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 5 of 85 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›
   401. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:33 AM (#4227021)
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.

Goodyear "embezzled" from Lily Ledbetter? They agreed to pay her $x but then stole money back from her?
   402. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4227025)
The Sanchez brothers appeal to commoners to vote for them.(*) Big whoop.


What on earth is your point? Politicians are politicians. FDR didn't actually build the dams in the Tennessee River Valley, you know.
   403. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:36 AM (#4227029)

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American Latinos who are articulate and bright and clean and nice-looking guys. I mean, that's a storybook, man." — Joe Biden, on the Castro brothers
   404. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:36 AM (#4227031)
WTF is a "power marriage"?


The marriage of two type A personalities who then work together for mutually desired ends. The Clintons, for example. And the Obamas. Basically, it's a feminist marriage where the balance of power and input is not dominated by the "man of the family."
   405. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:36 AM (#4227032)
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.


Yes to the overall point. In the real world - say, in the non-political-realm workplace - nobody is deemed a "rising star" unless they have actually done something.
   406. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:36 AM (#4227033)
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.

May I suggest dampening down the funny bone and actually thinking. That might help.

You really ought to read more history, SBB -- it's been something of a big deal since our Republic's founding

Yeah, but women actually work and vote and hold office now, so the need to achieve and hold power derivatively has rather eradicated.
   407. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:38 AM (#4227038)
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.

Goodyear "embezzled" from Lily Ledbetter? They agreed to pay her $x but then stole money back from her?


Embezzlement takes many forms, including pay discrepancies based on gender, and the fact that Ledbetter didn't have the time or the resources to pursue her case at the time she discovered the discrepancy proves absolutely nothing beyond the fact that she didn't have the time or the resources.
   408. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:38 AM (#4227040)

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


I guess SBB has outed himself as a member of the aristocracy, although whether a Noble of the Sword or a mere Noble of the Robe remains to be determined.
   409. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:38 AM (#4227041)
What on earth is your point? Politicians are politicians.

That modern liberals exalt politicians far more than they should, including above people who actually accomplish things. They also exalt the political enterprise far more than they should.
   410. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:38 AM (#4227043)
Yes to the overall point. In the real world - say, in the non-political-realm workplace - nobody is deemed a "rising star" unless they have actually done something


Bullshit.
   411. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:39 AM (#4227045)
Yeah, but women actually work and vote and hold office now, so the need to achieve and hold power derivatively has rather eradicated


Reduced, perhaps. "Eradicated?" No.
   412. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:40 AM (#4227047)
That modern liberals exalt politicians far more than they should, including above people who actually accomplish things.


Examples, please.
   413. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4227050)

That modern liberals exalt politicians far more than they should, including above people who actually accomplish things.


So I guess modern liberals are behind the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project.
   414. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4227051)
Examples, please.

A certain Illinois senator with an undistinguished back-bench track record springs to mind. I'm still waiting for someone to list a couple achievements that made him qualified to run for president, let alone win.

(I know, I know — Harvard Law Review! Harvard Law Review!)
   415. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4227052)
The marriage of two type A personalities who then work together for mutually desired ends. The Clintons, for example. And the Obamas. Basically, it's a feminist marriage where the balance of power and input is not dominated by the "man of the family."

Really? I think letting your husband chase anything in a skirt screams out the opposite of feminism.

Also, you sorely underestimate the power of women in "traditional" marriages. My mother, grandmother, and aunts all absolutely ran their households, without a lick of feminism.
   416. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:43 AM (#4227056)
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.
Mike Trout is a star; the best player in baseball isn't some riser, he's here. Last year, he was a rising star.
   417. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:44 AM (#4227057)
Ronald Reagan's core philosophy was to downgrade politics and politicians in favor of people who actually do and accomplish things.
   418. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:44 AM (#4227058)
Oh, I don't know. A certain Illinois senator with an undistinguished back-bench track record springs to mind. I'm still waiting for someone to list a couple achievements that made him qualified to run for president, let alone win.

A financial crisis/recession and white guilt aren't qualifications?
   419. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4227063)
Really? I think letting your husband chase anything in a skirt screams out the opposite of feminism.


And odd fact about feminist thinking is that it tends to posit the idea that women don't need to run to you, Good Sir, to validate whether or not they're "doing it wrong."

Also, you sorely underestimate the power of women in "traditional" marriages. My mother, grandmother, and aunts all absolutely ran their households, without a lick of feminism


You really don't understand feminism at all, do you Snap?
   420. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4227065)
Mike Trout is a star; the best player in baseball isn't some riser, he's here. Last year, he was a rising star.

By this logic, guys like Bob Hamelin and Kevin Maas are "former MLB stars." Not buying it.

A "star" is someone who put up elite-level production for more than five months.
   421. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:46 AM (#4227067)
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.
Better than that an employee can wait decades to file a claim, until after the decisionmakers are no longer around, and then claim that they were motivated by her sex.

Moreover, your argument is based on faulty information. She knew she was being paid less -- which is not the same as a "discriminatory wage decision," but we'll let that slide -- years before she brought suit, years before the SOL had expired. If it had actually been a question of the company "hiding" something, she could have argued for equitable tolling based on the discovery rule; her lawyer never even raised a discovery argument precisely because he knew it was a loser.

Finally, she had a claim, to the extent her underlying discrimination claim had any merit, under the Equal Pay Act, which is crafted differently and doesn't pose the same SOL issue; her lawyer basically committed malpractice by failing to preserve that cause of action.
   422. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:46 AM (#4227068)

Yeah, but women actually work and vote and hold office now, so the need to achieve and hold power derivatively has rather eradicated.


But we still have formal functions - if you want to simply call the office something else, I've got no problem with that.

What's more, we still have a celebrity-impressed culture. Just ask George Washington or Ben Franklin - been true for centuries. As such, I have no problem with "first spouses" having a portfolio -- whether it's Michelle Obama's fitness/eat healthy initiatives, Laura Bush's literacy, or Nancy Reagan's So No to Drugs/Yes to Astrology kicks. Presidents and their spouses will inherently be national celebrities. People will naturally want to know more about them and their lives. Might as well leverage that for good causes.
   423. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:48 AM (#4227071)
You really don't understand feminism at all, do you Snap?

I understand first wave feminism (Susan B Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, etc.) fine. Women absolutely need to be granted equal legal and political rights.

2nd wave Feminism was a disaster, since they though women had to behave just like men in order to be equal. I "understand" it, I just reject it totally.
   424. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:49 AM (#4227072)
Oh, I don't know. A certain Illinois senator with an undistinguished back-bench track record springs to mind. I'm still waiting for someone to list a couple achievements that made him qualified to run for president, let alone win.


Beating Hillary Clinton in the primaries. That, and not being Bush-Cheney's heir apparent were enough to win in 2008, because all you had to do was not be those guys and the nation pretty much knew you'd be a better option.
   425. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:50 AM (#4227073)
2nd wave Feminism was a disaster, since they though women had to behave just like men in order to be equal. I "understand" it, I just reject it totally.


I'm not aware of this '2nd wave feminism' -- are you sure it is what you say it is, and not what people who agree with you told you it is?
   426. Lassus Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:50 AM (#4227074)
2nd wave Feminism was a disaster, since they though women had to behave just like men in order to be equal. I "understand" it, I just reject it totally.

Local Man Declares Feminism a Failure has to have been an Onion headline at some point.
   427. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:51 AM (#4227075)
2nd wave Feminism was a disaster, since they though women had to behave just like men in order to be equal. I "understand" it, I just reject it totally.


Your summary of 2nd wave indicates that you don't actually understand it.

Do you even recognize 3rd and 4th wave at all, or does history stop for you in the mid-1970s?
   428. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:51 AM (#4227078)
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.
WTF does that mean? You think most people have been "victims of company embezzlement from their paychecks"?

And WTF is "company embezzlement"? She wasn't paid as much as she wanted to be paid. I think most people have been the "victim" of that -- but we don't think it entitles us to sue the company.
   429. tshipman Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:52 AM (#4227079)
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.


So, first of all, this is a retreat, right? You're acknowledging that nothing in Iesu's direct teachings discusses a natural right to property? Because that was your initial claim.

You don't understand the difference between rights granted by God and rights granted by Man. The Church has nominally upheld the right to private property (in a very limited way). The Church has never, ever maintained that it is a right granted by God. Find one instance in doctrine.

The reason why is that there is only one right granted by God in Catholic teaching. That's it. The right to God's love. That is the only natural right. You're imposing 18th century heuristics on a two thousand year old tradition. That's why you're anti-Catholic. Because you're recognizing the right to property as being co-equal with the right to God's love. This shouldn't make me so angry, but it does.
   430. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:52 AM (#4227081)
Ronald Reagan's core philosophy was to downgrade politics and politicians in favor of people who actually do and accomplish things.


B movies are a kind of accomplishment, I guess...

What precisely were Ronald Reagan's 'accomplishments' beyond that? Being governor of California?
   431. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:54 AM (#4227084)
Embezzlement takes many forms,
No, it doesn't. Just one.
including pay discrepancies based on gender, and the fact that Ledbetter didn't have the time or the resources to pursue her case at the time she discovered the discrepancy proves absolutely nothing beyond the fact that she didn't have the time or the resources.
It proves that claiming the company hid the information from her for years and so she couldn't have sued until she did was a lie.

There are statutes of limitations for a reason; "I didn't feel like pursuing a lawsuit when the cause of action arose" or "I was too busy" are not arguments for ignoring statutes of limitations.
   432. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:54 AM (#4227085)
What precisely were Ronald Reagan's 'accomplishments' beyond that? Being governor of California?


Apparently "being Ronald Reagan" is enough for Sugar Smacks to bow down to the boy king. Talk about celebrity worship.
   433. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:54 AM (#4227086)
Do you even recognize 3rd and 4th wave at all, or does history stop for you in the mid-1970s?


In fairness, once all the bras were burned, who among us was really paying attention to anything else?
   434. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4227088)
Beating Hillary Clinton in the primaries. That, and not being Bush-Cheney's heir apparent were enough to win in 2008, because all you had to do was not be those guys and the nation pretty much knew you'd be a better option.

I said I was waiting for someone to list a couple achievements that made him qualified to run for president.

Still waiting.
   435. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:57 AM (#4227089)
That modern liberals exalt politicians far more than they should, including above people who actually accomplish things.
Most painful to me is when they call being a politician "public service."
   436. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:57 AM (#4227091)
You don't understand the difference between rights granted by God and rights granted by Man.


In theory, you should distinguish your terms here. Rights are "granted by God" (endowed by the Creator, yadda yadda yadda, poppycock, poppycock, poo.) Those elements that are not "God-given rights" are properly termed privileges of the state. (You may note, much to the theosophicists among us' dismay, that privileges of state sort of assume some notional idea of a "state."
   437. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:57 AM (#4227092)

I said I was waiting for someone to list a couple achievements that made him qualified to run for president.

Still waiting.


He did star in that adorable movie with the monkey he tries to teach 'morality'... wait.. sorry... wrong unqualified person who ran for President.
   438. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4227094)
Most painful to me is when they call being a politician "public service."


Well, that, and trying to order a drink in the big boy bar.
   439. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4227095)
Income Taxes: Government embezzlement.
   440. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4227097)
Oh, is that a Kehoskie troll I've picked up from someone else's quotation? Am I going to have to start wearing a condom now?
   441. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:00 PM (#4227098)
Most painful to me is when they call being a politician "public service."

Come on, David. Obama deserves every penny of the $12 million he's "earned" from "public service." LOL.
   442. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4227101)
Well, that, and trying to order a drink in the big boy bar.
Don't you have a dissertation to finish so you can be even more unemployable?
   443. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:02 PM (#4227104)
Oh, is that a Kehoskie troll I've picked up from someone else's quotation? Am I going to have to start wearing a condom now?

Liar. Nobody had quoted my comment in #414.
   444. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:03 PM (#4227106)
and the fact that Ledbetter didn't have the time or the resources to pursue her case at the time she discovered the discrepancy proves absolutely nothing beyond the fact that she didn't have the time or the resources
.

Are you aware that this actually is not a valid argument for blowing past the statute of limitations?
   445. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:03 PM (#4227107)
Apparently "being Ronald Reagan" is enough for Sugar Smacks to bow down to the boy king. Talk about celebrity worship.

Except I haven't said a word about Reagan's accomplishments. What I have said was that he was one of the few politicians to advocate putting politicians in their proper place, forever earning the scorn and disdain of modern liberals.
   446. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:05 PM (#4227109)
Don't you have a dissertation to finish so you can be even more unemployable?


Sorry, one of us is driving the economy while you chase ambulances and spin sophistry.
   447. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:06 PM (#4227110)
What I have said was that he was one of the few politicians to advocate putting politicians in their proper place, forever earning the scorn and disdain of modern liberals.


I see. As opposed to people who have "accomplished something." Like inheriting asstons of wealth or a family name, perhaps.
   448. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:08 PM (#4227113)

Come on, David. Obama deserves every penny of the $12 million he's "earned" from "public service." LOL.


POTUS makes 400k. Senators make 174k. IL State Senators make 67, 836.

...somehow, I find this "12 million" to be about as realistic as the 400M$ (or whatever) spent on the trip to India.

EDIT: I realize you're almost certainly trolling with that statement, but I think there's a significant, extremely negative undercurrent to the constant refrain from the right that President Barack Obama is somehow "unqualified", hasn't "earned" anything, is too invested in the commons ("public sector") and that sort of thing. This sort of thing needs to be called out consistently.
   449. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:09 PM (#4227114)
Except I haven't said a word about Reagan's accomplishments.

And let's not kid ourselves here: Reagan's track record was miles longer than Obama's. Reagan was a two-term governor of the nation's largest state and had decades of political experience when he ran for office, all of which followed a successful acting career, a stint in the U.S. military, and a time as head of the Screen Actors Guild. Obama, meanwhile, could fit his qualifications on a matchbook cover.
   450. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:10 PM (#4227115)
As opposed to people who have "accomplished something."

No need for the scare quotes there; accomplishing things has a well-known, easily-ascertainable meaning. Convincing 100,000 commoners to vote for you by promising them other people's money ranks very, very low on the list.
   451. tshipman Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:11 PM (#4227116)
The major qualification that Obama espoused when running for the D nomination was that he was against the Iraq war from the start.

No one is really "qualified" to be POTUS (well ... maaaaaaybe the first George Bush). You can poke holes in any resume because POTUS is the most important job in the country.

Edit: Abraham Lincoln was also extremely light on achievement.
   452. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:11 PM (#4227118)
POTUS makes 400k. Senators make 174k. IL State Senators make 67, 836.

And yet, estimates of Obama's net worth range to $12 million, despite him being heavily in debt at the time he entered "public service."

Funny, that.
   453. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:12 PM (#4227120)
No need for the scare quotes there; accomplishing things has a well-known, easily-ascertainable meaning.


Actually, the scare quotes are perfectly useful here, because it denotes the phrase you use to talk around "things that SBB likes but can't be bothered to go into any sort of details about, because he hasn't thought the problem through to that level" while maintaining your faux-aristocratic charms. It's cute, but a bit trite and overdone these days. Some might even call it "common."
   454. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:14 PM (#4227122)
but I think there's a significant, extremely negative undercurrent to the constant refrain from the right that President Barack Obama is somehow "unqualified",

Still waiting for someone to list the achievements that made Obama qualified to run for president.
   455. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:15 PM (#4227123)
Actually, the scare quotes are perfectly useful here, because it denotes the phrase you use to talk around "things that SBB likes but can't be bothered to go into any sort of details about, because he hasn't thought the problem through to that level" while maintaining your faux-aristocratic charms. It's cute, but a bit trite and overdone these days. Some might even call it "common."

It was discussed at length and principles espoused in the Clint Eastwood thread.

   456. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:15 PM (#4227124)
I said I was waiting for someone to list a couple achievements that made him qualified to run for president.


Having been born in the US and over 35 years of age. Beyond that, the Constitution is silent.
   457. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:17 PM (#4227126)
And let's not kid ourselves here: Reagan's track record was miles longer than Obama's. Reagan was a two-term governor of the nation's largest state and had decades of political experience when he ran for office, all of which followed a successful acting career, a stint in the U.S. military, and a time as head of the Screen Actors Guild. Obama, meanwhile, could fit his qualifications on a matchbook cover.


Ahhh -- so 'governor' counts as an accomplishment, but legislator does not. He did make fine training films in the military, though - I'll give him that... I suppose I'll let other veterans decide whether that qualifies as a 'stint'. As for his SAG/UNION LEADERSHIP position, well, given that he traded info on his union's membership to the FBI in exchange for the FBI spying on his kids... Even if that's a "special union" that doesn't count, I'd hardly be touting "FBI informant for McCarthyism in exchange for spying on his kids" as a shining accomplishment.
   458. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:17 PM (#4227127)
Having been born in the US and over 35 years of age. Beyond that, the Constitution is silent.

There isn't another serious job in the country with such tepid and malleable requirements.
   459. PreservedFish Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:17 PM (#4227128)
Days after the subject first came up, I'm still not sure if Kehoskie's disapproval of Obama's wealth is a lament about the state of politics in this country or a repeated implication of corruption.
   460. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:18 PM (#4227130)
Having been born in the US and over 35 years of age. Beyond that, the Constitution is silent.

Oh, then I guess all those liberal attacks on Sarah Palin's qualifications must have been sexist.
   461. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:20 PM (#4227132)
Ahhh -- so 'governor' counts as an accomplishment, but legislator does not.

Yeah, being a back-bench Illinois legislator with ZERO notable legislative achievements is exactly the same thing as being governor of the biggest state in the U.S. and 10th-largest (?) economy in the world.
   462. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:21 PM (#4227135)
a stint in the U.S. military


*chuckle*

Look, I love Reagan. Voted for him. I think he was the greatest president in my lifetime, and I go back to Kennedy (though having been born in July of 1963, my recollection of the media narrative of the assasination at the time is a little fuzzy). But listing his time in the First Motion Picture unit as a qualification for President is a bad joke.
   463. Guapo Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:23 PM (#4227138)
Oh, then I guess all those liberal attacks on Sarah Palin's qualifications must have been sexist.


*hic*
   464. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4227140)
Joe:

A) Where's your Grammy Award, Joe? Or your best sellers? Think POTUS made a bit of coin from those?

B) Off wiki, less than 2 minutes:

Barack Obama, 2008:
Junior Senator, Illinois (2004 -)
Illinois State Senator (1996-2004)
"From April to October 1992, Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote, a voter registration campaign with ten staffers and seven hundred volunteer registrars; it achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state, leading Crain's Chicago Business to name Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be.[46]
Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School (1992-2004, Senior as of 1996)."
Editor of the Harvard Law Review
J.D. magna cum laude, Harvard Law School
B.A. Columbia University

Oh, and hey, since it's 2012 and he's been president for 3.5 years, I suggest you visit: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com
He's not George H.W. Bush, but apparently you needn't be to become the first POTUS to pass universal health care legislation, equal pay for equal work, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (eh to the rest of D-F. Eh, I say!), or actually kill Osama Bin Laden. Oh, and stave off a depression. And become the first sitting president to voice support marriage equality.

Honestly, the right's reaction to Obama is starting to look like another "Jimmy Carter was right afterall" moments. If his name were Barry Dunham, I doubt the GOP would be quite so frothy and... Santorum-y.

EDIT: Barack Obama's not perfect - far from it, particularly on civil liberties - but I'd love to see you list substantive, objective arguments against Barack Obama's policy and record as President which you think Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan can improve upon based on their stated policy.
   465. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4227141)
It was discussed at length and principles espoused in the Clint Eastwood thread.


Well, I'm not trolling back into that #### pool. I still maintain you're just using a shorthand to summarize \"#### I like" vs \"#### I don't like" and there's nothing more to it than that.
   466. Tripon Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:25 PM (#4227143)
Even if you think Obama had an insufficient quantification in 2008 to become President. In 2012, he has the best qualification out of all potential candidates. He's the sitting incumbent and has 4 years of experience of being the president and running the nation.

But that probably doesn't help Joe's talking points.
   467. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:27 PM (#4227146)
Look, I love Reagan. Voted for him. I think he was the greatest president in my lifetime, and I go back to Kennedy (though having been born in July of 1963, my recollection of the media narrative of the assasination at the time is a little fuzzy). But listing his time in the First Motion Picture unit as a qualification for President is a bad joke.

Ah, so Reagan's time in the military counts for nothing, same as Obama's complete lack of military experience. Very convenient accounting.
   468. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:27 PM (#4227147)
Ahhh -- so 'governor' counts as an accomplishment, but legislator does not.


Of course. Political office held by people I'm emotionally attached to like a suckerfish to the underbelly of a great white is qualifying. Political office held by people that I emotionally dislike in much the same way a third grader hates cabbage is proof that he's incapable of nothing but sucking off the public teat.
   469. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:27 PM (#4227148)
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.

WTF does that mean? You think most people have been "victims of company embezzlement from their paychecks"?


I had a form of embezzlement happen to me, and I didn't discover it until long after I'd left the company, when its accountant was arrested for embezzlement on charges which included skimming from the drivers' manifests. Anyone who's ever worked as a courier might know that kind of a move, which involved falsely claiming that an ongoing delivery contract was being billed at about half of what the real billing cost was. This then was reflected in the drivers' paychecks. My cousin, who had a similar job in New York, heard about my experience, hired someone to investigate his own company's practices, and wound up settling out of court for $10,000.

   470. Tripon Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:28 PM (#4227150)
459. PreservedFish Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:17 PM (#4227128)
Days after the subject first came up, I'm still not sure if Kehoskie's disapproval of Obama's wealth is a lament about the state of politics in this country or a repeated implication of corruption.


As part of his evidence, he posted a link to a local pol who was dealing in the "time-honored" tradition of the Spoils system, handing out government jobs and the like to people who donated to her campaign.

Joe thinks it corruption.
   471. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:28 PM (#4227151)
Even if you think Obama had an insufficient quantification in 2008 to become President. In 2012, he has the best qualification out of all potential candidates. He's the sitting incumbent and has 4 years of experience of being the president and running the nation.


Presidents don't "run nations" -- governors apparently "run states", but I'm sure that's only true in certain circumstances, too.
   472. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4227155)
Joe thinks it corruption.


Well yes. Joe's an idiot.
   473. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:33 PM (#4227159)
Some of Reagan's notable 'accomplishments' heading the Actor's Union...

The documents show that Reagan was more involved than was previously known as a government informer during his Hollywood years, and that in return he secretly received personal and political help from J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime F.B.I. director, at taxpayer expense.
* * *
An assistant F.B.I. director, Cartha DeLoach, recommended that the F.B.I. grant the Reagans’ request, even while noting that “there does not appear to be any F.B.I. jurisdiction here.” Hoover quickly approved the inquiry. Posing as an insurance salesman, one agent made a pretext phone call to neighbors; another contacted a police source; a third interviewed the maid at Maureen Reagan’s rooming house.
* * *
Following routine procedure, F.B.I. agents in Phoenix asked agents in Los Angeles to interview Ronald Reagan for any information he might have gleaned from his son. The investigation, after all, was a top priority. But Hoover blocked them from questioning Reagan, thus sparing him potentially unfavorable publicity. Declaring it “unlikely that Ronald Reagan would have any information of significance,” Hoover instead ordered agents to warn him about his son’s worrisome friendship.

Reagan expressed his gratitude to an F.B.I. agent, William L. Byrne Jr., on Feb. 1, 1965. Reagan “was most appreciative and stated he realized that such an association and actions on the part of his son might well jeopardize any political aspirations he might have,” according to an F.B.I. report. “He stated that the Bureau’s courtesy in this matter will be kept absolutely confidential. Reagan commented that he realizes that it would be improper to express his appreciation in writing and requested that SA [Special Agent] Byrne convey the great admiration he has for the Director and the Bureau and to express his thanks for the Bureau’s cooperation.”


Getting J Edgar to do your parenting also counts as a very unique accomplishment, I guess...
   474. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:33 PM (#4227160)
A) Where's your Grammy Award, Joe? Or your best sellers? Think POTUS made a bit of coin from those?

Would he have made any of that "coin" but for his "public service"? No.

Take a look at Obama's book-sale numbers pre-U.S. Senate. They aren't pretty.

***
Even if you think Obama had an insufficient quantification in 2008 to become President. In 2012, he has the best qualification out of all potential candidates. He's the sitting incumbent and has 4 years of experience of being the president and running the nation.

Actually, his horrendous four-year track record now makes him one of the least qualified people. At least he had potential back in 2008.
   475. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:34 PM (#4227161)
Ah, so Reagan's time in the military counts for nothing, same as Obama's complete lack of military experience. Very convenient accounting.

Ike had military experience that's worth talking about. So did JFK, McGovern, Dole, Bush I, Kerry, and any others who actually were engaged in combat. Anything else isn't. Even Romney's missionary work among the French heathens or Clinton's draft dodging is no different in substance than Bush II's use of family connections.
   476. Tripon Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4227162)

Actually, his horrendous four-year track record now makes him one of the least-qualified people. At least he had potential back in 2008.


So, experience counts, but only the kind of experience you like. Gotcha.
   477. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4227163)
Still waiting for someone to list the achievements that made Obama qualified to run for president.


"qualified"
He was born in the US and was over 35.

His CV OTOH was quite "light" for a POTUS:

3 years "community organizer"
President Harvard Law Review
"Lecturer" at Univ Chicago School of Law, 12 years
Associate at civil rights firm, 3 years
State Senator 8 years
US Senator 4 years



   478. PreservedFish Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:37 PM (#4227165)
But that probably doesn't help Joe's talking points.


Joe is arguing that liberals prefer style over substance, not whether or not Obama in 2012 is qualified for the job. At least I hope.

I think it's clear that both parties go for style very frequently. Obama's resume is in fact very lean compared to other presidential nominees, but, resume isn't entirely what gets you this job, nor does it predict success in it. He's ultra smart, he's a great speaker, he's good at politics, he articulated a convincing vision for the country, etc.

Those are all intangibles, and they all have an element of "style," but they are also at least partially indicative of ability to be a good president. I think Reagan was a style over substance guy...

It's an interesting question. Sometimes "substance" isn't the right thing to go for. The Dems thought that Kerry had substance - war hero! - but if they paid more attention to his intangibles, maybe they would have gone another direction.

Obama's lack of military experience is a nice point here, actually. As I've posted here before, it seems that people high up in the military today really respect Obama's ability and decisions as commander in chief.
   479. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:38 PM (#4227166)
Well yes. Joe's an idiot.

Hey, someone run to Jim and tell him Sam's hurling personal attacks.
   480. Random Transaction Generator Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4227168)
Oh, then I guess all those liberal attacks on Sarah Palin's qualifications must have been sexist.

No, of course not. We weren't attacking her qualifications...we were attacking her intelligence.

(I look forward to the Right-Wing Defamation League's defense of Palin's intelligence. That should be good for some laughs.)
   481. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4227169)

"qualified"
He was born in the US and was over 35.

His CV OTOH was quite "light" for a POTUS:

3 years "community organizer"
President Harvard Law Review
"Lecturer" at Univ Chicago School of Law, 12 years
Associate at civil rights firm, 3 years
State Senator 8 years
US Senator 4 years


Plus, he was never able to get Louis Freeh to find out which kindergartners weren't playing nicely with Sasha...
   482. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:40 PM (#4227170)
But that probably doesn't help Joe's talking points.


Don't underestimate him, Joe has an answer for EVERYTHING, doesn't matter if it contradict an earlier argument of his or even physical reality, make an argument, any argument and he has a response, it's an impressive talent to have if your goal is to make the debate team.

   483. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:42 PM (#4227172)
So, experience counts, but only the kind of experience you like. Gotcha.

Yeah, I like the "kind of experience" that includes noteworthy positive achievements. I'm funny like that.

***
He's ultra smart, he's a great speaker, he's good at politics, he articulated a convincing vision for the country, etc.

He's good at politics? If he's so good at politics, how come his only major "achievement" was passed with zero GOP votes?

The most frequent criticism I hear from liberals re: Obama is that he's bad at D.C. politics — too detached, too willing to allow Congress to set the agenda, etc.
   484. BDC Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:42 PM (#4227173)
The nature of the American system is that you can have pretty thin national and/or executive experience, and rather quickly find yourself President. You do not have to rise to the leadership of a parliamentary party (and only a few Presidents have done so: Polk, LBJ, Gerald Ford). You can be a academic who served two years as governor of New Jersey. You can be (as someone mentioned above) a one-term Illinois congressman with a penchant for losing elections. And that's just talking hugely important world-historical Presidents (I don't think anyone would claim that status for Obama yet; he's just your basic competent President). What matters is what you do after you're elected. Herbert Hoover had one of the best and broadest executive resumeés in Presidential history; that didn't work out very well for him :)
   485. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:43 PM (#4227175)
No, of course not. We weren't attacking her qualifications...we were attacking her intelligence.

But per 'Misirlou,' intelligence isn't a required qualification. Only being U.S.-born and over the age of 35.
   486. McCoy Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:45 PM (#4227179)
I'm still waiting for someone to list a couple achievements that made him qualified to run for president, let alone win.

I'll make this easy for you. Obama shouldn't have become President of the United States. At this point Romney shouldn't become the President either. Obama in 2008 and Romney in 2008 and 2012 were and are not great candidates when you ignore things like the ability to give a good speech and inspire (plus there isn't a whole helluva lot you have to ignore to figure out Romney isn't a good candidate). I don't think McCain in 2008 should have become President either and definitely not after the economy melted down and he picked Palin as his running mate. At the time I thought pretty much all the Republican and Democratic candidates were crappy. I believe time has revealed that Hillary would have made a good president*. At this point Obama is the better candidate for 2012 than Romney. If Hillary had decided to run and somehow won the nomination I would probably vote for her as long as it was pretty clear that she wouldn't split the ticket and cause Romney to win.



*Of course the Republicans would have continued their obstructionist ways against her just like they did against Obama. Making any real analysis of her abilities or even Obama's difficult.
   487. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:46 PM (#4227181)
Obama's lack of military experience is a nice point here, actually. As I've posted here before, it seems that people high up in the military today really respect Obama's ability and decisions as commander in chief.


I've heard that too, a lot of it is grudging respect, but it's there, Obama is someone they wanted to hate, Bush 2 was someone they wanted to like (but Rumsfeld made it very hard for them to like that Admin.)
   488. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4227182)
I'll make this easy for you. Obama shouldn't have become President of the United States.

BREAKING: Hell has frozen over.
   489. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:50 PM (#4227186)
And that's just talking hugely important world-historical Presidents (I don't think anyone would claim that status for Obama yet


I hope not.

he's just your basic competent President


some would dispute that, my preferred term for him is mediocre, which is of course a HUGE step up from Dubya.

   490. McCoy Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:52 PM (#4227188)
Like all management teams the military "experts" want an owner that will give them clear goals that they can believe in and that they will be given the resources and ability to reach those goals. They also don't want to get a black eye for things they tend not specialize in (torture) or to be used as leverage in things they cannot control (political side). It does appear that Obama's administration does this better than Bush 2's administration.
   491. McCoy Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4227190)
BREAKING: Hell has frozen over.

Are you voting for Romney in November? If he was a Democrat and said and did everything he's done so far in this election and in previous ones would you still vote for him in November?
   492. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4227191)
Obama's lack of military experience is a nice point here, actually. As I've posted here before, it seems that people high up in the military today really respect Obama's ability and decisions as commander in chief.

Maybe the people with cushy jobs in D.C., but not, apparently, the guys in the trenches:

POLL: Less Than Half of Army Officers in Afghanistan Report High Morale

BOOK: SEALS WHO CAUGHT BIN LADEN DIDN'T WANT TO HELP RE-ELECT OBAMA
   493. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:56 PM (#4227194)
(but Rumsfeld made it very hard for them to like that Admin.)
You go to war with the SecDef you have, not the SecDef you want.
   494. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:56 PM (#4227195)
3 years "community organizer"
President Harvard Law Review
"Lecturer" at Univ Chicago School of Law, 12 years
Associate at civil rights firm, 3 years
State Senator 8 years
US Senator 4 years


This is laughably light, yes.
   495. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:58 PM (#4227197)
So, first of all, this is a retreat, right? You're acknowledging that nothing in Iesu's direct teachings discusses a natural right to property? Because that was your initial claim.

Not a retreat. Christ doesn't address the subject directly, but there are numerous references that show a support for private property.

You don't understand the difference between rights granted by God and rights granted by Man. The Church has nominally upheld the right to private property (in a very limited way). The Church has never, ever maintained that it is a right granted by God. Find one instance in doctrine.

The reason why is that there is only one right granted by God in Catholic teaching. That's it. The right to God's love. That is the only natural right. You're imposing 18th century heuristics on a two thousand year old tradition. That's why you're anti-Catholic. Because you're recognizing the right to property as being co-equal with the right to God's love. This shouldn't make me so angry, but it does.


Sorry, this is just wrong.

We have no right to God's love, or His Grace that allows us to be saved. They are both free gifts from God. He owes us nothing.

Natural rights are not a 18th C. construct. Natural law goes back at least to Augustine. Right only apply in respect to other persons; we have no rights vis a vis God.

Since knowledge of the Natural Law (basically 10 commandments) is believed (in Catholicism) to be imprinted on the soul of every man by God, the rights this law grants are clearly God given. They include the rights not have to 10 Commandment stuff done against you, i.e. right to not be murdered, right to not be stolen from, right to not have false witness borne against you, etc.

   496. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: September 05, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4227201)
It does appear that Obama's administration does this better than Bush 2's administration.


Bush 2 also did much better after ditching Rumsfeld.

Worst Sec Def(s) of all time:
Rummy,
McNamara, or
Louis A. Johnson

I tend to think that Johnson was the worst, but for one thing, I think he was largely doing what Truman wanted him to do, he had no actual vision of his own, Truman/Johnson's policies with respect to the military were catastrophically awful, and when that became apparent, Johnson became the fall guy.

McNamara and Rummy had each had an actual [albeit deeply flawed] vision of what the US Military was, and where they wanted to take it, both men stubbornly stuck to those goals even when the ground was literally shifting under their feet.
   497. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:01 PM (#4227203)
Are you voting for Romney in November? If he was a Democrat and said and did everything he's done so far in this election and in previous ones would you still vote for him in November?

Damn right I'm voting for Romney. Aside from Romney having an actual track record of leadership and success, Obama's putrid track record demands his removal from office.
   498. Random Transaction Generator Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4227204)
Aside from Romney having an actual track record of leadership and success

47th in job creation = success
   499. McCoy Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:04 PM (#4227205)
It has a margin of error of plus or minus 7 points.


What were the 2007 or 2008 findings on morale in the Army?
   500. McCoy Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:06 PM (#4227207)
Obama's putrid track record demands his removal from office.

So that a crappy politician can take his place? Yep, that makes sense. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

So again if he was a Democrat you'd vote for him? Did you vote for Romney in the 2008 primary? If you didn't vote in the primary was Romney your choice over the other candidates? Was Romney your choice over the other Republican candidates this year?
Page 5 of 85 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Piehole of David Wells
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prospect Deven Marrero enjoying turnaround in Arizona Fall League | MiLB.com News | The Official Site of Minor League Baseball
(6 - 1:45pm, Oct 25)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3776 - 1:45pm, Oct 25)
Last: BDC

NewsblogYost's managerial decisions make for extra-entertaining World Series | FOX Sports
(3 - 1:38pm, Oct 25)
Last: Captain Supporter

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(933 - 1:35pm, Oct 25)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogDave Dombrowski: Injury worse than expected, Miguel Cabrera 'is as tough as you can possibly be' | MLive.com
(11 - 1:27pm, Oct 25)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogGambling Bochy creature of habit when it comes to pitchers | CSN Bay Area
(3 - 1:14pm, Oct 25)
Last: esseff

NewsblogMLB - Royals' Ned Yost keeps managing to win - ESPN
(9 - 12:55pm, Oct 25)
Last: The elusive Robert Denby

NewsblogPhils' philospophy beginning to evolve | phillies.com
(8 - 12:43pm, Oct 25)
Last: Cargo Cultist

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(20 - 12:25pm, Oct 25)
Last: BDC

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Ballot
(7 - 11:46am, Oct 25)
Last: lieiam

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(17 - 11:46am, Oct 25)
Last: BDC

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(391 - 11:43am, Oct 25)
Last: Tom Cervo, backup catcher

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(517 - 10:40am, Oct 25)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(82 - 9:30am, Oct 25)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogCurt Schilling not hiding his scars - ESPN Boston
(23 - 7:32am, Oct 25)
Last: Merton Muffley

Page rendered in 0.7161 seconds
54 querie(s) executed