn't lynching and white riots in cities, no none of those things could ever make a black person feel like a victim. It was the liberals! How dare they?

(2) marginalizing the father since the ever-increasing welfare state replaces the father meaning that there's no longer any need for the father. And that's what we see in minority communities far too often: children being raised by mothers and aunts and grandmothers, no father in the picture. This is a stark contrast with other communities. Do people dispute this?
On a serious note, what's interesting is how non-racialized this family shift is becoming. Among poor whites, female-headedness and children out of wedlock, and absent fathers are essentially the same as they are for poor African-Americans, and richer African-Americans have very similar rates of marriage and in-household fathers as richer whites. It seems much clearer now that what we saw was a combination of economic and cultural issues that hit the working-class and poorer populations at the same time, black people first, but that have roots much deeper than any welfare policies and which are more tied to the transformation of the economy.
   195. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:58 PM (#4381471)
This seems, to me, to imply a lot more thought on the part of voters than they actually exercise. I highly doubt the liberal base voted for Obama because of anything he promised; they voted for him because he was a Democrat.


Then why did he campaign at all? He had a D next to his name, which -- presto! -- is according to you an instant Can O' Victory! He could have saved a lot of time, money, and hassle.
   196. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:58 PM (#4381472)
Hugo Chavez is dead.
   197. Steve Treder Posted: March 05, 2013 at 05:59 PM (#4381474)
Not at all.

Well, perhaps you might ponder that it was, and why it was.

And anyway, the relevant issue for the Republican Party attempting to figure out why Mitt Romney lost the election isn't where you come down on the question of whether blacks and Hispanics perceive healthcare differently than whites. It's where Mitt Romney comes down on it, and where the larger party comes down on it, and it's about the party being honest about why it is that they poll so rottenly among blacks and Hispanics (and Asians, for that matter).
   198. ASmitty Posted: March 05, 2013 at 06:01 PM (#4381477)
Then why did he campaign at all? He had a D next to his name, which -- presto! -- is according to you an instant Can O' Victory! He could have saved a lot of time, money, and hassle.


There ARE independents, and they matter. You cropped out every reference in my post to "liberals" and "pet liberal victims." I was disputing the notion that liberals and pet liberal victims care about anything other than the D next to the candidate's name. If someone is a pet liberal victim, they're voting for the Democrat. They aren't voting for Romney.
   199. Steve Treder Posted: March 05, 2013 at 06:01 PM (#4381478)
Hugo Chavez is dead.

Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
   200. Ron J2 Posted: March 05, 2013 at 06:09 PM (#4381483)
#196 And just yesterday his VP was remonstrating with the media about misleading the public as to how serious Chavez's health problems were.

It's not all that often that it goes from, "He doing much better than you're reporting" to "He's dead" inside 24 hours.
Page 2 of 30 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogHeyman: Mariners have decided not to retain the ice-cream buying scout
(2 - 11:06pm, Sep 15)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogBowman: A year’s worth of struggles leads reason to wonder what changes are in store for the Braves
(7 - 11:03pm, Sep 15)
Last: Jeff Francoeur's OPS

NewsblogCalcaterra: Derek Jeter got a bucket of crabs and a captain’s hat from the Orioles
(8 - 11:03pm, Sep 15)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogPapelbon blows lead, gets ejected for crotch-grabbing at fans
(57 - 11:01pm, Sep 15)
Last: RJ in TO

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(2501 - 11:00pm, Sep 15)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-15-2014
(71 - 11:00pm, Sep 15)
Last: DKDC

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(219 - 10:43pm, Sep 15)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogA’s lose Triple-A Sacramento affiliate
(9 - 10:22pm, Sep 15)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(161 - 10:11pm, Sep 15)
Last: NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!)

Newsblog10 Degrees: Why WAR doesn’t always add up
(340 - 9:46pm, Sep 15)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogSports Bog: Fans Switch From Skins to Nats
(60 - 9:36pm, Sep 15)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogOT: September 2014 College Football thread
(245 - 9:20pm, Sep 15)
Last: spike

NewsblogJesus Montero gets heckled by Mariners cross checker during rehab stint
(67 - 9:09pm, Sep 15)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogKapler: Baseball’s next big competitive edge
(83 - 8:45pm, Sep 15)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogSteven Matz, other top minor league Mets to be honored at Citi Field on Monday
(2 - 8:33pm, Sep 15)
Last: JE (Jason)

Page rendered in 0.5911 seconds
52 querie(s) executed