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

Monday, January 01, 2018

OTP 1 January 2018 - Athlete boycotts of White House didn’t start with Donald Trump — but he sure helped

Amateur teams began going to the White House as far back as the mid-1860s, while the first championship winning pro baseball team attended in 1925. That was the Washington Senators, winners of the previous year’s World Series. They were hosted by then-president Calvin Coolidge.

Teams that later followed include the Super Bowl-winning Pittsburgh Steelers. The squad was on hand for the same ceremony in 1980 with then-president Jimmy Carter as baseball’s Pittsburgh Pirates. In June 1991, the Penguins were the first NHL team to visit after capturing a title, meeting George H.W. Bush.

Bird’s decision to skip the visit in 1984 — usually consisting of handshakes and photo ops — is said to be the first snub of significance, even though he didn’t give political reasons.

 

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 01, 2018 at 03:22 PM | 1771 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: champions, 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 18 of 18 pages ‹ First  < 16 17 18
   1701. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 07, 2018 at 02:55 PM (#5602407)
flip
   1702. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: January 07, 2018 at 02:55 PM (#5602408)
Flip - what’s more, a flip DP via 6-4-3...
   1703. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 07, 2018 at 03:04 PM (#5602411)
In the aftermath of some poor SC argument, it's certainly a good thing that Donald Trump won and is nominating First Amendment absolutists. Like John Bush, who says the 9-0 New York Times v. Sullivan case was "wrongly decided." Or Thomas Hardiman, who ruled that it was acceptable for an airport to whip up a new policy on non-commercial advertising to stop the NAACP from purchasing ad space, and wrote a dissent saying it was okay for a school to ban "I ♥ boobies!" breast cancer awareness wristbands because the question of lewdness was a "gray area." Both have been confirmed.
   1704. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 07, 2018 at 03:35 PM (#5602422)
Miller's performance during that 2 minutes and 31 seconds pretty much serves as the perfect encapsulation of the entire Trump presidency. It has to be seen to be believed.


Can you do a full report on it, Andy? Zonk's busy with an assignment of his own.

(I'm behind but I'm hopeful that Zonk has provided another chapter update or two. He seems to be losing steam.)
   1705. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 07, 2018 at 03:43 PM (#5602424)
McCain-Feingold itself -- that is, the statute formally called BCRA -- did not apply to books -- although it arguably did, as Kennedy noted, apply to Kindle books. But the Obama administration argued that the constitution allowed them to ban books that mentioned candidates.


It's hard to see which points TShipman thinks he's scoring here.

Or for which side.
   1706. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 07, 2018 at 03:46 PM (#5602425)
In the aftermath of some poor SC argument, it's certainly a good thing that Donald Trump won and is nominating First Amendment absolutists. Like John Bush, who says the 9-0 New York Times v. Sullivan case was "wrongly decided." Or Thomas Hardiman, who ruled that it was acceptable for an airport to whip up a new policy on non-commercial advertising to stop the NAACP from purchasing ad space, and wrote a dissent saying it was okay for a school to ban "I ♥ boobies!" breast cancer awareness wristbands because the question of lewdness was a "gray area." Both have been confirmed.
Setting aside the other misrepresentations and out-of-context hackish arguments in that quoted paragraph, I have no idea what "Trump... is nominating First Amendment absolutists... like Thomas Hardiman" is supposed to mean. Hardiman has been a judge since 2003; Trump has nominated him to precisely nothing.
   1707. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 07, 2018 at 03:50 PM (#5602427)
Yet again, in #1703 Gonfalon fails to provide a source for his claims, perhaps to obscure that they originate with the Alliance for Justice, an organization that routinely opposes judicial nominations by Republican Presidents, often on grounds that don't withstand scrutiny. John Bush did once, as a private citizen, participate in a panel discussion in which he mused:
“I would submit that from an originalist perspective New York Times v. Sullivan probably wasn’t correctly decided,” Bush said at the time.

“It was, at the time of founding, recognized under libel law that if you had a false statement it didn’t matter if it were malicious or not, you were entitled to recovery and that was for the highest official in the land down to the regular citizen.”

Bush seems to suggest an originalist interpretation that would focus on whether the statements were false, similar to the current British practice. I wouldn't go there, but I fail to see why it would be disqualifying to suggest a case could have been decided differently under a particular theory, when you also clearly state that as a judge you would follow the actual precedent, which John Bush clearly did:
Do you still believe that New York Times v. Sullivan was wrongly decided?

My personal views of the correctness of any Supreme Court opinion are irrelevant to the position for which I have been nominated. As noted, in that same March 2009 panel discussion, I pointed out that judges should respect precedent. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed to the Sixth Circuit, I would faithfully apply New York Times v. Sullivan, as I would any precedent of the Supreme Court.

If you are confirmed, will you follow New York Times v. Sullivan and any Sixth Circuit precedent based on that case?

Yes.

Gonfalon's description of Judge Hardiman's rulings in two cases (two!) is of similar partisan bent, but his claim that "both [judges] have been confirmed", while technically correct, is somewhat misleading. Hardiman was confirmed for the U.S. District Court in 2003, and for the 3d Circuit in 2007, both as a nominee of George W. Bush. If #1703 was intended to suggest that Trump's judicial nominees are a threat to free speech, it seems like rather weak sauce, and I fail to see how it rehabilitates Democratic support of speech restrictions that were upended by Citizens United.

EDIT: A legal beverage for the overlapping portion of #1706.
   1708. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 07, 2018 at 03:52 PM (#5602428)
Trump, showing that he understands how bad the book is for him,


So now you agree with Trump's analysis on something?

Amazing how that only seems to occur when that "something" is negative for Trump.

But again -- nobody sane thinks this book is worth anything more than gossip. Gonfalon (unwittingly) laid it out yesterday: You won't find anyone saying about anything in the book, "Oh, X couldn't possibly be true." (Unless the person had evidence that it wasn't, such as the Blair/Wintour denials of their respective parts in it.) Which is exactly why the book can't possibly hurt him. It doesn't move the needle on anything important. (I know the TDSers think they've found the linchpin of a 25th Amendment unfitness case but that couldn't be more laughable.)

tweeted in response, "Jake Tapper of Fake News CNN just got destroyed in his interview with Stephen Miller of the Trump Administration." As if the purpose and objective of doing a press interview is to score points against the journalist.¹ I'm sure Ray would applaud and agree and call this 11th Dimensional Chess that only Ray and Dilbert understand. But of course even if Miller had "destroyed" Tapper, so what?


I haven't seen the interview -- I'm still waiting for Andy to report on it -- but if the journalist is conducting a hit job during the interview then there's no reason someone should be obligated to just sit there and take it.

"I'm trying to get at his fitness for office." That's so ridiculous and deserves the response it sounds like Miller gave.
   1709. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 07, 2018 at 04:04 PM (#5602431)
That said, we just saw an actual sitting President actually have his actual lawyer actually demand that a forthcoming book actually about him be suppressed. So we don't have to address hypotheticals about where Trump stands on Citizens United, or in fact way the hell beyond the parameters of Citizens United.


It's basically a private matter for breach of contract (against Bannon) and defamation (against Bannon/Wolff/Publisher) except that as Trump is president there are wider 1A implications.

But Trump is NOT, unlike Hillary, approaching this on campaign financing grounds, or "electioneering speech," or anything like that; Trump as a public figure is clearly frustrated about the libel laws. As well he should be given that NY Times v Sullivan is clearly tilted against public figures. But that doesn't mean the law should be changed. Trump is wrong as to that but it's not so much authoritarian as it is him just being sick of being libeled. You can still criticize Trump but his beef is not similar to Hillary's.
   1710. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 07, 2018 at 04:10 PM (#5602436)

Bush seems to suggest an originalist interpretation that would focus on whether the statements were false, similar to the current British practice. I wouldn't go there, but I fail to see why it would be disqualifying to suggest a case could have been decided differently under a particular theory, when you also clearly state that as a judge you would follow the actual precedent, which John Bush clearly did:
I went back and checked the speech out of curiosity. That was precisely Bush's point. He was making brief remarks on the concept of originalism, and then discussed how it had to be balanced with stare decisis. And then he gave an example (it's about 46 minutes in) of the interplay between originalism and precedent, mentioning NYT v. Sullivan as a case that probably doesn't have an originalist basis. That's it. He wasn't arguing anything larger about speech, or arguing what he thought the law should be, or (unlike Trump) displaying hostility towards speech, or the like.
   1711. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 07, 2018 at 04:15 PM (#5602440)
Do you still believe that New York Times v. Sullivan was wrongly decided?

My personal views of the correctness of any Supreme Court opinion are irrelevant to the position for which I have been nominated. As noted, in that same March 2009 panel discussion, I pointed out that judges should respect precedent. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed to the Sixth Circuit, I would faithfully apply New York Times v. Sullivan, as I would any precedent of the Supreme Court.


The criticism of this answer is not anything to do with NY Times v. Sullivan but is that Bush said that he would faithfully apply all USSC precedent. That would be hugely problematic. Bowers v Hardwick, for example, needed to be overturned, and when that case came up again I'd not want Bush on the Lawrence court that was deciding it if he is simply going to "faithfully apply" "any precedent of the Supreme Court." That is simply not the point of being a judge or justice. Some cases are simply wrongly decided.

"Respect precedent" is fine as an answer.
   1712. manchestermets Posted: January 07, 2018 at 04:50 PM (#5602450)
Looks like Jake's going to win a coveted Fakey Award tomorrow afternoon at 5:00!


He'll have to wait to pick it up. You can't rush fake award ceremonies you know.

(Seriously guys, do something. Your country is a laughing stock, which is a damn shame because it's also a fine place with many excellent people in it.)
   1713. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 07, 2018 at 04:51 PM (#5602451)
Clapper, #1707:
Yet again, in #1703 Gonfalon fails to provide a source for his claims, perhaps to obscure that they originate with the Alliance for Justice, an organization that routinely opposes judicial nominations by Republican Presidents, often on grounds that don't withstand scrutiny.


It's a sad day when Clapper's best friend Perhaps lets him down. I got the Thomas Hardiman info from the Institute for Free Speech, which if anything appeared to be a right-leaning group that editorializes about judges failing to rule in favor of money as First Amendment rights, etc.

And I read about the John Bush Times-Sullivan position in the Daily Beast and The Hill. Nice try, though.

Perhaps Clapper can explain how the existence of an actual public statement opposing a central 9-0 free speech ruling "doesn't withstand scrutiny" because a group he don't like calls attention to it. But his repeated kneejerk dismissal of a group he accuses of kneejerk dismissals is, perhaps, telling.

I did misread Thomas Hardiman's status, though. He isn't a Trump nominee; his free speech rulings were compiled by IFS because he's a member of the much-loved Trump List. He was also one of the three finalists for the Supreme Court nomination that went to Gorsuch.
   1714. Count Posted: January 07, 2018 at 04:59 PM (#5602452)
Federal judges are bound by Supreme Court rulings; they are absolutely obligated to apply Supreme Court precedent. It is not "problematic" to say that; it's the minimum a judge would have to do. Ray your comment only makes sense as applied to actual Supreme Court judges. By the same token, Bush's comment was not particularly meaningful; it's like when pro choice or pro life nominees for non Supreme Court positions say they will faithfully follow the Supreme Court's rulings. They have to! The issue is that lots of cases have wiggle room or ambiguous SCOTUS rulings where underlying values will be relevant. Here, it's noteworthy that originalism is bad and dumb and if applied consistently would lead to lots of bad results.
   1715. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 07, 2018 at 04:59 PM (#5602453)
(Seriously guys, do something. Your country is a laughing stock, which is a damn shame because it's also a fine place with many excellent people in it.)


If only our economy weren't booming with people trying to flock here from all over and many within our borders demanding that this not be prevented.
   1716. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 07, 2018 at 05:01 PM (#5602454)
Federal judges are bound by Supreme Court rulings; they are absolutely obligated to apply Supreme Court precedent. It is not "problematic" to say that; it's the minimum a judge would have to do. Ray your comment only makes sense as applied to actual Supreme Court judges.


That's clearly how I meant it, but good catch: his interview was in the context of a federal judgeship, not the SC per se. I withdraw my criticism.
   1717. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: January 07, 2018 at 05:04 PM (#5602456)
a fine place with many excellent people in it.


Yeah, it is, there are, but, you know...too many Dancing Monkeys.
   1718. greenback slays lewks Posted: January 07, 2018 at 05:12 PM (#5602459)
(Seriously guys, do something. Your country is a laughing stock, which is a damn shame because it's also a fine place with many excellent people in it.)

Almost 63 million people voted for this clown, even though the evidence of his clown-ness was apparent for anyone to see. We have bigger problems than Donald Trump.
   1719. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 07, 2018 at 05:16 PM (#5602460)
Perhaps Clapper can explain how the existence of an actual public statement opposing a central 9-0 free speech ruling
He did no such thing. He made a descriptive statement, not a statement of support or opposition.
   1720. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 07, 2018 at 05:24 PM (#5602462)
And I read about the John Bush Times-Sullivan position in the Daily Beast and The Hill. Nice try, though.

Unlike Gonfalon, The Hill and The Daily Beast credit & reference the Alliance for Justice, who originated the spurious claims claims about John Bush's views on the NYT case.

I find it quite encouraging that, by all appearances, after only 8 years, no one here is willing to defend the Obama Administration's terrible position in Citizens United. Instead, we have folks resorting to hackish criticisms of GOP appointed judges in cases that involve different issues. See #s 1706, 1707 & 1710.
   1721. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 07, 2018 at 05:35 PM (#5602464)
Seriously guys, do something. Your country is a laughing stock, which is a damn shame because it's also a fine place with many excellent people in it.

If only our economy weren't booming with people trying to flock here from all over and many within our borders demanding that this not be prevented.

Well, we did lose zonk, although that seems like a fair trade, or a small price to pay.
   1722. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 07, 2018 at 05:41 PM (#5602465)
60 million rounds will cost a bit.
   1723. Traderdave Posted: January 07, 2018 at 05:42 PM (#5602466)
Should it ever come to pass that 18 or more Republican Senators vote to remove Il Duce from office, and I concede the odds are low, I will probably spend the entire day here reading the Trumpkins' lamentations. It will be glorious.

   1724. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 07, 2018 at 05:45 PM (#5602467)
Re: #1720--
Being called a hack by Clapper is as wonderful as a Fakey Award will be for the lucky media winners on Monday Wednesday. I stink, the Alliance for Justice stink, and none of the three "claims" have been rebutted. Perhaps someday they will, perhaps.


David N, #1719:
He did no such thing. He made a descriptive statement, not a statement of support or opposition.


This isn't splitting the hair quite as finely as "Nobody won the popular vote," but it'll have to do. John Bush was merely speaking theoretically, as a kindness to the long-dead originalists, to the Federalist Society. Could mean anything.
   1725. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: January 07, 2018 at 05:47 PM (#5602468)
(I'm behind but I'm hopeful that Zonk has provided another chapter update or two. He seems to be losing steam.)
Well, we did lose zonk, although that seems like a fair trade, or a small price to pay.

Wow. Obsess much? ZDS anyone?
   1726. tshipman Posted: January 07, 2018 at 06:08 PM (#5602472)
It's hard to see which points TShipman thinks he's scoring here.

Or for which side.


The point is that you're a tool. Well, you, Jason, Clapper and Szymborski, and all the rest of you on the right.

You guys all claim that you care more about the first amendment than anything else, and that your opposition to Obama was oh-so-principled. David is principled in his opposition: when Trump says outrageous things about free speech, he is opposed. However, you don't care.

This little episode has illustrated (once again) that you have no real principles, and so any criticism you make of any politician is simply based on tribalism.
   1727. Omineca Greg Posted: January 07, 2018 at 06:46 PM (#5602477)
RIP, France Gall.

Laisse tomber les filles
Laisse tomber les filles
Un jour c'est toi qu'on laissera
Laisse tomber les filles
Laisse tomber les filles
Un jour c'est toi qui pleureras

Oui j'ai pleuré mais ce jour-là
Non je ne pleurerai pas
Non je ne pleurerai pas
Je dirai c'est bien fait pour toi
Je dirai ça t'apprendra
Je dirai ça t'apprendra

Laisse tomber les filles
Laisse tomber les filles
Ça te jouera un mauvais tour
Laisse tomber les filles
Laisse tomber les filles
Tu le paieras un de ces jours

On ne joue pas impunément
Avec un cœur innocent
Avec un cœur innocent
Tu verras ce que je ressens
Avant qu'il ne soit longtemps
Avant qu'il ne soit longtemps

La chance abandonne
Celui qui ne sait
Que laisser les cœurs blessés
Tu n'auras personne
Pour te consoler
Tu ne l'auras pas volé

Laisse tomber les filles
Laisse tomber les filles
Un jour c'est toi qu'on laissera
Laisse tomber les filles
Laisse tomber les filles
Un jour c'est toi qui pleureras

Non pour te plaindre il n'y aura
Personne d'autre que toi
Personne d'autre que toi
Alors tu te rappelleras
Tout ce que je te dis là
Tout ce que je te dis là

Gainsbourg
   1728. Stormy JE Posted: January 07, 2018 at 06:53 PM (#5602478)
Then again, would you have us believe that Uncle Rico wouldn't have also swooped in & had his murderous way if afforded the opportunity?
The little guy has no beef with squirrels. He prefers apples, orange juice, and microwave popcorn.
   1729. greenback slays lewks Posted: January 07, 2018 at 07:04 PM (#5602480)
60 million rounds will cost a bit.

Meh, the pharmaceutical industry is proving quite efficient at delivering opioids to the wwc at that volume. These things take time.
   1730. Stormy JE Posted: January 07, 2018 at 07:04 PM (#5602482)
(Seriously guys, do something. Your country is a laughing stock, which is a damn shame because it's also a fine place with many excellent people in it.)
Speaking of laughing stocks, how's your NHS doing?
   1731. Stormy JE Posted: January 07, 2018 at 07:06 PM (#5602483)
The point is that you're a tool. Well, you, Jason, Clapper and Szymborski, and all the rest of you on the right.

You guys all claim that you care more about the first amendment than anything else, and that your opposition to Obama was oh-so-principled. David is principled in his opposition: when Trump says outrageous things about free speech, he is opposed. However, you don't care.

This little episode has illustrated (once again) that you have no real principles, and so any criticism you make of any politician is simply based on tribalism.
Oh look, the lying liar has returned to... ZZZ.
   1732. tshipman Posted: January 07, 2018 at 07:16 PM (#5602485)
Oh look, the lying liar has returned to... ZZZ.


Why don't you tell us again about the chilling effects of enforcing parole violations on free speech?
   1733. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 07, 2018 at 07:18 PM (#5602486)
60 million rounds will cost a bit.

Going by Google, you can purchase 9mm rounds for $0.16 if you buy in bulk (presumably less than that if you can get it wholesale). So we're only talking about $10M or so in ammo costs for putting down 63 million DJT voters. Granted, some may require multiple rounds.

Should we set up a GoFundMe page?
   1734. Stormy JE Posted: January 07, 2018 at 07:23 PM (#5602487)
Why don't you tell us again about the chilling effects of enforcing parole violations on free speech?
"We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of [your] son."

You're welcome, genius.
   1735. tshipman Posted: January 07, 2018 at 07:49 PM (#5602493)
"We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of [your] son."

You're welcome, genius.


So ... should the government have just ignored his parole violations or what?

I'm not grasping the argument.
   1736. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 07, 2018 at 08:24 PM (#5602500)
For those who can't wait for the rest of slacker zonk's book reports, Wikileaks, in a display of Andyesque disregard for copyright, has put a PDF copy online. Might be some litigation, but does Wikileaks have any reachable assets?
   1737. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: January 07, 2018 at 08:51 PM (#5602505)
Might be some litigation, but does Wikileaks have any reachable assets?

Do the pride and emotional support of the Republican Party, Donald Trump and, everyone's favorite slimy little weasel, The Yankee Clapper, count as reachable assets?

The evidence of ZDS continues to mount.
   1738. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 07, 2018 at 08:57 PM (#5602508)
For those who can't wait for the rest of slacker zonk's book reports, Wikileaks, in a display of Andyesque disregard for copyright, has put a PDF copy online. Might be some litigation, but does Wikileaks have any reachable assets?

Thanks, Clapper, and shouldn't this seem like a win-win situation to you? Everyone gets to read the book and decide for themselves whether those quotes from the inside ring true or not, but getting it this way deprives Mean Mike of royalties.

BTW if anyone's interested, on Friday I think I heard someone on the PBS News Hour say that Wolff is being interviewed for their show tomorrow (Monday) night. I hope someone tells Trump to do a pre-emptive rant about it, since the News Hour can always use a bit of free publicity.
   1739. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 07, 2018 at 09:12 PM (#5602511)
I'm sure someone's quoted it before from one news story or another, but in skimming the chapter on Comey this line was particularly amusing:
“Comey was a rat,” repeated Trump. There were rats everywhere and you had to get rid of them. John Dean, John Dean, he repeated. “Do you know what John Dean did to Nixon?”

Oh, if only Roy Cohn were alive----he'd fix everything! It's so hard to find good help these days!
   1740. Stormy JE Posted: January 07, 2018 at 10:32 PM (#5602525)
James Taranto:
2017: Trump is a threat to the very idea of objective truth!

2018: OK this book is largely made up but Trump is bad so I believe it anyway!
   1741. Stormy JE Posted: January 07, 2018 at 10:33 PM (#5602526)
I'm not grasping the argument.
Wipe some of the hackery from your eyes next time.
   1742. Stormy JE Posted: January 07, 2018 at 10:36 PM (#5602527)
Not watching the GGs but this #### is #evergreen...
Hollywood has somehow managed to turn a scandal of its own making into three more hours of colossal self-righteousness.
   1743. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: January 07, 2018 at 10:46 PM (#5602529)
Awwww. My fan club grows impatient! Fear not, scared little Trumpkins - we'll go through the remaining chapters next week. I'm just about done with the book you're so desperate to keep front and center.

What actually strikes me about it is - frankly, how little new ground is actually broken. It really serves more as an annotation or compendium of the first gleoious year of Trump. Oh, there's plenty of interesting stuff here - other views and named reactions to things already reported by other sources.

It also amuses me how Trump is really kind of a background character - preumsably, because it gets boring retelling how a stupid, childish moron unfit for office acted like a stupid, childish moron unfit for office.... and we've already had a bazillion contemporaneous reports of a stupid, childish moron unfit for office acting like a stupid, childish moron unfit for office.

The book is really more about the factionalism and infighting - like a D list game of thrones. Jarvanka hates and fears Bannon. Bannon hates Jarvanka. Priebus is a gelded joke everybody openly mocks and uses when convenient.

   1744. tshipman Posted: January 07, 2018 at 10:49 PM (#5602530)
Wipe some of the hackery from your eyes next time.


No, please. Don't deflect. Tell me whether you think justice should have ignored the guy's parole violations or not.

Do parole violations matter when it comes to protecting free speech? What is the consistent philosophy here?
   1745. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 07, 2018 at 10:49 PM (#5602531)
Thanks, Clapper, and shouldn't this seem like a win-win situation to you?

I assume anyone who follows this thread probably came across multiple references to the Wikileaks story, so I don't think my noting it had any effect. My interest was in the mildly mocking reference to zonk slacking off on his book reports, along with your own copyright scofflaw status. Not great humor, not the best humor, but good enough for OTP.
   1746. Stormy JE Posted: January 07, 2018 at 10:56 PM (#5602532)
Do parole violations matter when it comes to protecting free speech? What is the consistent philosophy here?
Does a Secretary of State usually involve herself/himself in local parole violations? No? Oh. The powers that be falsely blamed an internet video for an act of terror that took American lives, including our ambassador, and used the excuse of a parole violation to lock up the filmmaker. So it wasn't merely about a parole violation.

Good night, hack.
   1747. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 07, 2018 at 11:09 PM (#5602534)
Thanks, Clapper, and shouldn't this seem like a win-win situation to you?

I assume anyone who follows this thread probably came across multiple references to the Wikileaks story, so I don't think my noting it had any effect


Don't worry, Claps, your unauthorized link to an unauthorized leak of copyrighted material is safe with me. It'll stay here in the family and I'll never rat you out.
   1748. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 07, 2018 at 11:41 PM (#5602536)
Since Andy was so gracious in his appreciation of the #1736 Wikileaks link, I'll do him yet another favor and provide this link for his campaign to Boycott-The-Dems-Who-Don't-Boycott-Trump - Nancy Pelosi's Son Celebrated New Year's Eve With Trumps At Mar-a-Lago. Photographic proof at link. Might this cause more problems for Nancy than leading her party to their fewest House seats in almost 70 years?
   1749. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 07, 2018 at 11:56 PM (#5602537)
Hollywood has somehow managed to turn a scandal of its own making into three more hours of colossal self-righteousness.

Or as one wag put it: "They're not making a big deal about sexual assault in Hollywood because they found out about it. They’re making a big deal because you found out about it."
   1750. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: January 08, 2018 at 12:05 AM (#5602539)
You can just grab them by the #####.
   1751. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 12:12 AM (#5602542)
James Taranto:
2017: Trump is a threat to the very idea of objective truth!

2018: OK this book is largely made up but Trump is bad so I believe it anyway!


Yes, we have actually seen -- on these pages and elsewhere -- people making the argument that, hey, the book may have a lot of falsehoods but Trump deserves it because he's a lying liar who lies!!!!

So much for truth being paramount. Andy's beloved fact checkers might soon be out of work for lack of interest in their work product.
   1752. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 12:20 AM (#5602544)
Hollywood has somehow managed to turn a scandal of its own making into three more hours of colossal self-righteousness.


You can't make it up.
   1753. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: January 08, 2018 at 12:25 AM (#5602545)
I hear Oprah had blood coming out of her whatever.
   1754. tshipman Posted: January 08, 2018 at 12:43 AM (#5602549)
Does a Secretary of State usually involve herself/himself in local parole violations? No? Oh. The powers that be falsely blamed an internet video for an act of terror that took American lives, including our ambassador, and used the excuse of a parole violation to lock up the filmmaker. So it wasn't merely about a parole violation.


Oh, I must have missed State's police wing. How did they get jurisdiction?

From the LA Times:

Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal ordered Nakoula detained, citing a “lengthy pattern of deception” by the man, adding that he poses “some danger to the community.” Nakoula could face up to three years behind bars.

Nakoula, who was on supervised release from a 2010 conviction for bank fraud, faces eight charges of probation violation including making false statements to authorities about the film. When probation officials questioned him about the video, Nakoula allegedly claimed his role was limited to writing the script, and denied ever using the name “Sam Bacile” in connection to the film, said Assistant U.S. Atty. Robert Dugdale.


But yeah, that's totally the same thing as Eric Holder throwing him in jail for his religious beliefs.

Good night, hack.


Guess it takes one to know one. Bow down to your orange master.
   1755. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 12:55 AM (#5602551)
What was the big deal with the Miller-Tapper interview, now that I wasted 10 minutes of my life on it? Tapper wanted to breathlessly ask about the book, Miller as Trump's mouthpiece answered in a predictable way.

What's the problem?
   1756. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: January 08, 2018 at 01:45 AM (#5602554)
Least. Surprising. Reaction. Ever.

"I don't get it. He sounds like I sound every day and golly, I'M not ridiculous and roundly mocked trump sycophant, so what's the problem!?!?"
   1757. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 08, 2018 at 04:07 AM (#5602558)
The Hill:
White House senior adviser Stephen Miller had to be escorted off the set of CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday after a heated interview with the show's host, Jake Tapper.

Miller was asked to leave the set multiple times but refused to leave, after which he was escorted out by security, a CNN employee confirmed to The Hill.
   1758. Endless Trash Posted: January 08, 2018 at 04:14 AM (#5602560)
I am not going to read this thread because I have some staples that I can shove into my eyes instead, but I just keep seeing he title of the thread and I find its use of the word "boycott" to be funny. I mean, they were given an invitation to visit and they declined, how is that a "boycott?" I would always decline some invitation to visit with any politician unless there were some monetary reason to do so. Boycott, lol. Oh you guys...

And now back to whatever embarrassing stuff it is you do in here.
   1759. Lassus Posted: January 08, 2018 at 04:34 AM (#5602561)
More Benghazi, it seems.
   1760. Lassus Posted: January 08, 2018 at 04:36 AM (#5602562)
And now back to whatever embarrassing stuff it is you do in here.

Like comment on what we read?
   1761. Lassus Posted: January 08, 2018 at 04:38 AM (#5602563)
Hollywood has somehow managed to turn a scandal of its own making into three more hours of colossal self-righteousness.

Yes, you amply demonstrate that no one pays attention to Hollywood.
   1762. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 08, 2018 at 04:51 AM (#5602564)
Hollywood ended when Jack Lord turned down playing Capt. Kirk.

But amid its rubble, Stephen Colbert's hate comedy has spread to Showtime. He's overseeing a new series ("Our Cartoon President") based on the talk show's periodic "cartoon Donald Trump" segments.

Colbert also accused "Fire and Fury" of stealing their jokes: "There is nothing in the book that's not in our show, and we just guessed. The great thing about the Trump administration is whatever you can imagine, you're right."

He added, "We're not investing a lot of animation time into Rex Tillerson at this point."
   1763. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 07:36 AM (#5602571)
Colbert also accused "Fire and Fury" of stealing their jokes: "There is nothing in the book that's not in our show, and we just guessed. The great thing about the Trump administration is whatever you can imagine, you're right."


I dunno, I’ve seen some rubes who keep imagining there’s some rudimentary level of competence there.
   1764. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 07:40 AM (#5602573)
White House senior adviser Stephen Miller had to be escorted off the set of CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday after a heated interview with the show's host, Jake Tapper.

Miller was asked to leave the set multiple times but refused to leave, after which he was escorted out by security, a CNN employee confirmed to The Hill


Following basic standards of courtesy is for peasants, as Miller himself explained.

That’s the empathy for the common man that elitists like Crooked Hillary couldn’t hope to replicate.

If you took away all the morons and conscientiously-edgy nihilists there would be about ten Trump enthusiasts left in the country.
   1765. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 08, 2018 at 08:01 AM (#5602574)
Jake Tapper, asking Stephen Miller about the Trump Tower Russia meeting: [Bannon] said, quote, 'The chance that Don Jr. did not walk these jumos up to his father's office on the 26th floor is zero.' Did President Trump meet with any of the so-called jumos who were in that Trump Tower meeting?

Stephen Miller: Steve Bannon's eloquence in that description notwithstanding, it's tragic and unfortunate that Steve would make these grotesque comments so out of touch with reality, and obviously so vindictive, and the whole White House staff is deeply disappointed in his comments, which were grotesque. With respect to the Trump Tower meeting he's talking about, he wasn't even there when any of this went down. So he's not really a remotely credible source on any of it, it reads like an angry, vindictive person spouting off to a highly discreditable author. The book is best understood as a very poorly written work of fiction. And, I also will say that the author is a garbage author of a garbage book. And the tragic thing about this book, and there many things about it that are unfortunate, but the portrayal of the president in the book is so contrary to reality, to the experience of those who've work with him, to my own experience having spent the last two years working with him. You know, on the campaign, I had the chance to travel all across the country with the president on Trump Force One. It'd be the president, me, Dan Scavino, Hope Hicks, a few other people, going from rally to rally to rally to rally. And I saw a man who was a political genius. Somebody who, we would be going down landing in descent, there'd be a breaking news development, and in 20 minutes he would dictate ten paragraphs of new material to address that event, and then deliver flawlessly in front of an audience of 10,000 people.

Tapper: So you were on the campaign during that Trump Tower meeting, I believe, right? In the summer of 2016. Just answer the question, because you were there, Steve Bannon was not. Did any of those people meet with President Trump as Bannon says? 'The chance that Don Jr. did not walk these jumos up to his father's office on the 26th floor is zero.' Can you just settle that for us? Did President Trump meet with any of the people?

Miller: I have no knowledge of anything to do with that meeting. But what I can tell you, unequivocally, is that the allegations and insinuations in this book, which are a pure work of fiction, are nothing but a pile of trash, through and through. Well, just to finish, Jake. Your network's been going 24/7 with all the salacious coverage, and I know it brings you guys a lot of joy to stick the knife in, but the reality is that page after page after page of the book is pure false. I see sections of the book where events that I participated in are described, and I have firsthand knowledge that as they're described, they are completely and totally fraudulent.

Tapper: There are a lot of people from the White House quoted in the book, and I don't know why--

Miller: The quote that you're referring to is from Steve Bannon. And I think that the president's statement on Steve settles once and for all the view about all of that.

Gee, that's a lot of talking to avoid saying "No. Donald Trump did not meet with them."

Eight or nine minutes later, Miller says CNN won't allow him time to speak.
   1766. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 08, 2018 at 08:11 AM (#5602575)
I submitted a new thread, so watch for it.
   1767. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: January 08, 2018 at 09:41 AM (#5602584)
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

“If there is anyone, like Bannon, who is a strong supporter of Israel and a strong fighter against anti-Semitism and that person ends up having less influence on the administration,” said Mort Klein, the president of the Sheldon Adelson-funded Zionist Organization of America, “that is something that would sadden me."
   1768. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 08, 2018 at 09:52 AM (#5602588)
Just saw Ray's house on fire on CNN. Ray, did you leave the toaster on?
   1769. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 08, 2018 at 09:55 AM (#5602592)
As political metaphors go, that's a little too obvious and on the nose. Try again, God.
   1770. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 08, 2018 at 10:37 AM (#5602615)
New thread is up.
   1771. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: January 08, 2018 at 11:32 AM (#5602658)
All the way back to #1665

BTW, Miller bears a striking resemblence to a young Jonathan Banks, which is as they say, not a good look.


He looks like the love-child of Roy Cohn and Josef Goebbels.
Page 18 of 18 pages ‹ First  < 16 17 18

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogThe Yankees Now Have a Second Ace | FanGraphs Baseball
(66 - 6:02am, Nov 22)
Last: bbmck

NewsblogManny Machado reflects on hustle comments | MLB.com
(13 - 5:44am, Nov 22)
Last: BillWallace

NewsblogCalcaterra - Adrián Beltré Retires, is a Slam Dunk Hall of Famer
(50 - 4:25am, Nov 22)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Gonfalon CubsNow what?
(250 - 4:20am, Nov 22)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogDrafting High School Pitchers Is a Major Problem for MLB, Health of Young Prospects
(10 - 2:48am, Nov 22)
Last: Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2720 - 1:18am, Nov 22)
Last: Red Voodooin

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(665 - 12:51am, Nov 22)
Last: Morty Causa

Sox TherapySox Therapy Looks at the Hall of Fame Ballot
(5 - 12:47am, Nov 22)
Last: The Run Fairy

NewsblogOT - November* 2018 College Football thread
(336 - 11:28pm, Nov 21)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogBreaking Down the New Players on This Year’s Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot
(6 - 9:55pm, Nov 21)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogThe Braves' Profits Provide a Glimpse into Baseball's Books
(3 - 8:46pm, Nov 21)
Last: BillWallace

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2018
(13 - 7:55pm, Nov 21)
Last: AndrewJ

Newsblog2019 BBWAA HALL OF FAME BALLOT
(82 - 6:34pm, Nov 21)
Last: JoeC

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(201 - 4:12pm, Nov 21)
Last: Carl Goetz

NewsblogAvid Barry Bonds Collector Has Amassed 5,000 Examples Of The Same Card
(36 - 4:12pm, Nov 21)
Last: jmurph

Page rendered in 0.5559 seconds
46 querie(s) executed