Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, August 07, 2018

OTP 2018 August 7: Book Explores Trump, Taft and Other Presidents Baseball Ties

“William Howard Taft, all 300 pounds of him, was a big act to follow in every sense of the word. Taft was an amateur baseball pitcher in the 1880s. He wanted to became a major league pitcher, but he settled instead to become President, and in fact later became the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. As Chief Justice, he scheduled his speaking engagements around the country in Major League cities, so that he could give a speech and then go out to a ballgame in the afternoon,” Smith said.

Smith explains that while two of the game’s most famous rituals are associated with our 27th commander-in-chief, he should only receive credit for one.

(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: August 07, 2018 at 08:13 AM | 1114 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: off topic, 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 2 of 12 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
   101. BrianBrianson Posted: August 07, 2018 at 12:16 PM (#5722355)
Thus for these purposes he was part of the campaign, just like any other campaign staffer was. As such, the information Steele (the campaign) got from the Russians was a campaign *contribution*. And thus the point here is that Hillary's campaign (Steele) got something for nothing from the Russians. The payment by the campaign to Steele is irrelevant.


Is this true? I assumed (like anyone not suffering from TDS) that the Russians who provided information to Steele got envelopes full of consideration. If that's not true, it would raise interesting questions.
   102. perros Posted: August 07, 2018 at 12:17 PM (#5722356)
Damn, zonk, I'm getting sick of agreeing with you.

I'll tell you we barely have a democratic system left now, but I sincerely believe that democratic ground is worth fighting for, because it ideally allows a multitude of voices decide policy, or have some say in it.

Believe me, I do not want a world with a lot of people who look at things like I do and get to decide policy exclusively. I think I tried that in grade school and was nearly assassinated at recess.

Hell, I hated being in mgmt with a ####### passion. Not to put too fine a label on it, but I'm an anarchist at heart. Live and let live at the very least.
   103. Lassus Posted: August 07, 2018 at 12:23 PM (#5722360)
I'm only seeing phrases and bits on Facebook, but the impression so far is that Gates seems to be wholly eviscerating Manafort in testimony today.
   104. Morty Causa Posted: August 07, 2018 at 12:25 PM (#5722361)
   105. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 07, 2018 at 12:36 PM (#5722369)
I'm only seeing phrases and bits on Facebook, but the impression so far is that Gates seems to be wholly eviscerating Manafort in testimony today.

Jennifer Rubin also brought up this point a few hours ago:
...this is only the first Manafort trial. He’ll go on trial later this year (unless he strikes a deal) for other alleged crimes, including witness tampering and failure to register as a foreign agent for a Russian-backed Ukrainian party. That’s when we’ll hear plenty about Russia. The extent of the relationship between Kremlin-aligned figures and the most senior Trump campaign official during a critical time in the race, including the Republican National Convention, should become clear. ...
   106. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 12:44 PM (#5722375)
Speaking of intentionally deceptive, bad faith arguments. You're treating Steele as if he was separate from the campaign. That doesn't wash in this context. Steele was being paid by the campaign,
Nope. The campaign (via its lawyers) paid Fusion, not Steele. Fusion subcontracted to Steele.
was acting on behalf of the campaign, and was acting within the scope of his duties for the campaign. Thus for these purposes he was part of the campaign, just like any other campaign staffer was.
Wrong, wrong, and wronger. And wrongest. Note that your conclusion would be wronger than wrong even if your facts were right -- that is, even if the campaign did engage Steele directly. He still would have been an independent contractor, not a campaign staffer.

As such, the information Steele (the campaign) got from the Russians was a campaign *contribution*. And thus the point here is that Hillary's campaign (Steele) got something for nothing from the Russians. The payment by the campaign to Steele is irrelevant.
Your facts are made up -- you don't have the foggiest idea whether Steele compensated his sources -- and your legal analysis is wrong anyway. It's so wrong that I don't believe even you with your motivated reasoning can believe it. If I hire an ad agency in an arms length transaction to create some marketing for my presidential campaign, and the ad agency subcontracts out, say, some billboard advertising to a firm that specializes in that, and the billboard firm's owner's friend volunteers some ideas, that does not make the volunteer help a campaign contribution. My campaign paid for the marketing campaign. And that's still true even if we eliminate one of the middlemen -- if I hire the billboard company directly, and then the billboard firm's owner's friend volunteers some ideas, that does not make the volunteer help a campaign contribution. My campaign paid for the marketing campaign.

That is how Turley is analyzing it, as that is obviously how it should be analyzed. The fake walls of separation and cutouts the Hillary campaign tried to put into place to wash their hands of what they were doing fools nobody except, apparently (but not really), you and yours.
Actually, it appears that you're the one who is fooled, since you've invented facts and misapplied the law to them. There is no evidence that they were doing any of the things you said. They're real walls and not cutouts.


(Note David's argument on this particular legal point, however, and judge it for yourself: it's fine for a campaign to get information from the Russians, as long as the campaign pays for the information.
Actually, I explicitly said that it was fine as a matter of campaign finance law. (I expressly separated out collusion as a distinct issue.) This is basic. Campaigns can buy whatever they want,¹ because buying something definitionally makes it not a contribution, but a purchase.



¹As long as it's legal and for the campaign; they can't buy hookers and cocaine, or a post-election-day European vacation for the candidate's family.
   107. perros Posted: August 07, 2018 at 12:49 PM (#5722378)
But it is private enterprise doing it and not the government*.


Private companies like Google and Facebook have more power, reach, and control than most governments. The former has agreed to a censored platform for China, and the latter has refused rules that would prevent it from gathering and selling comprehensive data on its users. Like David says, they will not stop with Alex Jones, who has been singled out more as a useful example rather than as new rule.

Besides the US govt is already expert at farming out its dirty work to private companies beyond democratic oversight, particularly in defense-related fields. Not sure how anybody who calls himself a democrat can be for these abuses of power.
   108. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 07, 2018 at 12:54 PM (#5722379)
Again, yes, private individuals and companies are free to make whatever agreements they want. My statement has nothing to do with rights. Like many, you seem to confuse libertarianism with non-judgmentalism. "You should be free to do X" is not at all synonymous with "You should be free from criticism for doing X." I am criticizing them because it makes me uncomfortable for these major platforms to silence a guy just for being a jerk. Despite the snarky tweet reposted by Gonfalon ("First they came for Infowars, and I didn’t say anything because I didn’t like Infowars.... Then they never came for me because I never accused grieving parents of murdered children of being crisis actors.") in fact there is no limiting principle here. It won't end with the banning of people who accuse grieving parents of murdered children of being crisis actors. (Prof. Volokh, one of the foremost first amendment scholars in the country, talks about the concept of "Censorship Envy." What he means by that is that when group A succeeds in getting the speech that bothers them banned, that inspires copycat campaigns from groups B, C, D, and so on.)


Except of course you claimed it was censorship and seemed troubled by it. So how does this action trouble you specifically? Why does it matter it one, two, or several independent companies or individuals make a similar decision, that happens in the free market all the time and is a feature, bit a bug. Even if they all (all the present platforms) make the same decision, in theory, according to what I have learned and heard Libertarians previously argue, all that should happen is the market demand for the sort of content Apple and Facebook don't want to provide will be met by someone else, who can gain a segment of the underserved market and ... freedom!

And anyway not all the platforms have made that decision, I believe Twitter for example has not and I am sure there are many other platform available to them.

The entire point (from one view) of the Libertarian love of the free market is it allows everyone to make decisions that they want to make without interference from the government. The government did not tell Apply, Facebook and so on to make their decision, they did it fully voluntarily. Just like previously they voluntarily hosted the content on their site.

You should embrace this as a consequence of the free market acting ad it should, without government interference. Unless you think someone, somewhere, should act to make sure those platforms include certain classes of speech or other content, which would seem to be antithetical to Libertarian thought.

Put another way you have argued that Net Neutrality is terrible and freedom limiting and corporations should be allowed to discriminate in various ways when providing different types of content from different websites. What is the bright line that distinguishes that sort of "Hey it is good corporations can discriminate in that way, even if I personally don't like the outcome, because freedom" from this other discrimination which you labeled censorship and is troubling and presumably not good.

Unless you are stating it is good that the companies banned Infowars, because freedom, but bad because you don't like the outcome?

Perhaps I am still confused, so I would love it if you would walk through it and explain where these tricky dividing lines are.
   109. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: August 07, 2018 at 12:57 PM (#5722382)
@volceltaire
Remember in 2008 when capitalism failed after a handful of coked up financier vampires #### out a global real estate bubble and the government sucked the marrow out of everyone else to keep feeding them? Seems like that should come up when bootlickers say socialism doesn’t work

@volceltaire
Stop ####### replying to this tweet about how actually capitalism’s good. I don’t care you fat little quislings
   110. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 12:57 PM (#5722383)

I want every mainstream Democrat to lose by a zillion points so the entire party gets destroyed. I went door to door getting signatures for ballot access for our Green Party senate candidate—long shot, but praying there’s a chance she’ll siphon enough votes from the incumbent Dem.
Those contradictions won't heighten themselves.
   111. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 07, 2018 at 12:57 PM (#5722384)
Private companies like Google and Facebook have more power, reach, and control than most governments. The former has agreed to a censored platform for China, and the latter has refused rules that would prevent it from gathering and selling comprehensive data on its users. Like David says, they will not stop with Alex Jones, who has been singled out more as a useful example rather than as new rule.


I agree with you (mostly), but from my understanding the vast majority of Libertarians put a bright and clear dividing line between government action (which is typically backed at the ultimate extreme by violence) and corporate action which is a different class of animal (according to them), because it is all voluntary agreements (contracts) between parties, done without force.

Put simpler the actions of corporations are OK, because people can choose to take their business elsewhere if those actions are deemed "bad", while citizens can't take their business elsewhere ... well without moving.
   112. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 12:59 PM (#5722385)
Nobody is abridging Alex Jones's free speech -- he's not being jailed for what he's saying. He's free to spout his nonsense on a crate in a park or on local access cable, if they'll have him, or any way he likes outside of Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc. and face whatever consequence for good or ill that might follow.

The private entities described have simply decided to take away his platform. Since it's been deemed that corporations are people, is that not also free speech?
   113. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:02 PM (#5722389)

I was accused a while back of being a mile wide and an inch deep,
You misread. It was an inch wide and a mile derp.
   114. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:06 PM (#5722391)
Trump admin considering rule barring immigrants living *legally* in the U.S. from receiving green cards/citizenship if *anyone in their household* (including, it appears, US citizen children) has ever used Obamacare, CHIP, food stamps

Full story here.

Got some evil ############# in that administration.
   115. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:13 PM (#5722395)
I mean, hopefully this will end the pretense that the right-wing has ever opposed just “illegal” immigration. Oh how naive, they want all the brown people gone!
   116. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:14 PM (#5722396)
The best part of Clapper's hissy fit is that a very quick Google search found a very reliable source (Credit Suisse) tab the entire wealth of the world at only $250T, which would set off the BS detector over Clapper's original "article" in a normal person.

Folks here seem more than a bit slow - that the wealth attributed to the Rothschilds was so fantastically high was the obvious indication that the MSN article sponsored content was depicting the Rothschilds as anti-Semites have for generations. Why folks think MSN deserves a pass because they only accepted money for such nonsense rather than writing it themselves is beyond me, although many here take some funny stances in their rush to disagree with those in the opposing camp. At least MSN hasn't tried the "Jewish, the Rothschilds are Jewish, we had no idea" ploy, which would have only embarrassed them further.
   117. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:23 PM (#5722401)
The 2-party system gets really complicated when one of the parties is run by comic book villains.
   118. Lassus Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:24 PM (#5722402)
#114, I'm sure the Dems being destroyed as a party will fix all that right up.
   119. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:27 PM (#5722403)
He joins a large group of Trump’s putative allies, many of whom have worked in the administration, who insist that they have shaped Trump’s thinking and behavior in private: the “Trust me, I’ve stopped this from being much worse” approach. “I can look myself in the mirror at the end of the day and say I avoided that tragedy, I avoided that tragedy, I avoided that tragedy,” Ryan tells me.


Then why the hell is he stepping down?
   120. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:27 PM (#5722404)

You should embrace this as a consequence of the free market acting ad it should, without government interference. Unless you think someone, somewhere, should act to make sure those platforms include certain classes of speech or other content, which would seem to be antithetical to Libertarian thought.
It's like you didn't read a single word I said, even though you quoted some of them. I'll repeat: Like many, you seem to confuse libertarianism with non-judgmentalism. "You should be free to do X" is not at all synonymous with "You should be free from criticism for doing X."

Unless you are stating it is good that the companies banned Infowars, because freedom, but bad because you don't like the outcome?
I don't know what you find so difficult about it. It's good that the companies are allowed to ban Infowars, because freedom, but bad that they did so because it sets a dangerous precedent. I have no doubt that the NRA and BLM will be the targets of deplatforming campaigns. And any other controversial groups.

(Actually, it's bad for another reason, separate from any slippery slope arguments: it fuels the nihilism and persecution complex of Infowar supporters.)
   121. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:31 PM (#5722410)
Nobody is abridging Alex Jones's free speech -- he's not being jailed for what he's saying. He's free to spout his nonsense on a crate in a park or on local access cable, if they'll have him, or any way he likes outside of Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc.

And if he plays his cards just right, he might even become Jill Stein's 2020 running mate.
   122. Chip Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:34 PM (#5722412)
satyan@microsoft.com

@satyanadella

Emailing/tweeting at the guy in charge will be more useful than repeatedly trolling a baseball site politics topic about one of his company’s moribund and internally ignored legacy websites.

Or is this extended tangent because we think Nadella is a lurker here?
   123. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:37 PM (#5722417)
Folks here seem more than a bit slow - that the wealth attributed to the Rothschilds was so fantastically high was the obvious indication that the MSN article sponsored content was depicting the Rothschilds as anti-Semites have for generations. Why folks think MSN deserves a pass because they only accepted money for such nonsense rather than writing it themselves is beyond me, although many here take some funny stances in their rush to disagree with those in the opposing camp. At least MSN hasn't tried the "Jewish, the Rothschilds are Jewish, we had no idea" ploy, which would have only embarrassed them further.


Man...

I hope I'm not around when Clapper discovers how digital ad services work... when he discovers that his own little click through ultimately helped this puppy advance up the rotation, he's going to feel just awful.
   124. Srul Itza Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:40 PM (#5722418)
Most people that know about it are either raging anti-Semites, Jewish (because of the attack against them), or people who heard someone from either side talk about it in the first place and then looked up information.



Reasonably well informed and educated people will have heard of it. Put it into the NYT search, and you get 302 hits.

   125. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:43 PM (#5722421)
I don't know what you find so difficult about it. It's good that the companies are allowed to ban Infowars, because freedom, but bad that they did so because it sets a dangerous precedent. I have no doubt that the NRA and BLM will be the targets of deplatforming campaigns. And any other controversial groups.


I am just trying to understand. You love that they can do it. You realize the fact that they can do it means that sometimes they will do it (if an option is freely available, then over enough time someone will avail themselves of it). You just hate that they actually did it (since it is a great thing right up until they actually do it), and fear that in doing something they have a perfect right to do (good thing) they might further exercise their right (which would be a bad thing). I assume you would be totally against any sort of remedy to prevent them from doing that bad thing, right?

I am amused that the right to do something is good, but you refuse to celebrate this great right exercised, because in the exercise it is bad, and might through a very slippery slope become even worse. But still the right to do it is totally great!

So let's see if I can follow along this logic in the context of Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is bad, because (for example) it limits the rights of companies to throttle Infowars video feeds to the point they are useless. So it is great that they now have the right to do that (with the removal of NN). But actually exercising such a right would be bad, but at least the thing that would have prevented them is gone now. So the freedom in abstract is great, right up until it is used.

Hey man, I have no problem with whatever mental gymnastics is takes for you to have arrived where you did, but I am, I admit, wondering a bit about your use of the word censorship. Do you still think that was the right word? I mean I know it is a technically correct usage, but it seems to imply meaning that after your explanation is not present. Anyway thanks for answering my questions.

   126. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:47 PM (#5722425)
To continue above, I would have thought a more typical Libertarian response to those companies banning the offending material might be ...

"See this is why we don't need the government intruding in these affairs. The free market handles this better than the government ever could. Some companies will decide to remove the content, other companies won't, and everything is fine -- all the while the government jackboots stayed far away from the process and let the market play out. Victory!"

I guess I have a fair amount to learn about Libertarian "thought" though.
   127. TDF, trained monkey Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:49 PM (#5722428)
I hope I'm not around when Clapper discovers how digital ad services work... when he discovers that his own little click through ultimately helped this puppy advance up the rotation, he's going to feel just awful.
I was just going to post - Clapper's willful ignoring of how digital advertising works almost makes me want to click the link 100X, just to see his head asplode when it ends up on Free Beacon or Washington Times.
   128. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:50 PM (#5722429)

I am amused that the right to do something is good, but you refuse to celebrate this great right exercised, because in the exercise it is bad, and might through a very slippery slope become even worse. But still the right to do it is totally great!
Uh, why do you find that so amusing? It's a pretty standard free speech position: it's great that the Nazis are allowed to march in Skokie. It's bad that they choose to do so.
   129. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:53 PM (#5722431)
I am amused that the right to do something is good, but you refuse to celebrate this great right exercised, because in the exercise it is bad, and might through a very slippery slope become even worse. But still the right to do it is totally great!

Uh, why do you find that so amusing?


Glibertariansm is an amusing political theory. The only people who don't smirk at it don't understand it.
   130. BDC Posted: August 07, 2018 at 01:57 PM (#5722433)
barring immigrants living *legally* in the U.S. from receiving green cards/citizenship if *anyone in their household* (including, it appears, US citizen children) has ever used Obamacare, CHIP, food stamps


Because of course no native-born American would ever think of doing such things.

EDIT: And WTF does "used Obamacare" mean? Everybody who had a kid stay on their insurance till they were 26 "used Obamacare." Everybody who took advantage of guaranteed insurability used it. Everybody who ticked the "responsibility" box on their taxes during the mandate years used it. (Granted, of course, that whoever reported the story may have garbled the GOP proposal. But a lot of GOP proposals come pre-garbled these days.)
   131. Ishmael Posted: August 07, 2018 at 02:01 PM (#5722440)
I don't think the position that certain things that are harmful or immoral should be permitted should be that controversial.

We can condemn lying or bemoan someone's death by suicide without thinking those things should be illegal.
   132. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 07, 2018 at 02:02 PM (#5722441)
Uh, why do you find that so amusing? It's a pretty standard free speech position: it's great that the Nazis are allowed to march in Skokie. It's bad that they choose to do so.


When I celebrate free speech by expressing my support of allowing Nazi marches I do so unambiguously. Your expression of "support" was a bit more tepid. And by tepid I mean it was completely and utterly absent at all. As a not-Libertarian I also am OK with reasonable restrictions on speech by the government, but don't think those restrictions limit the right of the Nazi marchers. It is nice where we can agree though.

Andy celebrates censorship.


That doesn't really speak to what you have followed up with, but the snark is fine, so whatever. But this is still a bit confusing to me. Because the right of censorship, by individuals, is something you cheer as well.

That does not mean that it does not make me uncomfortable that there is a coordinated effort to silence a group for having disagreeable views. I'd feel that way even if they were the Communist Party. Especially given that this is all ad hoc and whim; there's no specific established rule they violated, but it's just "They're kooks who say things that offend most people."


As far as I previously knew individuals or corporations exercising their (good) rights didn't require alack of coordination to be a good thing. I also didn't know it required some strong principle to back it up. Previously I was given to understand that the freedom to act in such a fashion was just plain good, even if there was coordination or no underlying principle.

To that you have since added a slippery slope component where such actions can also be troubling. As I said, it has been illuminating.
   133. Lassus Posted: August 07, 2018 at 02:03 PM (#5722444)
Yeah, #128 isn't particularly troubling.
   134. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 02:05 PM (#5722446)
EDIT: And WTF does "used Obamacare" mean?


"Voted for Obama."
   135. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 07, 2018 at 02:08 PM (#5722448)
I don't think the position that certain things that are harmful or immoral should be permitted should be that controversial.

We can condemn lying or bemoan someone's death by suicide without thinking those things should be illegal


I don't thin that is particularly apt. A better analogy is someone arguing for the absolute right to suicide, saying suicide is and should always be permitted. And then when someone expresses happiness at another's suicide that same person responds with "Typical of Andy to celebrate someone killing themselves". (EDIT) and then following up by expressing being troubled by the thought of a slippery slope of suicides happening, when such is the obvious outcome of one's principles. I both support the right of Nazis to march and am not surprised when they are happy they can and also proceed to do so.

If you support the absolute right of suicide I have no problem with also finding individual instances of suicide distasteful, but still one should acknowledge that with the door being open it will happen and some people will celebrate it happening.

I just thought it interesting, and to be clear I never suggested David was out of line, I was just trying to understand how the two thoughts lived together without dissonance.
   136. dlf Posted: August 07, 2018 at 02:13 PM (#5722453)
I am amused that the right to do something is good, but you refuse to celebrate this great right exercised, because in the exercise it is bad, and might through a very slippery slope become even worse. But still the right to do it is totally great!


I'm perplexed about Mouse's confusion. David is going to hate me for this, but he is merely mirroring HRC's position on abortion: safe, legal and rare.
   137. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 07, 2018 at 02:15 PM (#5722454)
Reasonably well informed and educated people will have heard of [Protocols]. Put it into the NYT search, and you get 302 hits.


But why would someone do a search for a term like "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" unless someone has already told them about it?

For example: Lots of Canadians know who Willie O'Ree is and why he's important. However, it's not like it is some ingrained piece of knowledge that is passed down between generations in Canada. At some point, someone has to tell you about him, as there wasn't (until recently) any monuments/historical plaques/celebrations about him in the public circle. And, if you don't really care about the historical impact that Willie O'Ree would have (as you don't follow that topic much), you probably still wouldn't know anything about him.

As for MY knowledge of the Rothschilds, I was aware of them as being "rich". I don't know the name of their most famous member of the family. I couldn't have told you (until recently) if it was through banking, or oil, or railroads, or coal, or publishing, or shipping that they made all their money. I couldn't have told you (until recently) if they gained their wealth beginning in Eastern Europe, Western Europe, UK, or USA. If I had to guess when the family started getting wealthy, I would have figured in the early 1800s, because that's around the time when other super-rich families seemed to get wealthy. At no time did their religious upbringing ever cross my mind because I just don't care. I also don't know if the Rockefellers, Hearsts, or Morgans are Jewish/Catholic/Protestant/Lutheran/Mormon/Baptist/whatever, because I just don't care and never bothered to find out.

The fact that some people don't know the details about famous people shouldn't surprise you. What's "famous" for you isn't necessarily "famous" for others.
   138. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 07, 2018 at 02:18 PM (#5722455)
I'm perplexed about Mouse's confusion. David is going to hate me for this, but he is merely mirroring HRC's position on abortion: safe, legal and rare.


I wasn't confused by David's explanation (that amused me) of his final stand. I mostly wanted to get from the snark about Andy and censorship to the normal Libertarian talking points. Confused is perhaps an overstatement (mine I admit).

But I don't think the typical Libertarian would have reacted that way to Facebook dumping Black Lives Matters, for example. But we shall not know I suppose.
   139. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 02:23 PM (#5722460)
But I don't think the typical Libertarian would have reacted that way to Facebook dumping Black Lives Matters, for example.


Look, it's bad enough we're forced to serve them at lunch counters. At gunpoint! Government gunpoint that is, not like the man behind the counter is being held up for money. That would be a racist stereotype, which I would strongly oppose. Though perhaps not as strongly as my distaste for having to serve black people food.

harumph!
   140. Shredder Posted: August 07, 2018 at 02:28 PM (#5722464)
What does "have liquor by the drink" mean?
My guess: I can go to a restaurant and order a glass of wine, or a glass of bourbon. If a county doesn't allow liquor to be sold "by the drink", presumably that county has no bars or restaurants (i.e., it's a dry county).

   141. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: August 07, 2018 at 02:31 PM (#5722467)
Black Lives Matter disrupts wedding of the cop who killed Stephon Clark

The officer was in a room with his groomsmen when protesters swept in. “You’re a murderer!” one voice could be heard shouting.

“I just wonder if you started planning your wedding before you killed Stephon Clark or after? How have you been sleeping since March 18?” another queried, marking the day that Clark was killed.
   142. Shredder Posted: August 07, 2018 at 02:34 PM (#5722468)
EDIT: And WTF does "used Obamacare" mean? Everybody who had a kid stay on their insurance till they were 26 "used Obamacare." Everybody who took advantage of guaranteed insurability used it. Everybody who ticked the "responsibility" box on their taxes during the mandate years used it. (Granted, of course, that whoever reported the story may have garbled the GOP proposal. But a lot of GOP proposals come pre-garbled these days.)
From what I read earlier, presumably from a different source, it means "took subsidies to pay for an individual plan". Basically, got financial assistance from the government. But it's still ####### stupid. I mean, would they include people who took subsidized student loans?
   143. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: August 07, 2018 at 02:40 PM (#5722475)
They’re gonna try to include as many people as possible, because the goal is to punish brown people and kick them out of America.
   144. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: August 07, 2018 at 02:42 PM (#5722477)
I am enjoying this slow walk towards certain folks embracing the conceptual underpinning of net neutrality...

To be clear - since we're talking about content providers/platforms - the concept doesn't directly apply... Whether FB or Apple or Spotify or whomever drop Alex Jones is pretty much the same as FoxNews or WaPo being under no obligation to air or print something from some rando. Net neutrality, of course, applies to last mile/ISPs filtering (or throttling) whatever they please.

Indeed - it's almost a perverse and inverted thing... The lack of net neutrality means that certain big powered players (like FB or Google or Apple or whomever) actually have a greater capability to gag someone like Alex Jones than they would with net neutrality.

Platform adoption and popularity will always play a significant role regardless - but at least under NN regulations, those advantages don't become even bigger because the industry dominants can't also cut deals to fast lane their content versus any nascent competitors.

In essence, the big boys locking out people like Jones probably becomes more meaningful... and the best, lightest touch solution would actually be a robust NN regulatory schema that at least puts the lesser hosts on equal footing with the market dominators.

Funny world...

   145. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 02:43 PM (#5722478)
They’re gonna try to include as many people as possible, because the goal is to punish brown people and kick them out of America.


Where's the "White Devil Carveout" I was told would be forthcoming?
   146. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 02:46 PM (#5722480)
I am enjoying this slow walk towards certain folks embracing the conceptual underpinning of net neutrality...


The only people who oppose it either don't understand it ("It's Obamacare for the internet!") or hope to make a happy buck off being gatekeepers of other people's content.
   147. zenbitz Posted: August 07, 2018 at 02:53 PM (#5722483)
A P Giannini


.. A guy they named a middle school after in San Francisco. Possibly he founded Wells Fargo or BofA or something? /checks wikipedia CLOSE ENOUGH!

   148. zenbitz Posted: August 07, 2018 at 02:59 PM (#5722487)
I went door to door getting signatures for ballot access for our Green Party senate candidate


Whom in the Green party has a brain? I agree that their heart is in the right place...
   149. zenbitz Posted: August 07, 2018 at 03:04 PM (#5722492)
failure to register as a foreign agent for a Russian-backed Ukrainian party.


Hey are we going to get a pivot to "we colluded but it was with UKRAINIANS not RUSSIANS..."
   150. manchestermets Posted: August 07, 2018 at 03:08 PM (#5722498)
   151. zenbitz Posted: August 07, 2018 at 03:11 PM (#5722503)
YC's (and David's?) point is not that you yabbos don't know Rothschilds=JEWS but that people who GAF about Jews DO know. Like when some teflon haired politico gave a speech in some pondunk nowheresville town in Mississippi....

   152. Greg K Posted: August 07, 2018 at 03:12 PM (#5722504)
Re: The Rothschilds.

I'm familiar with the family's exploits in 18th and 19th century banking. I didn't realize they were still around.
   153. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 07, 2018 at 03:14 PM (#5722506)
And then when someone expresses happiness at another's suicide that same person responds with "Typical of Andy to celebrate someone killing themselves".

If Alex Jones ever were to commit suicide, I have to admit I'd let out a cackle or two, but I'm saving my celebrations for when Trump channels Terri Schiavo. We can then have a civilized debate over whether to pull the plug or not after Melania and Ivanka say "What the hell are you waiting for?"

   154. Swoboda is freedom Posted: August 07, 2018 at 03:18 PM (#5722510)
I knew the Rothschild family as a banking family. Not sure how much they would be worth, but since the bank was founded a long time ago (in the 18th century), and spread to a bunch of different regions, there could be a lot of family. I know they also had the vineyards. Not sure if they still control the wine.

Before the discussion, I would have guessed they were French, but I guess they are all over.

I was pretty sure they were Jewish, but bet a $1000 sure, not bet a million. I didn't know that the Jewish financier was targeted primarily at them. Look at some of the big US brokerages (Goldman, Soloman Bros) and I thought they got some of that foolish stuff too.

I remember seeing this movie when I was younger on cable. House of Rothschild
   155. Shredder Posted: August 07, 2018 at 03:32 PM (#5722520)
I was pretty sure they were Jewish, but bet a $1000 sure, not bet a million. I didn't know that the Jewish financier was targeted primarily at them. Look at some of the big US brokerages (Goldman, Soloman Bros) and I thought they got some of that foolish stuff too.
I probably couldn't have told you they were Jewish, but I equally was unsure if they were catholic, protestant, or whatever. To me their name just always meant "rich". If you'd asked me to guess what religion they were, I probably could have put two and two together, and as an archetypal banking family from that era, well, stereotypes have to start somewhere.

I've always found it a little strange, however, that some really definitely absolutely Jewish last names sound very similar to names that no one ever confuses with being Jewish. My last name is Seitz, my sister in law is a Katz. Basically consonant-vowel-"tz". But everyone knows Katz is Jewish, and no one ever thinks Seitz is Jewish. Two of my roommates in college were Rothman and Strathman. Not all that different sounding, but again, Rothman is very Jewish, while Strathman is not at all Jewish (and I don't just mean those actual people, I mean the names themselves).
   156. Lassus Posted: August 07, 2018 at 03:35 PM (#5722523)
I'm familiar with the family's exploits in 18th and 19th century banking. I didn't realize they were still around.

But isn't this the case with everything for you?
   157. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 07, 2018 at 03:43 PM (#5722528)

Then why the hell is he stepping down?


For the same reason all the other spineless wonders are not running for re-election: They're afraid that if they speak out against Trump and get defeated it hurts their chances of getting cushy jobs in the private sector. By opting not to run, they salvage some of their reputation by not losing to a Trump backed opponent.
   158. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 07, 2018 at 03:44 PM (#5722530)
Before the discussion, I would have guessed they were French, but I guess they are all over.

I believe the term is "rootless cosmopolitans".

But whether you measure their wealth in trillions or mere billions, I'll bet the Rothschilds have neither the moolah nor the moxie of this gay galavanting Scotsman.
   159. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 07, 2018 at 03:47 PM (#5722536)
I've always found it a little strange, however, that some really definitely absolutely Jewish last names sound very similar to names that no one ever confuses with being Jewish.

Not to mention the confusion that can be caused by names like Rosenberg.
   160. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 03:52 PM (#5722539)

And this is why it's concerning for these companies to do that to infowars:

@ChrisMurphyCT

Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it.
That's a U.S. senator, for those of you not paying attention.
   161. perros Posted: August 07, 2018 at 03:52 PM (#5722540)
Racial Terror


“Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching,” said the report by the U.N. Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent....

“In particular, the legacy of colonial history, enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism and racial inequality in the United States remains a serious challenge, as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent.

“Impunity for State violence has resulted in the current human rights crisis and must be addressed as a matter of urgency.”

Police killings go unpunished because initial investigations are usually conducted by the police department where the alleged perpetrator works, because prosecutors have wide discretion over presenting charges, and because the use of force is not subject to international standards, the experts’ group said.

They recommended the United States create a reliable national system to track killings and excessive use of force by law enforcement officials, and end racial profiling, which is “a rampant practice and seriously damages the trust between African Americans and law enforcement officials”.

To improve race relations, education should be “accompanied by acts of reconciliation” to overcome bigotry and past injustices, while federal and state laws should recognize the negative impact of enslavement and racial injustice, the report added.
   162. Greg K Posted: August 07, 2018 at 03:53 PM (#5722543)
But isn't this the case with everything for you?

True, perhaps I'm not the most representative person to ask.

I've always found it a little strange, however, that some really definitely absolutely Jewish last names sound very similar to names that no one ever confuses with being Jewish. My last name is Seitz, my sister in law is a Katz. Basically consonant-vowel-"tz". But everyone knows Katz is Jewish, and no one ever thinks Seitz is Jewish. Two of my roommates in college were Rothman and Strathman. Not all that different sounding, but again, Rothman is very Jewish, while Strathman is not at all Jewish (and I don't just mean those actual people, I mean the names themselves).

The "Roth" part of "Rothschild" always struck me as a stereotypical Jewish name. It seems like there's a thin line between Jewish sounding names and German or Eastern European sounding names (somewhat explained by the fact that a lot of Jewish migration into North America came from Central/Eastern Europe).
   163. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 03:59 PM (#5722546)
Two of my roommates in college were Rothman and Strathman.


One year, in the Christmas Pageant at the Catholic School where my Dad taught -- and I attended -- 2 of the 3 Kings were named Weis & Silverman.
   164. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:00 PM (#5722551)
My great grandfather came to America from eastern Europe with the surname Kohl. Upon arrival, he changed it to Sternberg, because he thought it sounded less Jewish...
   165. perros Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:01 PM (#5722552)
David French has a piece in National Review pointing out his unit in Iraq killed two civilians in a year's deployment.

Know how many people have been killed by police in 2018?
   166. TDF, trained monkey Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:03 PM (#5722555)
I knew the Rothschilds are Jewish. I know of lots of other people, both famous and not, that are Jewish.

But only in Clapper's world is saying "the Rothschilds, who are Jewish, are fabulously rich from banking" is somehow anti-Semitic.
   167. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:05 PM (#5722560)

And this is why it's concerning for these companies to do that to infowars:


I cannot stop laughing at the fact that David's net neutrality opposition is apparently predicated on the fact that it didn't go far enough.

Just too funny.

Too, too funny.

   168. perros Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:06 PM (#5722561)
My sister's best friend in her NC high school was Jewish. Her brother changed his name to Rothschild as an adult, anecdotally because he is a distant cousin.

Nobody gave him #### in junior high for being Jewish, merely mocked him for being a gay kid.
   169. zenbitz Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:08 PM (#5722563)
Most European Jewish surnames (e.,g Rosenberg "Rose Mountain"- which was my great grandfathers' name before he changed it to Rank) were made up some time in the 19th century when the Austro-Hungarian Empire started to count them. Rothschild - "Red Shield" might pre-date this.

They are all supposed to know that too, right David?
   170. perros Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:11 PM (#5722570)
If you've done any reading at all on antisemitism, you should be familiar with the Protocols. Without such historical knowledge it's difficult to give an informed opinion on related current events.
   171. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:11 PM (#5722571)

I cannot stop laughing at the fact that David's net neutrality opposition is apparently predicated on the fact that it didn't go far enough.
I think you people amuse yourselves almost as much as FLTB does to himself.

Seriously, I have said not one word in favor of the government playing any role in any of these decisions.
   172. BDC Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:15 PM (#5722574)
only in Clapper's world is saying "the Rothschilds, who are Jewish, are fabulously rich from banking" is somehow anti-Semitic


Although … any amount of Googling at all will show that "Rothschild" is a key metonym in anti-Semitic rhetoric for that (((rootless cosmopolitan))) class of international financiers that practically every populist movement of the past few centuries has associated with every regime they want to demonize. I am glad so many here are unaware of the Rothschilds or their ethnicity, because it seems like this is a sensible and reality-based group. But the all-powerful Rothschilds are frequently invoked by bigots to this day. Otherwise how could that young numbnuts DC councilman have gotten the idea that they control the weather?
   173. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:16 PM (#5722575)
But only in Clapper's world is saying "the Rothschilds, who are Jewish, are fabulously rich from banking" is somehow anti-Semitic.

No, vastly exaggerating the Rothschilds wealth ($700 trillion!!!) and influence (they control the weather, and the politicians!!!) is standard anti-Semitic fare. Pretending otherwise is laughable.
   174. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:17 PM (#5722576)
everyone knows Katz is Jewish, and no one ever thinks Seitz is Jewish.


If you lived in my hometown, you would have been accused of being Jewish.
   175. BrianBrianson Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:17 PM (#5722577)
David French has a piece in National Review pointing out his unit in Iraq killed two civilians in a year's deployment.

Know how many people have been killed by police in 2018?


A unit is ~100 soldiers. An America's worth of police is ~1000000 coppers.
   176. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:18 PM (#5722579)
would it offend people to know that there are political databases sorted by the ethnicity associated with the surname?
   177. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:19 PM (#5722581)
Clapper, put me on ignore for a minute, and then don't go back and read my next post.
   178. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:20 PM (#5722582)
I agree with 173.
   179. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:21 PM (#5722584)

A unit is ~100 soldiers. An America's worth of police is ~1000000 coppers.
On the other hand, a unit is in a war zone. America's police are not. (Despite what our current CiC says.)
   180. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:26 PM (#5722587)
The "Roth" part of "Rothschild" always struck me as a stereotypical Jewish name. It seems like there's a thin line between Jewish sounding names and German or Eastern European sounding names (somewhat explained by the fact that a lot of Jewish migration into North America came from Central/Eastern Europe).

Glad to see that someone pointed this out. See #159 for the fact that one of Hitler's leading theoreticians had what most people would assume was a stereotypical "Jewish" name.
   181. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:27 PM (#5722588)
On the other other hand, that number cited by WaPo presumably includes a lot of people that wouldn't be considered civilians the way French meant it.
   182. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:27 PM (#5722590)
I cannot stop laughing at the fact that David's net neutrality opposition is apparently predicated on the fact that it didn't go far enough.

I think you people amuse yourselves almost as much as FLTB does to himself.

Seriously, I have said not one word in favor of the government playing any role in any of these decisions.


That's what makes it even funnier!

Content hosts - especially the most market-dominant hosts - making a decision not to host Alex Jones claptrap means more sans net neutrality!

IIRC your anti-net neutrality argument, I believe your argument then was that A)Why, they'd never do that! followed by B)And even if they did, consumers could opt for ISPs that didn't do that.

Why this same argument is not applicable even further upstream -- given that the end-user nodes on the internet are inherently pull-based mechanisms that are supposed to be host/source/type agnostic - is quite beyond my ability to comprehend.

I mean, I think that both my ideological and philosophical argument for net neutrality applies to both instances... The accessing user should be free to retrieve content - whatever it is and from wherever it originates - based solely on size of the retrieval and capability of the host to respond to the request.

You apparently feel that there are some subjective measures regarding popularity and capabilities of the host that also matter.

It's just... well, like I said... it's funny!
   183. BrianBrianson Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:30 PM (#5722593)
On the other hand, a unit is in a war zone. America's police are not. (Despite what our current CiC says.)


Sure, so if they had the same per capita kill rate, it'd make sense to describe them as operating like they're in a war zone. However, since the unit in Iraq killed ~0.02 people/soldier/year, and cops kill ~0.0006 people/flatfoot/year, all we can really say is that relative killiness scales in the direction you'd expect.
   184. BrianBrianson Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:34 PM (#5722595)
On the other other hand, that number cited by WaPo presumably includes a lot of people that wouldn't be considered civilians the way French meant it.


The quoted stats have ~5% of the people killed by police as unarmed, and another ~5% as unspecified.
   185. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:34 PM (#5722596)
@CACorrections
Today, more than 2,000 volunteer inmate firefighters, including 58 youth offenders, are battling wildfire flames throughout CA. Inmate firefighters serve a vital role, clearing thick brush down to bare soil to stop the fire's spread. #CarrFire #FergusonFire #MendocinoComplex

What a shitty ####### country this is.
Not sure what Davos's gripe here is. But the irony of this story, as pointed out by Shoshanna Weissmann¹ in response:
REMINDER: Prisoners who fought California’s wildfires cannot be firefighters once they are released
Occupational licensing FTW!



¹For those of you scoring at home -- Jewish name!
   186. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:37 PM (#5722599)
It's cockholsters all the way down, isn't it.

Ted Cruz asks Trump to campaign for him in Texas

Trump insulted him, his father, and his wife. What a little ##### he is.
   187. Zonk qualifies as an invasive species Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:38 PM (#5722601)
Ted Cruz asks Trump to campaign for him in Texas


Huh... maybe someone is mildly concerned about Beto-mania?
   188. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:38 PM (#5722602)
Okay, let's see who's truly woke around here. The answers are on the link.

It’s True-ish, They’re Jewish! A True/False Quiz
1. Jason Biggs:
2. Lauren Bacall:
3. Ben Affleck:
4. Lisa Bonet:
5. Julio Iglesias:
6. Roseanne Barr:
7. Orlando Bloom:
8. David Arquette:
9. Alicia Silverstone:
10. Ally Sheedy:
11. Sandra Bullock:
12. Elizabeth Berkley:
13. Amanda Peet:
14. Ben Kingsley:
15. Courtney Love:
16. Daniel Day Lewis:
17. Sharon Stone:
18. Lea Michelle:
19. Natalie Portman:
20. Jake Gyllenhaal:
21. Helen Hunt:
22. Jennifer Connelly:
23. Harrison Ford:
24. Mimi Rogers:
25. Selma Blair:
26. Seth Rogen:
27. Goldie Hawn:
28. Andrew Dice Clay:
29. Whoopi Goldberg:
30. Lena Dunham:
31. Henry Winkler:
32. Judd Apatow:
33. Tori Spelling:
34. Madeline Kahn:
35. Steve Carell:
36. Paul Rudd:
37. Jon Hamm:
38. Mark Wahlberg:
   189. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:41 PM (#5722603)
Can I get photos of all of these people naked to help me make my decisions?

Except Whoopi Goldberg, I'll just guess "no".
   190. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:41 PM (#5722604)
Why this same argument is not applicable even further upstream -- given that the end-user nodes on the internet are inherently pull-based mechanisms that are supposed to be host/source/type agnostic - is quite beyond my ability to comprehend.


See this is where we both went astray. David is concerned about various corporations pulling content, but it seems just enough to offer thoughts and prayers. I don't think he would ever DO anything about it.

So if the left had been equally concerned about NN, but restricted themselves to said thoughts and prayers he would have been fine with it. It is the actions interfering with the corporations that appears to be the problem, not the thoughts and prayers.
   191. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:42 PM (#5722605)
Ted Cruz asks Trump to campaign for him in Texas

Huh... maybe someone is mildly concerned about Beto-mania?


Someone insults my father and wife in public and the only thing I'd be asking them for is to meet me outside.

Beto vs The Beta. Sounds about right.
   192. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:43 PM (#5722609)

The quoted stats have ~5% of the people killed by police as unarmed, and another ~5% as unspecified.
Remember that this badly understates things, because police categorize as "armed" pretty much anyone carrying anything more dangerous than cotton candy.

And even an actual armed person doesn't necessarily mean a dangerous one. Laquan McDonald was indisputably armed when he was murdered by cops in Chicago; he had a knife. A small knife. Closed. But a knife. But he was twenty feet away, and facing away from the cop.
   193. Swoboda is freedom Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:44 PM (#5722610)
¹For those of you scoring at home -- Jewish name!

I am feeling very stupid here. I thought people naming their child Shoshanna were being earthy and naming it after the Indian tribe. Oops.


For those of you scoring at home- 1 stupid goy here.
   194. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:45 PM (#5722611)
My Jewish forebears, who made it to Philadelphia from Bavaria sometime around the mid-1800s, were surnamed Meyers, but not until now, for some reason, did it occur to me to look the name up. (I knew none of the following.) I gather the "s" wasn't always there, though it shows up in the earliest firm ancestry.com listing I find, circa 1810. Who knows?

Meyers is a surname of English origin; many branches of the Meyers family trace their origins to Anglo-Saxon England. The name is derived from the Old English name Maire, meaning "mayor", or an officer in charge of legal matters.[1] The English surname may also mean "physician" (from mire, Old French), or "marsh" (from myrr, Old Norse).

In the form Meyer the surname can be of Jewish and German origin, deriving from the German word meiger, meaning "mayor"; the name likely traces its origins to a wealthy landholder. Among German Jews, "Meyer" converged with the etymologically unconnected name "Meir", which is derived from Hebrew.
   195. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:53 PM (#5722617)
Growing up one of my best friends was Russian-Chinese with his surname mangled upon entry to the US, but still mostly Asian sounding. I didn't know he was Jewish until years later. I have long since given up trying to guess ... well anything about people based on their name or how they look. I mostly just go with the flow no matter what. Turns out it is way easier that way.
   196. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: August 07, 2018 at 04:53 PM (#5722618)
Wahlberg is a no.
   197. BrianBrianson Posted: August 07, 2018 at 05:03 PM (#5722626)
Since you (implicitly) ask, ~55% had guns, ~17% had knives, ~3% had replica weapons, ~1% were listed as armed with "vehicles" (drove at a cop, hit several cop cars, rammed cop car/drove at cop, struck several cop cars/drove at cop, drove at cop - so, probably at least 3 of this have reasonable truthiness?), ~14% "other" (metal pipe, taser, ran over cop - why not vehicle? dunno, ax, bow and arrow, ran over a cop again - sorting issues?, ax, ran over cop, pick-axe, pipe, again shot after ramming cop car, taser, plus a good fraction where news reports don't specify)

So, certainly, one can make various guesses about what the realistic fraction of "unthreatening" people get shot & killed by police.
   198. perros Posted: August 07, 2018 at 05:04 PM (#5722628)
The quoted stats have ~5% of the people killed by police as unarmed, and another ~5% as unspecified.


The men shot in Minneapolis, Baton Rouge, and Charlotte were all armed but did not have the gun in their hand when murdered. Police go "he has a gun!" In a high pitched, breathless voice then empty their revolvers in the Black men who were at the very worst may of smelled of marijuana.

The funny thing too is that police often yell out "gun" or "stop resisting" during or after using excessive force to justify their actions. Or yell out to a dead man with a cell phone to show his weapon before proceding to stand over his dead body and cut off their microphones.

French's point is these ####### are armed like military and policing like military but with no judgement, oversight, or accountability for their actions.

Quit apologizing for police impunity.
   199. AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther Posted: August 07, 2018 at 05:06 PM (#5722630)
ran over cop
Probably a bicyclist. Or maybe a tricyclist. Did they break it down by age as well?
   200. perros Posted: August 07, 2018 at 05:09 PM (#5722631)
So, certainly, one can make various guesses about what the realistic fraction of "unthreatening" people get shot & killed by police.


One can make various guesses as to why you jump to the front of the line to excuse police murder. Then again, you've apologized for genocide as social progress, so it's hardly surprising.
Page 2 of 12 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›

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
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogThe View is Always Better When You're the Lead Dog
(5 - 6:58pm, Nov 20)
Last: SoSH U at work

Newsblog2019 BBWAA HALL OF FAME BALLOT
(63 - 6:54pm, Nov 20)
Last: SoSH U at work

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(196 - 6:44pm, Nov 20)
Last: bachslunch

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2660 - 6:42pm, Nov 20)
Last: PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina

NewsblogOpening Day possible for Pedroia, who doesn't need offseason surgery
(3 - 6:13pm, Nov 20)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogDeadline to set 40-man rosters tonight (11-20)
(2 - 6:03pm, Nov 20)
Last: Dr. Vaux

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-20-2018
(11 - 5:56pm, Nov 20)
Last: Dr. Vaux

NewsblogThe Sky Is Falling, Baseball Is Dying, and the Roof May Leak
(21 - 5:55pm, Nov 20)
Last: Dr. Vaux

Gonfalon CubsNow what?
(241 - 5:46pm, Nov 20)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogAmazon bids for Disney’s 22 regional sports networks, including YES Network, sources say
(36 - 5:37pm, Nov 20)
Last: Michael Paulionis

NewsblogAvid Barry Bonds Collector Has Amassed 5,000 Examples Of The Same Card
(35 - 5:35pm, Nov 20)
Last: Leroy Kincaid

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(511 - 5:34pm, Nov 20)
Last: RJ in TO

NewsblogMariners trade left-hander James Paxton to the Yankees for three prospects
(64 - 5:22pm, Nov 20)
Last: Michael Paulionis

NewsblogDrafting High School Pitchers Is a Major Problem for MLB, Health of Young Prospects
(7 - 4:20pm, Nov 20)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2018 Ballot
(1 - 4:14pm, Nov 20)
Last: DL from MN

Page rendered in 0.7097 seconds
46 querie(s) executed