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

Sunday, September 02, 2012

OTP - September 2012 - Because it’s Labor Day after all

Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 02, 2012 at 01:22 PM | 8483 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

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 4 of 85 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›
   301. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 04, 2012 at 05:40 PM (#4226568)
So ... God gives all humans natural rights, and governments shouldn't infringe on them. But God also only wants us to take advantage of those natural rights in certain ways.


Correct. Take freedom of belief, for example.

God wants everyone to believe in Him, but forced belief is no belief at all. So, we need freedom of conscience, so we can sincerely believe, or not.
   302. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 04, 2012 at 05:41 PM (#4226570)
In my Bible it says "And the multitude of believers...", not "All the believers"
Same difference here. In Acts, there is nothing outside of the Jerusalem community at the time of Acts 4-5. If you weren't a part of the Jerusalem community, you weren't a part of the community of Christians.
But the critical point is that communal living was not extended beyond that place and time. There is no indication that one had to live that way to be a Christian.
I was responding to your claim that it has always been thus in Christianity and for all Christians, in regards to charity and property. That's not what the texts say.
   303. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: September 04, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4226573)
But the critical point is that communal living was not extended beyond that place and time. There is no indication that one had to live that way to be a Christian.


Well, that's what you get when you have someone like Paul, who never met Jesus or saw the yet-to-be-written gospels, and who didn't interact with the community of believers in Jerusalem, spreading the Gospel. Some things get left out.
   304. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: September 04, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4226574)
If you've got a blacklist I want to be on it.


me?
a blacklist?

nope, I'm too wishywashy in my convictions...
   305. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 04, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4226575)
Same difference here. In Acts, there is nothing outside of the Jerusalem community at the time of Acts 4-5. If you weren't a part of the Jerusalem community, you weren't a part of the community of Christians.

That doesn't matter. Those same Apostles went on to found hundreds of local Churches throughout the world, and didn't replicate that model.

If it were necessary, they would have had to do it everywhere. Unless you think they somehow knew God's will, and then forgot it.
   306. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 04, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4226578)
Well, that's what you get when you have someone like Paul, who never met Jesus or saw the yet-to-be-written gospels, and who didn't interact with the community of believers in Jerusalem, spreading the Gospel. Some things get left out.

Nice try, but none of the other Apostles started communal living when they spread the Gospel either.

I was responding to your claim that it has always been thus in Christianity and for all Christians, in regards to charity and property. That's not what the texts say.

Ok, sorry, I missed 3 months out of 1979 years.
   307. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: September 04, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4226584)
God wants everyone to believe in Him, but forced belief is no belief at all. So, we need freedom of conscience, so we can sincerely believe, or not.
And if they don't believe, he tortures them for all eternity. For an all-powerful, all-knowing being, that's pretty ####### petty.
   308. steagles Posted: September 04, 2012 at 07:16 PM (#4226629)
so...

in terms of fiscal conservatism, what is the argument against a universal, government-run single payer healthcare system that provides quality healthcare for every citizen of the united states?


because it seems to me that if every citizen was gathered in a single pool, their combined purchasing power would enable the government to negotiate lower premiums for services and products, and significantly reduce the cost of healthcare, in the same way that walmart's bulk purchasing power allows it to reduce the cost of its products.


i know that republicans would fight tooth and nail against it regardless of any potential benefit, but for a fiscal-conservative, what is the argument against single-payer healthcare?
   309. Jay Z Posted: September 04, 2012 at 07:21 PM (#4226633)
please note that this passage, which is sometimes used to show a supposed Biblical endorsement of socialism, is anything but. The giving up of possessions among the group was purely voluntary, as Peter acknowledged here. The propoerty was owned by an individual, and he had a choice to give none/some/or all of it away. Ananias' problem was he was a big fat liar trying to show how much he put in the offering plate.


The problem with wealth and being a follower of Christ or a Christian is that he spoke so disparagingly of wealth as getting in the way of salvation, if you're a Christian, holding onto wealth should be the LAST thing you're looking to do. Yes, it was "voluntary", I guess. When someone goes to Jesus in the Bible and says "What should I do to be saved" and Jesus says "Give all your money away to the poor", Christians might want to take that seriously.

I think he was actually more concerned about wealth contaminating the soul than being a distributionist. He would question why a professed Christian would continue to accumulate wealth even if they gave it all away, due to the risk to the soul. A rich Christian who retains their wealth, just goes to church every Sunday and doesn't minister, isn't much of a Christian.
   310. Tripon Posted: September 04, 2012 at 08:09 PM (#4226645)
I gotta say, the choice of Antonio Villaraigosa to plan and head the DNC was a weird choice. Shouldn't you at least have picked a person where the area he works at likes him? Very few people in L.A. has a positive opinion of the guy.
   311. Swoboda is freedom Posted: September 04, 2012 at 08:09 PM (#4226647)
i know that republicans would fight tooth and nail against it regardless of any potential benefit, but for a fiscal-conservative, what is the argument against single-payer healthcare?

There are several arguments against it
1) The government is not a very good negotiator, there is no incentive to really negotiate hard (see military contracts). There is also a lot of regulatory capture. Someone works for the government, then goes to work for the drug industry. Not a lot of incentive for hard negotiations.
2) The main problem with most govt run health care systems is long waiting time. The budgets are limited, so waiting time often becomes the way to limit demand.
3) Once the good becomes free, there is very little incentive to not use it. Demand could skyrocket. If going to the doctor was free, everyone would do it. I have a cold, go to the doctor.
4) Who will pay for this system? What kind of tax would it be?
5) How do you control quality?
6) How do you control access (non legal residents, non citizens)

Not a comprehensive list, but a starter
   312. Tripon Posted: September 04, 2012 at 08:35 PM (#4226662)
Of course, the flip side is the current market makes companies like Progressive argue against the very same clients they are supposed to help.
   313. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 04, 2012 at 08:52 PM (#4226674)
I'm not sure what that's the "flip side" of; that case had nothing to do with health care. And, of course, they are not "supposed to help" people who cause accidents.
   314. Tripon Posted: September 04, 2012 at 09:11 PM (#4226683)
Their client ( the woman who died) did not cause the accident. I understand the need to protect yourself, but somebody at progressive should thought about the PR fallout of such a move,a and if they did and still went to do this... whoo boy. The reason I posted this is that when a company whose main goal is profit has your contract, they will only go to exactly what the contract specified, when it is clear in certain situations, more is needed. The government for all of its fault is not in the profit taking mindset and I am assuming would have not sent a lawyer to argue against its own client.
   315. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 04, 2012 at 09:28 PM (#4226693)
I guess. When someone goes to Jesus in the Bible and says "What should I do to be saved" and Jesus says "Give all your money away to the poor", Christians might want to take that seriously.

Not true. You're misquoting, just like people love to turn "The love of money is the root of all evils" in "money is the root of all evils".

Here's the quote from St. Matthew, Ch. 19

[16] And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? [17] Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. [Matthew 19:17] [Latin] [18] He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. [19] Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


When asked how to be saved, Jesus says obey the commandments.

Then the young man asks for more.

[20] The young man saith to him: All these I have kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me?

[21] Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me.


Giving away everything to serve God is laudable, but it's not manadatory.
   316. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 04, 2012 at 09:38 PM (#4226699)
Giving away everything to serve God is laudable, but it's not manadatory.


It's nice of Jesus to give you guys an "I'm too much of a ##### to take your teachings seriously, but I wanna be saved anyway" out like that. But you're not getting into the $1000 per plate and having dinner with The Lord.
   317. zenbitz Posted: September 04, 2012 at 09:45 PM (#4226705)
1) The government is not a very good negotiator, there is no incentive to really negotiate hard (see military contracts). There is also a lot of regulatory capture. Someone works for the government, then goes to work for the drug industry. Not a lot of incentive for hard negotiations.


This is roughly the same situation we have now - with people getting the care mostly not caring about cost because their insurance/HMO covers it. And of course the problem with military contracts is that the *CONTRACTORS* soak the government. The individual SOILDERS (i.e, government employees) don't. The Gov could play hardball with pharmas/medical supply companies if they wanted too. Since the FDA controls access of their products to the US market.

2) The main problem with most govt run health care systems is long waiting time. The budgets are limited, so waiting time often becomes the way to limit demand.


This cancels (3). Long waiting time is a disincentive to waste the systems' time and money. But really is just a function of budgeting. If you threw 700B at medical care instead of Afghanistan I don't think you'd have limited access.

3) Once the good becomes free, there is very little incentive to not use it. Demand could skyrocket. If going to the doctor was free, everyone would do it. I have a cold, go to the doctor.


Well, it could be "mostly" free - a $20 copay keeps me away from the doctor unless I am really sick or hurting. Going to the doctor is a pain in the ass. Also - you can give tax rebates to people who maintain good health at a yearly checkup. If you are too impoverished to pay a co-pay you could show food stamp or welfare eligibility to waive it. Also you could get a couple-three visits free a year. If you are sick/hurt and you would get a VOUCHER (dog whistle) for a couple more followups.

4) Who will pay for this system? What kind of tax would it be?


Don't see how this mattes (I mean obviously it will cost billions, but people already pay billions to insurance cos) I pay $300-$400/mo (or something) for myself and family to my HMO. Some kind of wealth tax. (Since the whole point of nationalized health care is to redistribute wealth - I won't deny this)

5) How do you control quality?


OK, reasonable question. Allow people to tip their doctors and nurses? Or in general pay medicos on performance?

6) How do you control access (non legal residents, non citizens)


If they pay taxes or receive welfare/food stamps, they get a card. I don't care if they are "legal" or not if they pay taxes. For tourists, bill their home government or nuke them. Aren't their reciprocity treaties for this? Seriously - how much could this cost? Far more than efforts to police it, surely. Illegals can use emergency rooms now "for free" can't they?

   318. zenbitz Posted: September 04, 2012 at 09:46 PM (#4226706)
I'm confused. It seems the Bible has some contradictory passages.
   319. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: September 04, 2012 at 09:59 PM (#4226712)
For tourists, bill their home government or nuke them. Aren't their reciprocity treaties for this? Seriously - how much could this cost? Far more than efforts to police it, surely. I


My wife and I were in London 13 years ago. She was pregnant, and suffered a miscarriage while there. We had an emergency room visit, an entire day in a private room waiting for a combination of an OB and an operating room to be available at the same time for a DNC. This never happened, so we left and she passed the tissue naturally that evening. The next day we had a follow up visit for an ultrasound. When I asked how to handle all the charges, they said "We'll bill your insurance company."' They never did. The entire experience cost us about 5 pounds for some medication.
   320. CrosbyBird Posted: September 04, 2012 at 10:02 PM (#4226716)
Among a certain set of libertarians (I was surprised Dan was one, not surprised David is), democracy is only good insofar as it's better at protecting core libertarian freedoms that other forms of government. An autocracy which protected those freedoms would be, in theory, a superior place.

In theory, sure. But once it was put into actual practice, that very same government and the lack of checks on power would be very likely to lead to a place that is less good at protecting individual rights. In a purely hypothetical world where power fails to corrupt this state, it would be fine with me, but since no such world is at all realistic, I would oppose such a real world government.

If God didn't endow humans with some special dignity, where does it come from? Why is killing a man different than killing an animal. Animals kill their own kind, and we don't brand it immoral. Morality presupposes some absolute standard of conduct.

I don't think we have some sort of special dignity so much as we have the intelligence to recognize the harm we cause others and the power to build more cooperatively than we can individually. It is a matter of survival; we are better off if we are not constantly in competition for resources and free to spend that energy improving our lives.

Without God, any "morality" a person wants to cook up is equally valid. The Taliban's opinion of a just society is no better or worse than the Founding Fathers'.

A society that consistently behaves in a manner that is found to be morally repulsive to its neighbors cannot survive unless it is strong enough to stop all of them from banding together and destroying them. The global community will respond, slowly perhaps, but eventually certain behavior will simply not be permitted. A moral code can evolve around this pattern: societies that don't conform are destroyed, while societies that do conform survive.

Similarly, a society in which the basic dignity of some members is simply not respected can only exist for so long as those people cannot or will not revolt. A society can just as easily be torn down from within as from without.
   321. Jay Z Posted: September 04, 2012 at 10:06 PM (#4226721)
There are several arguments against it
1) The government is not a very good negotiator, there is no incentive to really negotiate hard (see military contracts). There is also a lot of regulatory capture. Someone works for the government, then goes to work for the drug industry. Not a lot of incentive for hard negotiations.


But we pay a lot NOW. Our system is captured NOW.

2) The main problem with most govt run health care systems is long waiting time. The budgets are limited, so waiting time often becomes the way to limit demand.


USA system grades out well on wait time, so no one's going to argue that one too hard. Of course our system is way more expensive than others and doesn't cover all of the population, so there is that. There are many different all-inclusive models.

3) Once the good becomes free, there is very little incentive to not use it. Demand could skyrocket. If going to the doctor was free, everyone would do it. I have a cold, go to the doctor.


Usually controlled with a small co-pay.

4) Who will pay for this system? What kind of tax would it be?
5) How do you control quality?


See medicare.

6) How do you control access (non legal residents, non citizens)

Not a comprehensive list, but a starter


You could start with a national ID card, which conservatives hate, except I guess state ones are AOK now.

How about the other way? How about the ER care that the uninsured get, which is inefficient because that's not what the ER is for? If there are problems with single payer, why do we have this tremendously expensive system that doesn't even cover everyone?
   322. CrosbyBird Posted: September 04, 2012 at 10:13 PM (#4226724)
Just like the starving man is morally allowed to steal your food, if you have plenty. His right to life trumps your right to property.

I would say that once a man is truly starving, he exists in a state that is outside of morality. It's not about one right trumping another, but about survival. Morality is a luxury that only those whose most basic needs are met can afford.
   323. tshipman Posted: September 04, 2012 at 10:32 PM (#4226738)
snapper continues to have a bizarre and anti-Catholic interpretation of the New Testament.

A right to property is paramount?

John 2:16-15
In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.


Doesn't seem to have slowed down Iesu from Nazareth here. Or in Matthew 6:19 where he says,
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.


Or in Luke 12:15
Then he said to them, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."


Or Paul of Tarsus:
1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.



***

Sweden (the right kind of fiscal and monetary policies) show that it was at least possible for countries to respond correctly to the financial worldwide crisis.


As a matter of logic, every country cannot massively devalue their currency. It's a lot easier to have good monetary policy as Sweden. No one uses the Kroner as a reserve currency.
   324. zonk Posted: September 04, 2012 at 10:36 PM (#4226740)
It's all red meat and no one watches the first night but partisans - but a couple pretty good barn burners from Team D.

Ted Strickland gave a base rousing jeremiad and Deval Patrick's was also good. Kathleen Sebelius, though, does not give stem winders. Actually, I'm a little surprised by that cabinet members can/do speak at conventions.

I can see why the Castro brothers are being tabbed as rising Democratic stars in Texas - Julian, at least, has charisma to spare. It's like he brought the West Wing character Jimmy Smits played to life.

I also liked the 'tribute' to Ted Kennedy - I know Reince and company have taken to twitter to express outrage over it, but come on... Wouldn't shock me if Kennedy had it in his will that the DNC should air such a 'tribute'.

EDIT: ...let me just say that Michelle Obama is a very attractive lady. It's hard to believe she's 48.
   325. Jay Z Posted: September 04, 2012 at 10:52 PM (#4226752)
Giving away everything to serve God is laudable, but it's not manadatory.


Okay, for everybody, here's the entire story, not just the stuff snapper chooses to quote.

Verses 1-15 are some things about divorce, eunuchs, and children.

19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
19:30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

Chapter 20 starts with the story about the vineyard where the master hires laborers all day and they all get paid the same.

Okay, lots of stuff here. He seems to deny his own divinity in 17, but that's not really germane. When asked for commandments in 18-19, Jesus only names 6, not Moses' 10, and love thy neighbor isn't one of Moses' 10. So apparently loving god, swearing, Sabbath breaking, graven images, and coveting were all okay in this example. Anyway...

In 20 the man says he's done it all, but still seems to think he needs to do more. Jesus to be perfect, sell it all and give it to the poor, and follow me. Man can't do it and goes away sad. 23-24 you have the "eye of a needle" quote, doesn't look so good for our rich young man. But maybe in 26 he's okay, but then I guess anyone could be saved in 26. There's hope for Judas in 26. 27-29 Jesus says the disciples will be rewarded because they ditched it all and followed him; family here is as important as wealth. Then 30 is another blow to the rich young man most likely.

I think that Jesus thought the distraction of wealth and family responsibilities were an impediment to salvation. That was more important than redistributing to the poor. More to come.
   326. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 04, 2012 at 11:01 PM (#4226758)
Their client ( the woman who died) did not cause the accident.
Well, yes, that's true -- but that begs the question, since it was precisely the issue being litigated.
I understand the need to protect yourself, but somebody at progressive should thought about the PR fallout of such a move,a and if they did and still went to do this... whoo boy. The reason I posted this is that when a company whose main goal is profit has your contract, they will only go to exactly what the contract specified, when it is clear in certain situations, more is needed. The government for all of its fault is not in the profit taking mindset and I am assuming would have not sent a lawyer to argue against its own client.
I don't know how "The government will give money to people without regard for whether they are entitled to it" is supposed to be an endorsement of government.
   327. Jay Z Posted: September 04, 2012 at 11:04 PM (#4226760)
Here's Luke 16:19-31 (earlier verses are about divorce)

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.
20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores
21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried.
23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.
24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.
26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house,
28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ “

(end chapter, on to various other lessons)

Now here no sin or virtue is mentioned on the part of either the rich man or Lazarus. Though I guess since Lazarus was longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table, the rich man wasn't doing anything to help Lazarus. Anyway, in the afterlife it's turnabout, Lazarus goes to heaven, rich man to hell. End of story. Sounds like he might have wanted to try a different life strategy. More to come.
   328. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 04, 2012 at 11:12 PM (#4226764)
ed Strickland gave a base rousing jeremiad
Just remember his speech the next time a Democrat/liberal complains about a Republican/conservative purportedly attacking the former's patriotism. It's virtually never the case -- see, e.g., Max Cleland -- but here was an example of the reverse.
   329. Jay Z Posted: September 04, 2012 at 11:15 PM (#4226767)
Matthew Chapter 25 31-46 (before that is the three slaves with talents. After is Chapter 26, about Jesus being betrayed.)

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Now this one is a little different. I think everyone (but those who are the worst off) should be helping the worst off, including visiting someone in prison, which doesn't really cost anything. But a fairly stark line is being drawn. Help others, and go to heaven. Don't help others, and go to hell. Seems sort of obvious.

I will disclose that while I attend church and try to help people from time to time, like presumably nearly everyone here I fall far short of the standards presented here. I don't want to be accusing anyone of anything. But three different times, at length, it's strongly implied that distribution of wealth in your favor in this life may have horrible consequences in the life to come. What is in there is in there, and how anyone can wave that away is beyond me.
   330. zonk Posted: September 04, 2012 at 11:17 PM (#4226768)
Just remember his speech the next time a Democrat/liberal complains about a Republican/conservative purportedly attacking the former's patriotism. It's virtually never the case -- see, e.g., Max Cleland -- but here was an example of the reverse.


We tried playing the 'I'm outraged, that's off limits' way... we lost. Besides, Strickland wasn't attacking Romney's patriotism -- he was attacking the patriotism of his money. That's how you do that thing, right? You parse the ever-loving hell out of it? Like, we're not saying John Kerry may have been a Vietcong double agent, we're just asking questions about records he won't release.
   331. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 04, 2012 at 11:39 PM (#4226776)
Their client ( the woman who died) did not cause the accident. I understand the need to protect yourself, but somebody at progressive should thought about the PR fallout of such a move,a and if they did and still went to do this... whoo boy.


In other words, to you, it's not really about what the contract says and what the laws are; it's just about PR fallout.

Which, I suppose, explains why you haven't opened up your own wallet to pay for this.

The reason I posted this is that when a company whose main goal is profit has your contract, they will only go to exactly what the contract specified, when it is clear in certain situations, more is needed.


Yes, they will only want to live up to their obligations. Shocking.


   332. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: September 04, 2012 at 11:49 PM (#4226781)
is that from coveting the same neighbor's wife many times, or from coveting many neighbors' wives?

Why choose?
   333. booond Posted: September 04, 2012 at 11:49 PM (#4226782)
Just remember his speech the next time a Democrat/liberal complains about a Republican/conservative purportedly attacking the former's patriotism. It's virtually never the case -- see, e.g., Max Cleland -- but here was an example of the reverse.


John Kerry says hello.
   334. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 04, 2012 at 11:58 PM (#4226785)
Just remember his speech the next time a Democrat/liberal complains about a Republican/conservative purportedly attacking the former's patriotism. It's virtually never the case -- see, e.g., Max Cleland -- but here was an example of the reverse.

When Romney releases his last 15 or so years' worth of tax returns, I'll start believing in his substantive patriotism. AFAIC he's a patriot only to the extent that he hasn't sold any military secrets to the Taliban or the Syrians, though if he could figure out a way to make a few million by doing it, and not have it outed, I wouldn't really put it past him.

   335. Random Transaction Generator Posted: September 04, 2012 at 11:59 PM (#4226786)
John Kerry says hello.

And let us not forget the challenges made by Republicans about whether Obama has "true American values".
   336. booond Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:11 AM (#4226793)
Just remember his speech the next time a Democrat/liberal complains about a Republican/conservative purportedly attacking the former's patriotism. It's virtually never the case -- see, e.g., Max Cleland -- but here was an example of the reverse.


Punch a bully in the nose and watch them cry... happens all the time.
   337. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:20 AM (#4226798)
Remember the rules, kids. If Republicans do something 1000 times, and the Democrats do it once, that means "both sides do it."
   338. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:42 AM (#4226809)
I can see why the Castro brothers are being tabbed as rising Democratic stars in Texas - Julian, at least, has charisma to spare. It's like he brought the West Wing character Jimmy Smits played to life.

It's amazing the extent to which liberals value style over substance. What are the great achievements that have made the Castro brothers "rising Democratic stars"?
   339. steagles Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:19 AM (#4226821)
338. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:42 AM (#4226809)
It's amazing the extent to which liberals value style over substance. What are the great achievements that have made the Castro brothers "rising Democratic stars"?
DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!



and since dogwhistles were a discussion earlier in this thread, here's one from michelle obama's speech:

And I've seen it in our men and women in uniform and our proud military families…in wounded warriors who tell me they're not just going to walk again, they're going to run, and they're going to run marathons
   340. SteveF Posted: September 05, 2012 at 06:11 AM (#4226835)
I'm going to have to borrow someone's dog just to understand some of these posts.
   341. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: September 05, 2012 at 06:29 AM (#4226837)
I'm going to have to borrow someone's dog just to understand some of these posts.

Just locate your nearest MLB umpire, he is bound to have one.
   342. asdf1234 Posted: September 05, 2012 at 06:51 AM (#4226841)
I'm going to have to borrow someone's dog just to understand some of these posts.


Some dogs are more sensitive than others.

What are the great achievements that have made the Castro brothers "rising Democratic stars"?


The ability to deliver a good speech has long since passed muster for qualifying as the leader of the free-ish world. Castro's speech was disingenuous boilerplate about education and shared responsibility-cum-empire, but his delivery was outstanding. Based on the precedent of the last twelve years, he can now look forward to becoming president in 2025 after Ryan leaves office. The true genius of the Dems' selection is that if he embarrasses the party with a scandal they can't cover up, they can always run his twin and 99% of their constituents will be none the wiser. The other 1% won't care, as the deception will be for the common good.
   343. Greg K Posted: September 05, 2012 at 07:26 AM (#4226848)
Man, you guys really don't like each other do you? [The general you guys of Democrat and Republican].

I can see getting this heated about a pennant race, but it's just an election!
   344. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 05, 2012 at 07:38 AM (#4226851)
I think that Slate basically covers in two blog posts the concept behind last night in Charlotte.

Dave Weigel: Democrats spent the night kicking Mitt Romney in the nuts, over and over. The attack that I thought landed the cleanest was Castro's, "gee, why didn't I think of that?" Romney as out of touch is a good attack in particular because it's coherent with Romney's own self-presentation as noblesse oblige business lord who comes from a better time and will return us to that better time.

John Dickerson: Michelle Obama tied the personal to the political in making the positive case for her husband. I don't think I can objectively evaluate this speech. I love Michelle Obama and in my brain she's not my closest friend, but we get together for coffee and catch up every month or so, I help out occasionally with child care when she gets overscheduled, and we go shopping sometimes. I want to be Michelle Obama's gay best friend (or gay third-best friend, that totally works too).
   345. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: September 05, 2012 at 07:41 AM (#4226855)
What are the great achievements that have made the Castro brothers "rising Democratic stars"?


The same ones that Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin and George P. Bush?
   346. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: September 05, 2012 at 07:45 AM (#4226856)
The same ones that Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin and George P. Bush?

Don't forget legislative superstar Paul Ryan! (or Poland.)
   347. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: September 05, 2012 at 07:48 AM (#4226858)
The attack that I thought landed the cleanest was Castro's, "gee, why didn't I think of that?" Romney as out of touch is a good attack in particular because it's coherent with Romney's own self-presentation as noblesse oblige business lord who comes from a better time and will return us to that better time.

I thought it was the "actually..." line about health care.
   348. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 05, 2012 at 07:52 AM (#4226860)
What are the great achievements that have made the Castro brothers "rising Democratic stars"?


An important skill when being asked to speak at the DNC is the ability (skill, talent even) to give a good speech. There are other attributes and political considerations as well. Once you are tabbed to this role, you are pretty much de facto a rising star (because it is self fulfilling largely and also the need to puff up the speakers). It is not very different in the RNC.

This has been the latest edition of answers to somewhat dim, obvious, and quasi-rhetorical questions.
   349. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 05, 2012 at 07:55 AM (#4226862)
Don't forget legislative superstar Paul Ryan! (or Poland.)

This probably proves nothing but my own bias, but Ryan has one of the most irritating stump voices I've ever heard, even beyond his adolescent Ayn Randian economic worldview. That flat midwestern accent of his doesn't even particularly sound like that of a man, or at least a man with any depth to his convictions. I should add that I'm only talking about when he's addressing a crowd, not that much when he's being interviewed one on one, where his lack of vocal depth doesn't matter that much.
   350. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 05, 2012 at 07:57 AM (#4226863)
And by the way as an atheist* I am enjoying the back and forth on religion. Good back and forth, plenty of cites and description, and is pretty civil. It helps that I have no dog in the hunt, other than living in a society hugely influenced by the bible and christianity.

* It is a soft and cuddly atheism. I don't believe personally and am pretty OK with whatever others want to believe. I make no claims as to knowledge as to whether or not God exists, just knowledge about my belief in said being.
   351. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 08:58 AM (#4226887)
Now, now --

to be fair - the 38 year-old Castro didn't talk 'substance' like GOP keynoter Christie...

Christie mainly talked about Chris Christie, and I think we can all agree that there's a lot of "substance" to Chris Christie. It's not like Christie went on stage and demonstrated the man-### jiggling sizzle that made him 3-time east coast man-### jiggling champion - and everyone knows New Jersey is perhaps the toughest man-### jiggling circuit.
   352. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 09:01 AM (#4226889)
John Dickerson: Michelle Obama tied the personal to the political in making the positive case for her husband. I don't think I can objectively evaluate this speech. I love Michelle Obama and in my brain she's not my closest friend, but we get together for coffee and catch up every month or so, I help out occasionally with child care when she gets overscheduled, and we go shopping sometimes. I want to be Michelle Obama's gay best friend (or gay third-best friend, that totally works too).


One of the better tweets I saw last night:

Wow. I would vote for pretty much anyone who won that lady's love.

BTW - supposedly, she penned the speech herself...
   353. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 09:19 AM (#4226897)
I think that Jesus thought the distraction of wealth and family responsibilities were an impediment to salvation. That was more important than redistributing to the poor.

And they certainly are. Material wealth makes it much harder for us to live the Christian vocation. It's a distraction, and breeds overconfidence; i.e. I can take care of myself and don't need God/the Church/family etc.

I never argued that Jesus was "pro-wealth", just that he's not pro-socialist.

Oh, and the money changers example has nothing to do with property. They were profaning the Temple. He didn't take their goods away from them, he just chased them outside.
   354. Ron J2 Posted: September 05, 2012 at 09:38 AM (#4226909)
The Gov could play hardball with pharmas/medical supply companies if they wanted too.


As happens in every nation that has some form of single payer. Even Switzerland -- which has a significant big pharma industry.
   355. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 10:02 AM (#4226923)

Oh, and the money changers example has nothing to do with property. They were profaning the Temple. He didn't take their goods away from them, he just chased them outside.


When you're being whipped it's difficult to take the time to collect your money and put it away before running out.

More to the point, if God says that acting like thieves is not acceptable in his house, it is hardly a ringing endorsement of those actions outside of the temple.
   356. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 05, 2012 at 10:07 AM (#4226927)
I never argued that Jesus was "pro-wealth", just that he's not pro-socialist.

Which makes Obama the second coming of Economic Jesus, since that would describe him just as well as Him.
   357. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 10:19 AM (#4226935)
Which makes Obama the second coming of Economic Jesus, since that would describe him just as well as Him.


He is the Obamassiah.
   358. tshipman Posted: September 05, 2012 at 10:28 AM (#4226937)
I never argued that Jesus was "pro-wealth", just that he's not pro-socialist.


Let's take a step back to your original statement.

A freedom granted to you by the mere fact of being human. Freedom's endowed by the creator, is the language those of us who believe in God would us.

Life. Liberty. Self-defense. Freedom to worship. Freedom to own property, and earn a living.


Iesu the Nazarene does not venerate or emphasize this freedom to own property. In fact, a close reading of the New Testament implies that focusing on property is to your detriment. Now, it is sort of vaguely acknowledged that some things belong to this person or that person, but that those are worldly things ("render unto Caesar...").

A right to property does not appear in the teachings of the nominal founder of your religion. Pretending that it comes from God, while voting comes from Man is silly and anti-Catholic.
   359. tshipman Posted: September 05, 2012 at 10:29 AM (#4226939)
It's amazing the extent to which liberals value style over substance. What are the great achievements that have made the Castro brothers "rising Democratic stars"?


Also, I actually agree with this. It's why Hillary is extremely likely to not be the nominee in 2016.
   360. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 10:44 AM (#4226944)
I don't think I can objectively evaluate this speech. I love Michelle Obama and in my brain she's not my closest friend, but we get together for coffee and catch up every month or so, I help out occasionally with child care when she gets overscheduled, and we go shopping sometimes. I want to be Michelle Obama's gay best friend (or gay third-best friend, that totally works too).

Weird, and terribly out of place when it comes to politicians.

As noted in a previous thread, modern liberals vastly overrate politicians and, worse, are intoxicated by their power.
   361. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 10:49 AM (#4226946)
Remember the rules, kids. If Republicans do something 1000 times, and the Democrats do it once, that means "both sides do it."
Actually, the real rule is that if Republicans never actually say something, they really are saying it -- by "dog whistling" -- while when Democrats explicitly say it, it's justified.



I can see why the Castro brothers are being tabbed as rising Democratic stars in Texas - Julian, at least, has charisma to spare. It's like he brought the West Wing character Jimmy Smits played to life.
Only speech I actually saw was Strickland's, and the woman after him who was forgettable. Oh -- yeah, the frivolous Lily Ledbetter, who had no legitimate lawsuit but got a law named after her, and is thus now the spokesperson for fraudulent feminism. But I just went and read the transcript of his speech, and... well, I guess you had to be there. Standard warmed-over socialism -- yay redistribution of wealth, nobody can do anything without a handout, yada yada.
   362. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 10:52 AM (#4226948)
And I've seen it in our men and women in uniform and our proud military families…in wounded warriors who tell me they're not just going to walk again, they're going to run, and they're going to run marathons


Welcome to why I don't watch these silly speeches. It's nothing but fluff; it's empty, witless wit. It's vomit-inducing feel-goodism.

But simple people who don't understand the way the world really works lap this stuff up.
   363. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 10:53 AM (#4226949)
Oh -- yeah, the frivolous Lily Ledbetter, who had no legitimate lawsuit but got a law named after her, and is thus now the spokesperson for fraudulent feminism.


I do so love it when the little troll comes out in force, Kneepants.
   364. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: September 05, 2012 at 10:54 AM (#4226952)
But I just went and read the transcript of his speech, and... well, I guess you had to be there. Standard warmed-over socialism -- yay redistribution of wealth, nobody can do anything without a handout, yada yada.


You know, if you read the transcript of Reagan's speech at the Brandenberg Gate in 1987 in a mocking condescending tone, it doesn't sound as impressive either.
   365. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 10:54 AM (#4226953)
But simple people who don't understand the way the world really works lap this stuff up.


Poor man. Having to live in a world of proles and plebes clogging up your highways and thoroughfares.
   366. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 10:55 AM (#4226954)
Welcome to why I don't watch these silly speeches. It's nothing but fluff; it's empty, witless wit. It's vomit-inducing feel-goodism.

Yes, and it's worse because it's covering for the fact that Barack Obama's actions led to the wounded warrior's problmes walking.
   367. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 10:56 AM (#4226955)
Poor man. Having to live in a world of proles and plebes clogging up your highways and thoroughfares.

It actually is hard and challenging, particularly when they're constantly trained and chided to look to government to do virtually everything.
   368. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:00 AM (#4226958)


It's amazing the extent to which liberals value style over substance. What are the great achievements that have made the Castro brothers "rising Democratic stars"?



Also, I actually agree with this. It's why Hillary is extremely likely to not be the nominee in 2016.


What does "substance" even mean in the context of a candidate?

Who was the last candidate of substance from either party and what made that person so 'substantial'?
   369. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4226960)
It actually is hard and challenging, particularly when they're constantly trained and chided to look to government to do virtually everything.


You shouldn't take such a moral outrage any more. To arms, sir! To arms!

Oh. What's that? You're too big of a puss to actually have the courage of your convictions? Okay then. Never mind.
   370. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4226963)
And from a woman, Michelle Obama, who hasn't actually done anything to distinguish herself from millions upon millions of people. Her husband accomplished something; the only thing she did was not stand in the way of letting him do it. And for that she's hailed as a hero, people who are out of touch with reality cheering her every word.

It's a cultism that exists in various incarnations in society. It's similar to sports, for example. There's an uneasy feeling at sporting events that the hardcore fans are just a bit too emotionally invested in this stuff.
   371. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4226964)
What does "substance" even mean in the context of a candidate?


Ectoplasm. Hillary is actually the green ghost from Ghostbusters.
   372. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:08 AM (#4226969)
And from a woman, Michelle Obama, who hasn't actually done anything to distinguish herself from millions upon millions of people. Her husband accomplished something; the only thing she did was not stand in the way of letting him do it. And for that she's hailed as a hero, people who are out of touch with reality cheering her every word.

It's a cultism that exists in various incarnations in society. It's similar to sports, for example. There's an uneasy feeling at sporting events that the hardcore fans are just a bit too emotionally invested in this stuff.


We shouldn't even have an Office of the First Lady; it's preposterously outdated and terribly wasteful. It's a foolish office.
   373. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:08 AM (#4226970)
And from a woman, Michelle Obama, who hasn't actually done anything to distinguish herself from millions upon millions of people. Her husband accomplished something; the only thing she did was not stand in the way of letting him do it. And for that she's hailed as a hero, people who are out of touch with reality cheering her every word.


You're not aware of how power marriages work, are you Ray?
   374. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:10 AM (#4226972)
We shouldn't even have an Office of the First Lady


Wait. Do we? Is that actually an office?

<Googling...>

Huh. Seems to be "event coordinator for the White House." Someone's gotta do that ####, but no reason it should be the POTUS' spouse.
   375. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:12 AM (#4226974)
It's amazing the extent to which liberals value style over substance. What are the great achievements that have made the Castro brothers "rising Democratic stars"?

Let's be nonpartisan and objective about this, and take a backward glance at the formal qualifications of all nominees from FDR on. It's a decided mixed bag, though "qualifications" has a huge subjective component to it beyond the formal CV. I only noted non-government experience in the case of Willkie, who never had served in public office

1932
FDR: Former Navy Undersecretary; NY Governor
Hoover: Incumbent president

1936
FDR: Incumbent president
Landon: Governor of Kansas

1940
FDR: Incumbent president
Willkie: Wall Street industrialist and utility company lawyer

1944
FDR: Incumbent president
Dewey: New York governor, rock star DA, and Brian Donlevy lookalike

1948
Truman: Incumbent president
Dewey: Still New York governor, now also The Little Man on the Wedding Cake

1952
Ike: WWII 5-Star general,D-Day commander, NATO Commander
Stevenson: Governor of Illinois

1956
Ike: Incumbent president
Stevenson: Ex-Governor of Illinois

1960
JFK: WWII hero, 3-term congressman and 8 year Massachusetts Senator
Nixon: 2-term congressman, 2 year Senator and 8 year VP

1964
LBJ: 12 year congressman and two term Senator from Texas; Senate Majority Leader
Goldwater: 8 year Senator from Arizona

1968
Nixon: All the above, plus losing gubernatorial candidate
Humphrey: Mayor of Minneapolis, 16 year Senator, and LBJ's VP

1972
Nixon: Incumbent president
McGovern: WWII decorated fighter pilot, Multi-term congressman and 10 year Senator

1976
Carter: Governor of Georgia
Ford: Incumbent president, plus 26 years as congressman from Michigan

1980
Reagan: Two term California governor
Carter: Incumbent president

1984
Reagan: Incumbent president
Mondale: Former VP and two term Senator from Minnesota

1988
Bush: Two term VP, two term congressman, UN ambassador, envoy to China, and head of CIA
Dukakis: Governor of Massachusetts

1992
Clinton: 12 year Governor of Arkansas
Bush: Incumbent president

1996
Clinton: Incumbent president
Dole: WWII hero, Senator from Kansas for 28 years, losing VP candidate in 1976

2000:
Bush: Governor of Texas
Gore: 8 year congressman and 8 years in the Senate, both from Tennessee, two terms as VP

2004
Bush: Incumbent president
Kerry: Decorated Vietnam vet and 20 year Senator from Massachusetts

2008
Obama: 4 year Senator from Illinois
McCain: Decorated Vietnam vet / POW, 2 term congressman and 4 term Senator from Arizona

2012
Obama: Incumbent president
Romney: Governor of Massachusetts
   376. tshipman Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:15 AM (#4226978)
You guys are a bit shrill on FLOTUS. Take it down a notch. Lady gave a good speech.
   377. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:17 AM (#4226982)
Yes, there's an Office of the First Lady, with a staff of roughly a dozen. It's a ridiculous office and an absurd waste of money, appealing to the Oprah element in political society. Moreover, it elevates the public perception of the president vis-a-vis the other elements of the nation and society beyond a healthy level.

The president should be viewed as a technocratic, ministerial office as it is in other advanced democracies. The modern liberal vision of him/her "running the country" and being responsible for everything that happens during his/her term is juvenile and harmful.
   378. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:18 AM (#4226985)
It's amazing the extent to which liberals value style over substance. What are the great achievements that have made the Castro brothers "rising Democratic stars"?


Let's be nonpartisan and objective about this...


As usual, we can do this in about 1/100th of the words, Andy.

The Sanchez brothers are rising stars because they are successful local politicians with charisma and "star power." The idea that they need "great achievements" to be rising stars is...well, it's Ray Being Ray.
   379. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:20 AM (#4226987)
The Sanchez brothers are rising stars because they are successful local politicians with charisma and "star power." The idea that they need "great achievements" to be rising stars is...well, it's Ray Being Ray.

I thought Ray being Ray was that they *should* need great achievements to be rising stars. And they should. Only simps swoon over local politicians as "stars." They aren't.

   380. tshipman Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:20 AM (#4226988)
The modern liberal vision of him/her "running the country" and being responsible for everything that happens during his/her term is juvenile and harmful.


I'm sorry, what?

I did not know that Richard Nixon was a liberal. I am coming perilously close to engaging with SBB.
   381. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:21 AM (#4226990)
It's a ridiculous office and an absurd waste of money, appealing to the Oprah element in political society.


So, how long has this appeal to the "Oprah element in political society" been around, Sugar?
   382. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:22 AM (#4226992)
But simple people who don't understand the way the world really works lap this stuff up.


How do I gain access to this 'real world'? Does this real world involve not doing the things I'm now doing - holding a private sector job, paying for shelter and food, et al?

Oh -- yeah, the frivolous Lily Ledbetter, who had no legitimate lawsuit but got a law named after her, and is thus now the spokesperson for fraudulent feminism.


Yes- because it's really a good thing that companies can make discriminatory wage decisions so long as they're able to hide the fact of unequal pay long enough for the statute of limitations to expire.

You can tell the DNC is going better than the RNC because the responses are getting shriller...
   383. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:22 AM (#4226993)
So, how long has this appeal to the "Oprah element in political society" been around, Sugar?

For way too long.
   384. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:23 AM (#4226996)
The Sanchez brothers are rising stars because they are successful local politicians with charisma and "star power." The idea that they need "great achievements" to be rising stars is...well, it's Ray Being Ray.

"Successful" local politicians? What have they been successful at, other than winning a couple elections?
   385. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:23 AM (#4226997)
Who was the last candidate of substance from either party and what made that person so 'substantial'?

Looking at the above list, and again trying to be objective, the Uberqualified candidates (prior to their election) were Eisenhower and Bush I. Below that I'd put FDR, Dewey, LBJ, Nixon, and Reagan, all of whom were major executive or legislative players in big states before going to the White House. You can then get into war heroes whose other accomplishments were more or less in the replacement level area: JFK, McGovern, Kerry, Dole and McCain. And to that group I'd add Gore, not for his war record but for his 8 years as veep.
   386. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:24 AM (#4226999)
I thought Ray being Ray was that they *should* need great achievements to be rising stars. And they should. Only simps swoon over local politicians as "stars." They aren't


If they have great achievement, they are actually stars. Not rising stars. Will Myers is a rising star, even though he's never really done much in MLB. Good lord, this #### shouldn't be that hard for semi-rational mammals.
   387. Chicago Joe Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:25 AM (#4227000)
You're not aware of how power marriages work, are you Ray?


<Ray looks at his hands>
   388. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:25 AM (#4227001)
Yes- because it's really a good thing that companies can make discriminatory wage decisions so long as they're able to hide the fact of unequal pay long enough for the statute of limitations to expire.

Ledbetter discovered the pay difference in 1992, worked six more years, retired, and then sued. She then lied to Congress and claimed she only discovered the pay difference right before retiring.
   389. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:25 AM (#4227002)
For way too long.


So, are you arguing the feminist-outer-curve position by chance?
   390. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:26 AM (#4227003)
As usual, we can do this in about 1/100th of the words, Andy.

Sure, but in this case I was just trying to forestall any forthcoming fictional narratives coming from the usual suspects.
   391. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:26 AM (#4227004)
Iesu the Nazarene does not venerate or emphasize this freedom to own property. In fact, a close reading of the New Testament implies that focusing on property is to your detriment. Now, it is sort of vaguely acknowledged that some things belong to this person or that person, but that those are worldly things ("render unto Caesar...").

A right to property does not appear in the teachings of the nominal founder of your religion. Pretending that it comes from God, while voting comes from Man is silly and anti-Catholic.


But Christ's teachings, as written in Scripture, is not the totality of Catholic belief. Remember, the Church came before canonical NT Scripture, and Church, Scripture and Tradition are three equal pillars of Catholic teaching. Christ never over-turned the 10 Commandments.

The Church has always upheld the right to private property. My idea may be silly to you, but it is not anti-Catholic.
   392. tshipman Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:27 AM (#4227007)
"Successful" local politicians? What have they been successful at, other than winning a couple elections?


Well, they've been really good at being Latino also ...

Look, convention speeches are about delivering good optics and message. I mean, what has the black, Mormon lady done? Same thing.
   393. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:27 AM (#4227010)
If they have great achievement, they are actually stars. Not rising stars. Will Myers is a rising star, even though he's never really done much in MLB. Good lord, this #### shouldn't be that hard for semi-rational mammals.

Will Myers actually accomplishes things. "Star" is a term rightly used with him, with appropriate adjectives and qualifiers.

The Sanchez brothers appeal to commoners to vote for them.(*) Big whoop.

(*) Most likely, by giving them my money. Pop the champagne corks!!!!
   394. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:28 AM (#4227011)

The Sanchez brothers are rising stars because they are successful local politicians with charisma and "star power." The idea that they need "great achievements" to be rising stars is...well, it's Ray Being Ray.


Again, WTF. I never commented on the Sanchez Brothers. As I type this I have no idea who they are. (It sounds like one of their "achievements," though, is being minority - similar to Barack Obama in 2004 when liberals passed out from hearing his speech, apparently bewildered at the very notion that a black man could possibly give a good speech.)
   395. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:28 AM (#4227012)
You're not aware of how power marriages work, are you Ray?

WTF is a "power marriage"?
   396. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4227014)
Ledbetter discovered the pay difference in 1992, worked six more years, retired, and then sued. She then lied to Congress and claimed she only discovered the pay difference right before retiring.

If you've never been a victim of company embezzlement from your paycheck that took you a long time to discover, let alone prove, you must live on some other planet.
   397. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4227015)
If they have great achievement, they are actually stars. Not rising stars. Will Myers is a rising star, even though he's never really done much in MLB. Good lord, this #### shouldn't be that hard for semi-rational mammals.

Comical. Wil Myers is a prospect who's done nothing in MLB. Mike Trout is a rising star because he has some actual experience and accomplishments in MLB; Wil Myers, however, is not a rising star.

Glad I could clear that up for you.
   398. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:30 AM (#4227017)
But I do think one should actually achieve something before one is treated as if he or she has.
   399. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4227018)
Yes, there's an Office of the First Lady, with a staff of roughly a dozen. It's a ridiculous office and an absurd waste of money, appealing to the Oprah element in political society. Moreover, it elevates the public perception of the president vis-a-vis the other elements of the nation and society beyond a healthy level.


How amusing.

You really ought to read more history, SBB -- it's been something of a big deal since our Republic's founding... At the same time he was dealing with the Nullification Crisis and laying the grounds for a later panic by (perhaps quite properly) taking on the Bank of the United States, Andrew Jackson was also dealing with the 'Petticoat affair' to the extent he had to have a 'shadow cabinet' because elements of society, decorum, and such had split his actual cabinet.

Show me a nation that doesn't try to "elevate the public perception" of its government and I'll show you a nation that doesn't exist - cripes, George Washington laid out the future capital precisely to elevate the perception of the seat of power.

I swear, some of you folks really live in this alternate reality where this sort of thing hasn't been par for the course of all sorts of governments --- it's as if you teleported in from some prehistoric society to deliver a "GROG NO LIKE CAVE PAINTING! IT NOT MATTER LIKE HUNTING AND GATHERING!" warning.
   400. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:32 AM (#4227019)
Again, WTF. I never commented on the Sanchez Brothers. As I type this I have no idea who they are. (It sounds like one of their "achievements," though, is being minority - similar to Barack Obama in 2004 when liberals passed out from hearing his speech, apparently bewildered at the very notion that a black man could possibly give a good speech.)

This from someone who constantly whines and whines about ####### white males being the victims of discrimination. It's hard to know whether to laugh or laugh harder.
Page 4 of 85 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›

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

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 7 OMNICHATTER
(1431 - 10:37am, Oct 30)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(63 - 10:36am, Oct 30)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogMadison Bumgarner, World Series legend - McCovey Chronicles
(28 - 10:36am, Oct 30)
Last: zack

NewsblogSan Francisco Giants at Kansas City Royals - October 29, 2014 | MLB.com Box
(39 - 10:31am, Oct 30)
Last: Booey

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(969 - 10:29am, Oct 30)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4581 - 10:28am, Oct 30)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogVanguard after the Revolution | NBC SportsWorld
(50 - 10:24am, Oct 30)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogJapan Times: Nakamura belts three-run homer in 10th to put Hawks one win away from Japan Series title
(9 - 10:17am, Oct 30)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-30-2014
(4 - 10:15am, Oct 30)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(573 - 9:55am, Oct 30)
Last: Willard Baseball

NewsblogAngell: The World Series is Almost Over
(1 - 9:22am, Oct 30)
Last: sotapop

NewsblogHeyman: Pablo Sandoval is on Boston's 3B wish list, but so is Chase Headley
(25 - 8:14am, Oct 30)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogRoad maps to pitching success in Game 7 | FOX Sports
(9 - 1:14am, Oct 30)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogESPN: Jose Canseco shoots self in hand
(66 - 11:53pm, Oct 29)
Last: eric

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(15 - 11:14pm, Oct 29)
Last: CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo

Page rendered in 0.6742 seconds
52 querie(s) executed