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, May 08, 2017

OTP 8 May 2017: FIBA to allow Muslim athletes to compete while wearing hijab

Nothing to do with baseball this week, but an important development at the intersection of sport, religion, gender, and politics:

Muslim women now will be able to compete in basketball while wearing hijab, thanks to a rule change by the international governing body for the sport.

The ruling, which takes effect Oct. 1, is the culmination of a study by the International Basketball Federation (FIBA) that began in September 2014 and follows a trend in which more governing bodies are allowing athletes to balance their religious beliefs with their athletic pursuits. FIFA, the world’s soccer governing body, has allowed players to wear hijab since early 2014.

(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.)

 

BDC Posted: May 08, 2017 at 07:30 AM | 1817 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: basketball, muslims, politics, women in sports

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 14 of 19 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 16 >  Last ›
   1301. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 11, 2017 at 08:08 PM (#5453852)
6-4-3 replying to Ray, #1271--
What makes the cock holster jokes homophobic is that they're mean spirited "jokes" aimed at spewing venom at Trump and his supporters. These are not innocent jokes about gay people and their habits as you might find from a standup comic (along with inoccuous jokes about other groups). With these comments the point is to hit Trump and his supporters where (the left thinks) it hurts. So the fact that they would choose the homosexual angle is quite telling indeed.

I don't often agree with Ray, but on this point he's absolutely correct. The Putin/Trump homosexual references (not quite accurate to call them "jokes") are dumb, offensive, and pathetic.

The cock holster joke is not homophobic. Also, it is a single joke, not jokes, or "jokes." Also, the joke isn't directed at Trump's supporters. Also, there's no such thing as "a" standup comic; many standups tell far cruder gay jokes than Colbert did, and without being bleeped. Also, the fact that Colbert's joke is neither "innocent" nor "innocuous" isn't actually a criticism, it's only a statement of preference. The meaning of Ray's "quite telling indeed" wrap-up isn't clear. Neither is what Ray thinks "the left thinks."

As for what I think Ray might be thinking about what the left thinks, it's obvious that Colbert's writers (who are not "the left") didn't choose the homosexual angle to "hit" Trump for being a closeted gay. Nor was it chosen to "hit" Trump and Putin for being secret lovers, nor was it chosen to "hit" homosexuality as being wrong, nor is it THE angle they chose, as the Colbert show exploited dozens of comedic angles just within that one monologue. Ray and other whiners are confusing topic and theme-- and they have incorrectly named the theme. (Technically, they're purposefully "confusing" them.)

Other than those quibbles, his assessment is absolutely correct.

What's left of Ray's critique? Colbert's mean-spirited venom. And so-called "jokes." Nothing else. The first one is obviously true, and so what? Boo hoo. Grow a pair. (Of testicles, which I hear Trump and Putin hunger for.)

As for joke vs. "joke," I've already said that I'm on the "joke" side of the fence. The roast routine was 98% spark and 2% comedy. But the context was a roast, within the context of Trump's lame insult comedy on "Face the Nation," within a topical comedy show, within the context of Stephen Colbert's relentless anti-Trump content. That this one joke wasn't funny isn't significant. Butt-hurt conservatives (but not in a gay way) would be just as sensible and successful if they launched a search for the most "homophobic" drop of water in Lake Michigan.

I made two points several pages back, which got no response. One was directed specifically to comedy analyst Ray: your beloved sitcom "Frasier" did gay-themed material in several episodes which could also (though wrongly) be called "homophobic." Got any explanation for why "Frasier" wasn't homophobic, but Colbert was? Or do you now believe that "Frasier" hurt people just as Colbert does? As I said, I love your comedy theorizing.

The other is an open question to the panel: if "cock holster" is a homophobic joke that is entirely about that queerboy Trump sucking gay dick, WHY do we never, ever hear the same kind of joke applied to Trump and Paul Ryan? Or Trump and the Koch Brothers, or Trump and any other conservative figure?

These jokes always involve Vladimir Putin, and all of the jokes present Putin as the dominant "top." How come? Wouldn't Steve Bannon's grim, mottled cock be just as hilarious when inserted into Trump's mouth holster? And if not, why not?

Think really hard... what central element of the Trump-Putin joke are you strenuously, deliberately ignoring?


And Ray, #1277:
Oh, please, Gonfalon. This is not "humor." The intent is to hurt people.


Not merely the intent. Quite obviously, it's the achievement as well. Stay strong, Ray.
   1302. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 11, 2017 at 08:11 PM (#5453856)
David N, #1297:
This is a real example of the phrase Ray so often misuses: a "gotcha." The right is saying "Ha, ha, you guys always throw around bigotry allegations promiscuously, and now we have a chance to turn the tables on you!"


It's like seven-dimensional Candyland!



David N, #1292:
During the campaign, Ray could take solace in the primary results; sure, Trump was unpopular, but he was nevertheless winning. So maybe he was strategically offending the right people to win the support of other people. But there's no more elections. Trump can't be "playing us" in order to get elected.


Just one flaw here: Trump has never stopped campaigning. It's like the Senate never technically going out of session. When are the next twelve MAGA rallies?
   1303. . Posted: May 11, 2017 at 08:19 PM (#5453860)
Substance alert:

Add Maxine Waters to the "no evidence of collusion" list.

Chuck Grassley and (apparently) Diane Feinstein confirm that Comey told Congress neither Trump nor his team were targets of the FBI investigation.

But any day now it will all Never mind.


   1304. . Posted: May 11, 2017 at 08:23 PM (#5453864)
Just one flaw here: Trump has never stopped campaigning. It's like the Senate never technically going out of session. When are the next twelve MAGA rallies?


Is this where you obsess for 15 hours-plus about the meaning of "rally"? Up to and including human defining away as something other than a rally, a Barack Obama event the Washington Post itself called a "rally"?
   1305. Count Posted: May 11, 2017 at 08:53 PM (#5453884)
Trump more or less says he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation (just enough wiggle room to argue that's not really what he meant, which I'm sure Trump will clear up within the next few days with a more stark admission).
   1306. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 11, 2017 at 08:55 PM (#5453885)
So I guess that firing Comey really was about Russia, according to anonymous sources like Donald Trump. Well, not about Russia. About "this Russia thing with Trump."

COUNNNNNNT!!!!!!
   1307. Count Posted: May 11, 2017 at 09:06 PM (#5453891)
I don't even like coke :(
   1308. Count Posted: May 11, 2017 at 09:11 PM (#5453895)
I gotta say this actually is a big deal because the worst fear with Trump is that he'd use the apparatus of government to either get away with (figurative) murder or pursue vendettas against opponents and journalists. So if the GOP lets him get away with this it sets a bad precedent (in addition to possibly scuttling or at least delaying the Russia investigation). It would be even more dangerous if he's able to put a lackey in as FBI director, though I imagine the most outlandish choices wouldn't survive senate confirmation.
   1309. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: May 11, 2017 at 09:22 PM (#5453905)
Trump is a very bad liar, for someone who lies a lot. You would think with all his experience at it he would have a little finesse, but no.
   1310. Zonk is One Individual Posted: May 11, 2017 at 09:29 PM (#5453907)
If the President fires the Director of the FBI because the Director of the FBI doesn't play lackey in public statements, does it really matter whether the investigation that underpins the question will lead to a jackpot or not?

Once upon a time, I'd have thought it would be universal that such a thing - firing the Director of the FBI because he was politically unreliable - would be a point of agreement that left, right, center, and otherwise would agree with.

It really does make for the perfect litmus test. Indeed, I'll say this - had the election gone the other way, and the same played out; it would be function perfectly in the other direction.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a "Biden rule" to fall back on here...
   1311. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 11, 2017 at 09:33 PM (#5453908)
   1312. greenback slays lewks Posted: May 11, 2017 at 09:45 PM (#5453911)
Trump is a very bad liar, for someone who lies a lot. You would think with all his experience at it he would have a little finesse, but no.

Nobody in power cares. That's a bigger problem than Trump's lack of finesse, and probably a bigger problem than his lack of honesty, but if there are no negative (for him) consequences, then it's difficult to evaluate his lying as poor.
   1313. DJS Holiday-Related Pun Posted: May 11, 2017 at 09:55 PM (#5453914)
From "Garland" I thought some of you guys were suggesting Trump nominate *Eric* Garland, which sounded insane. Though 'twas the judge. I need to spend less time on Twitter.
   1314. Howie Menckel Posted: May 11, 2017 at 09:59 PM (#5453916)
I wanted Trump to nominate Garland for SCOTUS, and would be pleased if he nominated him (or tried to) for Comey's job. but I don't see it. the real mind #### for the Ds was the SCOTUS spot.
   1315. Zonk is One Individual Posted: May 11, 2017 at 10:02 PM (#5453917)
Wow.

There's so much in the Holt interview - and hey, kudos to NBC News marketing for dripping things out throughout the day, but screw them for playing click-through and attribution games for driving the news - one hardly knows where to begin.

However, for those attached to the letter of the law sort of thing -- seems to me that this true.

The only other way to handwave it away is to insist that Trump is an idiot who just says crazy thing and as such, nothing he says means anything.

Again, it really doesn't matter if there's evidence of a crime or not... or even if there was a crime for which no evidence could be found.

The President fired the Director of the FBI because he was annoyed that the FBI Director said things that pissed him off.

   1316. Shredder Posted: May 11, 2017 at 10:03 PM (#5453918)
(just enough wiggle room to argue that's not really what he meant, which I'm sure Trump will clear up within the next few days with a more stark admission)
Trump won't clear it up. Someone on Trump's staff will. Then a day or two later, Trump will double down on what he told Holt, making the staffer look like a complete idiot in the process.

Garland would have to be an idiot to accept an offer to take over Comey's position. The only reason he'd be selected is so that they could move the DC Circuit from 8-5 liberal to 7-6, and he would leave a lifetime appointment to move into a position where he could be (would be?) fired. Also, he seems like he maybe has a shred of self respect left, and from what I can tell, you need to have every last ounce of self respect removed from your soul in order to accept a position in the Trump administration.
   1317. Zonk is One Individual Posted: May 11, 2017 at 10:10 PM (#5453922)
Trump won't clear it up. Someone on Trump's staff will. Then a day or two later, Trump will double down on what he told Holt, making the staffer look like a complete idiot in the process.


Day 111, #######!

The awesome thing is that the Trumpkinbryos have started telling us all how the Mattis's, the Pompeo's, et al mean it's all good because the *important* decisions are being made by Very Serious People!

None of the Very Serious People consider the extraordinary decision to fire the FBI Director all that that important.
   1318. Zonk is One Individual Posted: May 11, 2017 at 10:20 PM (#5453932)
   1319. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 11, 2017 at 10:30 PM (#5453943)
If the President fires the Director of the FBI because the Director of the FBI doesn't play lackey in public statements, does it really matter whether the investigation that underpins the question will lead to a jackpot or not?

Well, that's certainly moving the goalposts! After pages of posts suggesting that Trump removed Comey to thwart the FBI Russia investigation, now it doesn't matter if it turns out that no one interfered with the investigation, and the investigation comes up with nothing on Trump? Admirable flexibility there, but if there's no interference with the investigation, this is just a personnel dispute. Good luck making something out of that.
   1320. Zonk is One Individual Posted: May 11, 2017 at 10:42 PM (#5453949)
Clapper... champion of the law in context.
   1321. Zonk is One Individual Posted: May 11, 2017 at 10:45 PM (#5453950)
You probably need to clarify, Clapper.... are you pledging loyalty or not?
   1322. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 11, 2017 at 10:46 PM (#5453952)
I wanted Trump to nominate Garland for SCOTUS, and would be pleased if he nominated him (or tried to) for Comey's job. but I don't see it. the real mind #### for the Ds was the SCOTUS spot.

No one knows if Garland is interested, and many Democrats wouldn't want to lose the D.C. Circuit slot. However, an even larger political problem is that they don't want someone of Garland's stature exonerating Trump, if it comes to that. They have gone all in on RUSSIA-RUSSIA-RUSSIA, without knowing if there is any evidence to support their claims. If it falls flat, the Democrats who pushed the issue would much prefer that it be under the auspices of someone they could demonize as a Trump flunky. Pretty sure that sentiment will be discreetly conveyed to Garland or any other Dem who might be considered for the FBI post.
   1323. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 11, 2017 at 10:48 PM (#5453954)
The only other way to handwave it away is to insist that Trump is an idiot who just says crazy thing and as such, nothing he says means anything.
Well, this isn't some desperation defense; it's necessarily true, since he will tell six different stories on the same event in the course of three days.

In this case, we have literally gone from "I had nothing to do with it; Rosenstein came to me with the recommendation on his own, and I just had to act on it" to "I decided it before I heard from them, and I would have fired Comey regardless of Rosenstein's recommendation." [Trump is so pathological that he can't even let someone else take credit for bad things.]

And "It was because of the handling of the email investigation (which I previously praised effusively)" to "He was not doing a good job" to "It was about the Russia thing and Trump."
   1324. Zonk is One Individual Posted: May 11, 2017 at 10:51 PM (#5453956)
The conversation that night in January, Mr. Comey now believes, was a harbinger of his downfall this week as head of the F.B.I., according to two people who have heard his account of the dinner.

As they ate, the president and Mr. Comey made small talk about the election and the crowd sizes at Mr. Trump’s rallies. The president then turned the conversation to whether Mr. Comey would pledge his loyalty to him.

Mr. Comey declined to make that pledge. Instead, Mr. Comey has recounted to others, he told Mr. Trump that he would always be honest with him, but that he was not “reliable” in the conventional political sense.

The White House says this account is not correct. And Mr. Trump, in an interview on Thursday with NBC, described a far different dinner conversation with Mr. Comey in which the director asked to have the meeting and the question of loyalty never came up. It was not clear whether he was talking about the same meal, but they are believed to have had only one dinner together.


You know, if this all ends withe people beating Trump to a pulp in an Iowa cornfield, well... maybe it would be for the best.
   1325. Avoid Running At All Times- S. Paige Posted: May 11, 2017 at 11:02 PM (#5453959)
From "Garland" I thought some of you guys were suggesting Trump nominate *Eric* Garland, which sounded insane. Though 'twas the judge. I need to spend less time on Twitter.


This is hilarious because everything involving Eric Garland is hilarious. I spend too much time on Twitter too.
   1326. Sleepy's not going to blame himself Posted: May 11, 2017 at 11:04 PM (#5453960)
You probably need to clarify, Clapper.... are you pledging loyalty or not?
Wow, for a second I thought that was William Shatner in the picture.

Anyway, there's a reason the oath federal employees take is to the Constitution, not to the President or their boss or their party. It's incredibly inappropriate for Trump to ask this.
   1327. Sleepy's not going to blame himself Posted: May 11, 2017 at 11:12 PM (#5453964)
However, an even larger political problem is that they don't want someone of Garland's stature exonerating Trump, if it comes to that. They have gone all in on RUSSIA-RUSSIA-RUSSIA, without knowing if there is any evidence to support their claims. If it falls flat, the Democrats who pushed the issue would much prefer that it be under the auspices of someone they could demonize as a Trump flunky.
If this happened tomorrow, the greatest accomplishment of the first 112 days of Trump's presidency would be not being accused of treason by the FBI. I think if you went back to Jan 27 and offered to trade that absolute failure to accomplish anything to the D's in congress in exchange for a little embarrassment, every single one of them would take it.

Trump not being guilty of conspiring with Russia is a victory for everyone. To paraphrase a famous republican, we should trust that he wasn't, while fighting to make sure the system to do everything possible to verify that he wasn't. His own actions have made it very hard to trust him, though, bordering on 2002 Saddam Hussein-level self-inflicted stupidity.
   1328. Omineca Greg Posted: May 11, 2017 at 11:23 PM (#5453967)
I've never understood why "minette", and its variations, in Western European languages means...uh...uh..."chowing down on Georgia O'Keefe's inspiration", but "минет", and its variations, in the old Soviet sphere means...uh...uh..."Speaking into the Bonophone".

I was six weeks into my Grand Tour before I realized why I was having...uh...uh...such surprising encounters.

And no, don't ask me why Polish is an exception. That's "Polish" the language, not "Polish" the verb, like "I polished the floor" or "I polished the furniture" or "I polished the...uh...uh...", never mind, I've wasted enough of your time already.
   1329. Greg K Posted: May 11, 2017 at 11:23 PM (#5453968)
His own actions have made it very hard to trust him

Not to draw too dire a parallel, but I've been listening to a podcast of the English Civil War and this line, if it were referring to Charles, would go a long way in explaining why that turned into such a #### show. Even after he lost the damned war, things could have been salvageable if he would just shown an iota of trustworthiness in any of the several opportunities he had.
   1330. Chip Posted: May 11, 2017 at 11:26 PM (#5453970)
Not to draw too dire a parallel, but I've been listening to a podcast of the English Civil War and this line, if it were referring to Charles, would go a long way in explaining why that turned into such a #### show. Even after he lost the damned war, things could have been salvageable if he would just shown an iota of trustworthiness in any of the several opportunities he had.


You're saying this ends not just with Trump's impeachment, but his beheading?
   1331. Greg K Posted: May 11, 2017 at 11:31 PM (#5453972)
You're saying this ends not just with Trump's impeachment, but his beheading?

Well, that guy said history repeats itself...so I assume so!

Unless...how devoted is Trump to the episcopacy?
   1332. greenback slays lewks Posted: May 11, 2017 at 11:37 PM (#5453976)
Spicer missed the briefings Wednesday and Thursday while on Naval Reserve duty, but engaged in a heated argument with The Washington Post’s national editor after the newspaper reported he hid in bushes Tuesday night outside the White House after doing a TV hit to defend Trump’s firing of Comey.

One White House official said Spicer, who is set to return to the podium Friday, seemed more upset about that story than much of the terrible coverage Trump received.

Spicer said late Thursday that The Washington Post “falsely described the situation” and “grossly misstated the situation around our attempt to brief the press.”

A person familiar with the press secretary’s location late Tuesday night said Spicer was standing between or behind bushes, but not physically in a bush.

More than 12 hours after the story ran, Spicer eventually secured an editor’s note. “Spicer huddled with his staff among bushes near television sets on the White House grounds, not 'in the bushes,' as the story originally stated,” the newspaper wrote.

This can't be real.
   1333. Ray (CTL) Posted: May 11, 2017 at 11:40 PM (#5453977)
Obviously the joke itself is pretty blah - the humor derives entirely from watching Trump's sycophants get so worked up over it. You'd think Ray, whose entire political philosophy seems to be "Let's piss off Liberals", would appreciate the art.


The "humor" -- I use the term loosely; actually I use the term incorrectly as there is none -- derives entirely from the speaker thinking that calling someone a homosexual is a slur with therefore the intent being to hurt the target by "smearing" him as being gay.

It's mean-spirited and thus is not actually a joke. It's an attack. With homosexuality being the weapon of choice.

Let's call this what it is and call the speakers and enablers out for what they are. These are homophobic attacks, and it's indeed telling of the speakers and enablers that this is the weapon of choice. And those who laugh at these "jokes" or condone them are complicit and are actually pretty contemptible. But nothing to see here I guess since Trump and his supporters are the targets.

I would say that the speakers and enablers see gay people as merely collateral damage in all of this -- but that's not actually correct, since, again, the speakers and enablers actually see homosexuality as a slur.
   1334. Count Posted: May 11, 2017 at 11:42 PM (#5453978)
Well, that guy said history repeats itself...so I assume so!

Unless...how devoted is Trump to the episcopacy?


if this ends with Donald Trump Jr being president god help us all
   1335. Ray (CTL) Posted: May 11, 2017 at 11:50 PM (#5453980)
I don't know what the average gay person thinks about Stephen Colbert – maybe that he's a little more boring and obvious than he used to be – but when Dan Savage, for instance, is writing blog posts with titles like these, it's fair to say that many are not hyperventilating about the joke.


As the ridiculous Dan Savage is writing headlines like that, I very much rest my case.
   1336. Ray (CTL) Posted: May 11, 2017 at 11:58 PM (#5453982)
Dan Savage is basically the Milo of the Left.


A pretty good description. I wish I'd thought of it first.
   1337. Ray (CTL) Posted: May 11, 2017 at 11:59 PM (#5453983)

OK, that's a slightly different discussion. All I'm saying is that a prominent gay-activist writer, terrible or whatever, has been describing the Trump/Putin relationship in terms much like Colbert's (as has a notable muralist in Lithuania, etc.) The whole discourse may be a bit tired or not to y'all's liking, but it doesn't seem to be setting off alarm bells the way that some on the right wish it would.


Really now, defending homophobic attacks isn't a good look.
   1338. Ray (CTL) Posted: May 12, 2017 at 12:02 AM (#5453984)
Of course it's not. It's the same line of thinking that claims an AA saying the N word is equivalent to a KKK member saying it. It's such a stupid false equivalence. Steven Colbert isn't trying to deny marriage to gay people, for starters.


That's not the test. The test is whether he's lowering the dignity of gay people in making his comments. And he most certainly is.

I'm happy to double and triple down on this. These comments come with a mean-spirited intent and with a belief that to call someone gay is to smear him.
   1339. Ray (CTL) Posted: May 12, 2017 at 12:07 AM (#5453986)
I made two points several pages back, which got no response. One was directed specifically to comedy analyst Ray: your beloved sitcom "Frasier" did gay-themed material in several episodes which could also (though wrongly) be called "homophobic." Got any explanation for why "Frasier" wasn't homophobic, but Colbert was?


Sure; the jokes on Frasier weren't actually mean-spirited attacks with the intent of harming a target by labeling him as gay.

Got any other stumpers, He Who Thinks He's Einstein?
   1340. Zonk is One Individual Posted: May 12, 2017 at 12:08 AM (#5453988)
That's not the test. The test is whether he's lowering the dignity of gay people in making his comments. And he most certainly is.

I'm happy to double and triple down on this. These comments come with a mean-spirited intent.


Nice try, but you don't get your special snowflake card until you apply the same standard to people other than those you have a vested interest in digital fencing.
   1341. zenbitz Posted: May 12, 2017 at 01:23 AM (#5454003)
I admit to being worried about the damage a Trump presidency might do -- but now I am just making popcorn and watching the clown show.
   1342. Stormy JE Posted: May 12, 2017 at 02:34 AM (#5454005)
So I guess that firing Comey really was about Russia, according to anonymous sources like Donald Trump. Well, not about Russia. About "this Russia thing with Trump."
Again, who the hell knows. At this point, it's probably in Trump's interest to say f-you on the Comey firing, if for no other reason that he prefers the alpha male approach, rather than meekly saying others convinced him to do it.
I don't even like coke :(
Will you accept a scarf? David's got plenty of them to spare.
   1343. Stormy JE Posted: May 12, 2017 at 02:42 AM (#5454006)
Trump mouthpiece changes story again.
Do we really need to post Hillary's comments about the need to accept election results, Miami Beach Redneck? Or how about Peter Daou and other Clintonistas claiming that Comey stole the election, right up to the moment Trump canned him?

Newsflash: Both sides are awful.
   1344. Stormy JE Posted: May 12, 2017 at 02:46 AM (#5454007)
The President fired the Director of the FBI because he was annoyed that the FBI Director said things that pissed him off.
Hey, zonkie, is there *anything* Josh says that you don't accept as the Gospel? Do you rely on him for picking out curtains too? Will you name your next child after him? (Or have you done so already?)

Leaving aside whether it's politically sane, POTUS has the constitutional authority to fire the FBI director. End of story.
   1345. Stormy JE Posted: May 12, 2017 at 03:00 AM (#5454008)
Or, as a friend of mine observed ironically, he fired Comey because he was jealous about how much credit Comey was getting for Trump's defeat of Hillary.
FTR, your IQ (and your friend's) is well above room temperature.
   1346. Stormy JE Posted: May 12, 2017 at 03:14 AM (#5454009)
He's not accomplishing any goals.
You're forgetting that even before Trump became POTUS, conservatives looked at "accomplishments" very differently than you. Sometimes, government not doing something beats the alternative. As we have witnessed, many Republicans think that appointments of conservative jurists alone constitutes success. I'm pretty sure Hugh Hewitt takes this view.

And even going by your standards, be careful. It's hardly inconceivable, for all of the stumbling and bumbling on health insurance reform (and most everything else, come to think of it), that the Senate passes its own version in July or early August. And once a bill gets to conference, well, anything goes. Why, look at how Obamacare got enacted into law and how long it took.
   1347. Stormy JE Posted: May 12, 2017 at 03:19 AM (#5454010)
That's not the test. The test is whether he's lowering the dignity of gay people in making his comments. And he most certainly is.
I'm squinting in an attempt to understand your view, Ray, but it's just not working out.

Yes, the "joke" wasn't funny.

Yes, the "joke" was rude.

Yes, the "joke" was pathetic because these gutless wonders never uttered anything 1/100000000000000th as offensive about our last POTUS.

(Heck, turn the "joke" around and it's Colbert on his knees unzipping Obama's trousers.)

But "homophobic?" Sorry, that's a bridge WAY too far.
   1348. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 12, 2017 at 04:23 AM (#5454013)
Do we really need to post Hillary's comments about the need to accept election results, Miami Beach Redneck?


But Juan, we would expect such dishonesty from Crooked Hillary, the ##### of Benghazi. I'd expect more from a man who only hires the best people because he has the best brain.
   1349. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 12, 2017 at 04:25 AM (#5454014)
Leaving aside whether it's politically sane, POTUS has the constitutional authority to fire the FBI director. End of story.


Further, there's nothing in the constitution that prevents him from changing stories as many times as he likes, as often as he likes. Lying is free speech, which has to make you wonder why the hippies hate the first amendment so much. Why do they hate the constitution and support the terrorists?
   1350. Stormy JE Posted: May 12, 2017 at 04:35 AM (#5454015)
I'd expect more from a man who only hires the best people because he has the best brain.
Also the biggest.
   1351. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 12, 2017 at 04:46 AM (#5454016)
If he only hired the biggest people Chris Christie would still be with him.
   1352. Stormy JE Posted: May 12, 2017 at 04:50 AM (#5454017)
So here's the NYT's front-page headline...

Acting FBI Chief Contradicts White House on Comey and Russia.

Now scroll all the way down (or turn the pages if you're sporting the print edition) and the 12th paragraph reads:
But Mr. McCabe, in only his second full day as acting director, made clear that he had witnessed no covert effort by the White House to influence the inquiry. He said that he had not talked to anyone at the White House about it and that there had been “no effort to impede our investigation.”
Talk about burying the lede.

On a semi-related note, here's JPod:
All the WH had to say was "Comey lost pres's confidence and he decided he needed a new FBI director" but they didn't b/c they're stupid

As for what I typed in #1342, I should've phrased it differently. Maybe Trump's better off going alpha male but it would've been far more effective if he had said that -- or even better, what JPod wrote -- from the get-go and stuck with it.
   1353. Stormy JE Posted: May 12, 2017 at 04:52 AM (#5454018)
If he only hired the biggest people Chris Christie would still be with him.
I wasn't referring to cup size.
   1354. Stormy JE Posted: May 12, 2017 at 05:05 AM (#5454019)
Seth Mandel on these "sources" about the Trump-Comey meeting:
Honest question, because I'm really not sure: if Trump really demanded loyalty from Comey, should Comey have resigned then and there?
   1355. Ishmael Posted: May 12, 2017 at 06:46 AM (#5454020)
Regarding the blasphemy talk from earlier, I’ve always had the feeling that blasphemy is a little overdetermined. And that creates a sort of tension in many cases of blasphemy where, depending on your perspective or on the particular tradition of interpretation, either or both sides of a particular issue appear to be blasphemous.

Take the Jewish prohibition, raised to the level of a taboo, on using the name of God (per the second/third commandment). This is originally a prohibition against using the name of God in vain but, due to extreme piety, or extreme anxiety about the possibility of an accidental transgression, it becomes a prohibition against using the Tetragrammaton at all, or any derivation, in anything other than particular ritual contexts.

Now, that’s all very well, but there’s an inherent danger in this taboo – idolatry. Per the first/second commandment (the one about the graven images) there is also a prohibition about the use of idols and the worship of created things. The name of a thing is not the thing itself, and too much reverence for a name borders on the blasphemy of confusing God with some created thing.

The same sort of thing can be observed in the controversies regarding depictions of Muhammad, I think. Aniconism in Islam has led inevitably to a heightened anxiety about images of prominent figures in Islam (Muhammad in particular obviously) which looks a lot like treating them as sacred objects of worship. From a certain point of view, collapsing this reverence by depicting Muhammad in a profane or offensive context is actually less dangerous (theologically speaking, because less likely to encourage idolatry) than depicting Muhammad as a religious icon.

The likes of IS have a point, too, when they talk about destroying the Kaaba. The whole idea of pilgrimage, let alone to visit a sacred rock, is pretty suspect from the point of view of Monotheism.

Christianity, of course, happened to actually make a deity of its founder, so the particular problem Muslims encounter with Muhammad was sidestepped. But that doesn’t mean there’s not endless anxiety about the status of the Trinity, depictions of Jesus, Mary, saints in general, the status of the Pope, and on and on.

There’s a constant vigilance required, particularly in Monotheistic religions, to keep your ontology cleansed of any potentially blasphemous intermediate objects of worship. That explains the extreme reactions against idolatry by the likes of the Iconoclasts and Protestant radicals. The importance of not only rejecting the worship of idols, but ostentatiously destroying or profaning them, derives from the necessity of demonstrating that they deserve none of the reverence due to God.
   1356. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 12, 2017 at 06:54 AM (#5454023)
So here's the NYT's front-page headline...

Acting FBI Chief Contradicts White House on Comey and Russia.

Now scroll all the way down (or turn the pages if you're sporting the print edition) and the 12th paragraph reads:


But Mr. McCabe, in only his second full day as acting director, made clear that he had witnessed no covert effort by the White House to influence the inquiry. He said that he had not talked to anyone at the White House about it and that there had been “no effort to impede our investigation.”


Talk about burying the lede.

Really? It's a strange form of internment where an article's first two paragraphs support the headline.

WASHINGTON — The acting director of the F.B.I. contradicted the White House on two major issues on Thursday: the support of rank-and-file agents for the fired F.B.I. chief James B. Comey and the importance of the agency’s investigation into Russian election interference.

In a striking repudiation of official White House statements, the acting director, Andrew G. McCabe, said the inquiry was “highly significant” and pledged to the Senate Intelligence Committee that the F.B.I. would resist any attempt to influence or hobble the investigation.


And it's hard to imagine any greater "effort to impede" an investigation into Russian efforts to aid your election than firing the official who was leading the investigation.
   1357. PreservedFish Posted: May 12, 2017 at 07:18 AM (#5454026)
RDP:

I'm happy to double and triple down on this. These comments come with a mean-spirited intent and with a belief that to call someone gay is to smear him.


If I recall, when you first brought it up, your position was: "according to the standards we have been taught by liberals, this is homophobic." So now you think it's legitimately homophobic? Or did liberals have the right standards all the while?

In my opinion, yes, the joke is mean spirited and I wouldn't be shocked if some gays found it offensive. At the same time, comedy doesn't work if it's not edgy, and the joke mainly refers to the power relationship between sucker and suckee, a power relationship that is identical in heterosexual cockholstering situations. Colbert made a single joke in poor taste. Ignoring context, intent and reputation in order to try and blow it up into a career-defining controversy is exactly the type of PC garbage that most Americans hate, RDP foremost among them, one would usually expect. Ray obviously just sees this as a way to once again prove liberal hypocrisy - it's the only possible explanation for his obsession over such a frivolous issue, even while he insists on a months-long carpet bombing campaign in this forum to repeatedly declare what national issues he doesn't care about.
   1358. Zonk is One Individual Posted: May 12, 2017 at 07:40 AM (#5454027)
Again, who the hell knows. At this point, it's probably in Trump's interest to say f-you on the Comey firing, if for no other reason that he prefers the alpha male approach, rather than meekly saying others convinced him to do it.


See, if it were me -- I'd set aside that last shred of dignity for a rainy day (or is it a golden shower?)....

Besides, it's never too early to start practicing up on the "He did some good things but went too far..."
   1359. . Posted: May 12, 2017 at 07:42 AM (#5454028)
Substance alert:

Trump's meetings on the Middle East appear to have provisionally won hearts and minds. Jerusalem Post:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has crossed the Rubicon and voiced “unprecedented” readiness to reach a peace deal with Israel, sources close to the efforts to renew talks between Israel and the Palestinians have told The Jerusalem Post.

Abbas, according to the sources, made this clear to President Donald Trump during their meeting at the White House last week. The president plans to use his trip to Israel later this month to receive assurances from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he, too, is committed to a peace agreement.

Since his meeting with Trump last week, Abbas has changed his rhetoric, issuing a number of statements meant to reflect flexibility on previous demands. He has, for example, said that he would renew the talks under Trump’s auspices without preconditions. In the past, he had said he would not negotiate with Netanyahu without a freeze to settlement construction.

He has also sent his advisers to the press to declare that the Palestinians are prepared to negotiate land swaps with Israel, a recognition that some West Bank settlements will remain part of Israel in the framework of a future deal.


Add the PA to China on the list of changed rhetoric after White House discussions.
   1360. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 12, 2017 at 07:58 AM (#5454030)
The "humor" -- I use the term loosely; actually I use the term incorrectly as there is none -- derives entirely from the speaker thinking that calling someone a homosexual is a slur with therefore the intent being to hurt the target by "smearing" him as being gay.
This is certainly false, as can be seen by noting that the joke would work just as well if Trump were a woman. The charge is that he's so subservient to Putin that he even provides sexual services; that insult doesn't turn on him being male/gay.

(Of course, then people could just switch up the faux SJW outrage and claim it was misogynistic.)
   1361. Lassus Posted: May 12, 2017 at 08:07 AM (#5454032)
Did that Holt interview actually air yet, or are we still just seeing clips and transcripts? Because I have a feeling Trump is really going to be sorry he did that interview.

I mean, not sorry as in anything at all will change, but he'll look like an even bigger liar and idiot than before, which he - or anyone, obviously - really likes.
   1362. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 12, 2017 at 08:09 AM (#5454033)
Add the PA to China on the list of changed rhetoric after White House discussions.


You are cute when you are gullible.
   1363. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 12, 2017 at 08:13 AM (#5454034)
For the record ... not that anyone cares.

I don't think the joke is or was funny - at all. I don't think that sort of language here is appropriate and honestly I would prefer we stay above that sort of nonsense. I doubt it was explicitly homophobic, but I don't think that makes it OK. Of course I also think comedians and posters on internet sites get to express freedom of speech (depending on TOS and such), and offending people is way down on the list of problems, but if someone wants to be offended I say go for it.
   1364. . Posted: May 12, 2017 at 08:41 AM (#5454042)
This is certainly false, as can be seen by noting that the joke would work just as well if Trump were a woman. The charge is that he's so subservient to Putin that he even provides sexual services; that insult doesn't turn on him being male/gay.


The Phony Deconstructions would actually be a passable band name. Maybe their first hit could be a cover version of "Killing an Arab."
   1365. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 12, 2017 at 08:43 AM (#5454043)
You're forgetting that even before Trump became POTUS, conservatives looked at "accomplishments" very differently than you. Sometimes, government not doing something beats the alternative. As we have witnessed, many Republicans think that appointments of conservative jurists alone constitutes success. I'm pretty sure Hugh Hewitt takes this view.
Of course sometimes the government doing nothing beats the alternative. I'm a libertarian, sheesh; of course I think that. But while I agree that just about everyone would think that Justice Gorusch was an accomplishment, and that Trump still might be able to put some more people on the courts, I am pretty darn certain that there's not a single conservative who was thinking, when the race to replace Obama began two years ago, "My goal for the next four (eight) years is to have a GOP president, senate, and house that pass no laws and don't even appoint people to most senior government positions. Just holding the status quo for that time will be enough."
And even going by your standards, be careful. It's hardly inconceivable, for all of the stumbling and bumbling on health insurance reform (and most everything else, come to think of it), that the Senate passes its own version in July or early August. And once a bill gets to conference, well, anything goes. Why, look at how Obamacare got enacted into law and how long it took.
It's kind of inconceivable, given the need for 60 votes to do what they really claim to want to do. And given that Trump is incapable of negotiating or selling a bill because he literally knows nothing about the issue. Obama, love him or hate him, understood the issues (I mean, he's not a health economist, but he knew what he was trying to do and what needed to be done to get that), so he could do those things. And it took two years for Dems because they were trying to do that.
   1366. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 12, 2017 at 08:49 AM (#5454046)
Trump reveals details of "Trumpcare" for the first time in interview with Economist.

Insurance is, you’re 20 years old, you just graduated from college, and you start paying $15 a month for the rest of your life and by the time you’re 70, and you really need it, you’re still paying the same amount and that’s really insurance.

But I believe it’s very important to have this.
   1367. Zonk is One Individual Posted: May 12, 2017 at 08:51 AM (#5454048)
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
As a very active President with lots of things happening, it is not possible for my surrogates to stand at podium with perfect accuracy!....
6:59 AM - 12 May 2017


Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
...Maybe the best thing to do would be to cancel all future "press briefings" and hand out written responses for the sake of accuracy???
7:07 AM - 12 May 2017
   1368. . Posted: May 12, 2017 at 08:53 AM (#5454049)
Substance Alert:

Solid trade deal between US and China signed today. Washington Post:

The Trump administration has reached new deals with China to ease market access for a variety of industries, including beef and financial services, as the White House makes progress on trying to soften economic barriers between the two sides.

The 10-part agreement, announced by Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, comes as part of an ongoing negotiation between the two countries following a meeting between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping last month.


American beef producers and financial services industry now have better access to the Chinese markets, as the White House's personal diplomacy continues to pay dividends. Much like the US stock market.
   1369. Zonk is One Individual Posted: May 12, 2017 at 08:53 AM (#5454051)
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!
7:26 AM - 12 May 2017
4,083 4,083 Retweets 10,667 10,667 likes
   1370. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 12, 2017 at 08:54 AM (#5454052)
Talk about burying the lede.
Uh, to paraphrase Ron Ziegler, that statement is inoperative. As noted above, Trump himself now claims that he fired Comey because of Russia.

On a semi-related note, here's JPod:
All the WH had to say was "Comey lost pres's confidence and he decided he needed a new FBI director" but they didn't b/c they're stupid
They are stupid, and yeah, that would have been slightly less laughable than claiming that they fired him because of his Hillary email actions that Trump had repeatedly praised. And slightly less easily-refutable than claiming that the FBI rank-and-file didn't support Comey. But somehow I don't think that would have really helped here. It wouldn't change the fact that he fired Comey during the Russia investigation. And it wouldn't change the fact that (a) "lost president's confidence" is just an empty cliché, and (b) Trump and Spicer repeatedly had said that Comey had his confidence. So that would have just led to, "What does that mean? What happened? How did he suddenly lose the president's confidence? What did he do? Wasn't this really about Russia?"
   1371. . Posted: May 12, 2017 at 08:55 AM (#5454053)
.Maybe the best thing to do would be to cancel all future "press briefings" and hand out written responses for the sake of accuracy???


As long noted herein, the Q&A gotcha sessions with a White House "press secretary" are the products of a long-bygone era and have become the virtual definition of pointless anachronism.
   1372. Morty Causa Posted: May 12, 2017 at 08:57 AM (#5454056)
Trump and Trumpdom is coming across more and more like The Stooges in You Nazty Spy!. What's the loaded eight-ball?
   1373. . Posted: May 12, 2017 at 08:57 AM (#5454057)
As noted above, Trump himself now claims that he fired Comey because of Russia.


There is no one "Russia." There are four -- criminals who hacked; criminal leaks/misuse of FISA; facts and foreign policy implications of hacking; collusion. Comey did a poor job in all of them and by all indication wasn't even investigating the second. Hardly surprising, since the investigative theory that he or someone close to him was the source of the illegal leaks has very much yet to be falsified.

As to the substance of the fourth, numerous sources on both sides of the aisle have stated unequivocally that there's no evidence of collusion. Senators have also put their name to the news that they were told by Comey that neither Trump nor his team were targets of the "collusion" investigation.

They are stupid, and yeah, that would have been slightly less laughable than claiming that they fired him because of his Hillary email actions that Trump had repeatedly praised.


Comey did a confidence-sapping job on both the H. Clinton email case and Russia. Hardly a surprise that White House people would cite both.
   1374. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:00 AM (#5454059)
Uh, to paraphrase Ron Ziegler, that statement is inoperative. As noted above, Trump himself now claims that he fired Comey because of Russia.


That's yesterday. The previous day was something entirely different. Who knows what today will bring?
   1375. Zonk is One Individual Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:02 AM (#5454060)
The Feck is strong with this one...

“When I spoke with Putin, he asked me whether or not I would see Lavrov. Now what do I—should I say ‘No, I’m not gonna see him?’ I said, ‘I will see him.’”
   1376. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:03 AM (#5454061)
.Maybe the best thing to do would be to cancel all future "press briefings" and hand out written responses for the sake of accuracy???

As ignorantly noted herein, the Q&A gotcha sessions with a White House "press secretary" are the products of a long-bygone era and have become the virtual definition of pointless anachronism.
FIFY. Indeed. It hardly seems necessary to have a press at all in this country. Why not just shut down the media? Anything the president thinks we need to know, he can put out a press release. Or, tweet it, since that fits his attention span.

(On the rare occasion when he forgets to do that, we can just check with TASS.)
   1377. . Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:04 AM (#5454062)
Why not just shut down the media?


Because that would be contrary to the First Amendment and really dumb.
   1378. Count Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:06 AM (#5454064)
#1355 was really interesting, thanks Ishmael.
   1379. Zonk is One Individual Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:06 AM (#5454065)
Because that would be contrary to the First Amendment and really dumb.


Good thing you don't have a President who does really dumb things!
   1380. BDC Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:07 AM (#5454066)
Obama, love him or hate him, understood the issues (I mean, he's not a health economist, but he knew what he was trying to do and what needed to be done to get that), so he could do those things. And it took two years for Dems because they were trying to do that

This is an excellent point. Obamacare was a compromise, about equally unacceptable to both the relatively socialist and relatively free-market wings of the Democratic Party in 2009-10, and they worked it out and got on board; the President listened and provided leadership (again, however much one hates the result, however stupid one thinks it is).

I get the impression that the Republicans have at least three wings at the moment. One group (maybe Trump is in it? hard to tell from what YR links to in #1366 :) is a bit envious of Obamacare and would like to keep all the goodies while somehow also cutting taxes and ending the mandate. Another group would like to return to the status quo ante Obama and devote more and more of our GDP to health-insurance profits. A third group really would like to privatize the whole system, including Medicare and Medicaid, and if you get sick and can't pay it's your own ####### fault, move to Cuba if you're such a whiner.

The chances of getting those three groups to compromise are slim, particularly with a President who doesn't understand even the grossest of the details. If some bill does miraculously pass, it will be some kind of weakening of Obamacare that will keep its basic concepts, but shunt some money at the margins back to richer taxpayers and to insurers, at the cost of abandoning some extensions of the Medicaid safety net. Business as usual in America, in the long run …
   1381. Count Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:16 AM (#5454069)
You think Trump really taped conversations, as per his tweet? Would be a fun (and probably extraordinarily stupid from his POV) twist.
   1382. Lassus Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:20 AM (#5454070)
You think Trump really taped conversations, as per his tweet? Would be a fun (and probably extraordinarily stupid from his POV) twist.

It would probably be some kind of Poochie-like editing of random conversations spliced together.
   1383. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:22 AM (#5454071)
I think it would be more like Homer talking about the Gummi Venus..."All I wanted was her...sweet can..."

Ah, here we go.
   1384. Count Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:23 AM (#5454072)
It would probably be some kind of Poochie-like editing of random conversations spliced together.


Presidential historian tweeted a photo: "Nixon tries to save his job by releasing selective (and badly transcribed) transcripts of his secret tapes, April 1974:"
   1385. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:23 AM (#5454073)
All of Ray's half-baked PC caterwauling to the side, if you can come up with a better term than "cockholstering" to describe SBB's rhetoric re: the Trump regime a 1359, I would love to see it.
   1386. Zonk is One Individual Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:24 AM (#5454074)
You think Trump really taped conversations, as per his tweet? Would be a fun (and probably extraordinarily stupid from his POV) twist.


Meh - I don't think they'd be all that interesting... at least/I mean - it's not like there's some different Trump than the one who regularly embarrasses himself answering anything other than yes/no questions (and he manages to look dumb on those, too... somehow).

I suppose it would be fun in the sense that he may well have told Comey he could just grab KellyCon's ##### if he wanted, and watching the cockholster SJWs do the about face back to "just locker room talk" in record time would be amusing.
   1387. Count Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:26 AM (#5454076)
Nothing to see here, just a president firing the head of the FBI who was investigating him, lying about why he was firing him, then threatening the now-former head of the FBI to try to get him to not talk to the press, all while loudly proclaiming that the Russia story is a witch hunt. Still not enough to raise the concerns of the GOP.
   1388. BrianBrianson Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:26 AM (#5454077)
Trump is a very bad liar, for someone who lies a lot. You would think with all his experience at it he would have a little finesse, but no.


In all honesty - he's old, and his memory is going. It why he asked Merkel like seven times if he could negotiate a trade deal with Germany - he just plain forgot he'd already asked. It's why he said he launched missiles at Iraq - he just plain forgot. It's why he describes his meeting with the President of China by talking about the cake - it's all he remembers. It'll happen to you if you get old. About a year before my grandfather died, he stopped in the middle of a story (about going to town for a paper that morning or some such mundane thing) and said "You know, I used to be able to remember things." That really, really stuck into me. (Though I'll forget it if I get to be old, I'm sure).
   1389. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:29 AM (#5454079)
1385: TROLLING.
   1390. . Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:33 AM (#5454081)
all while loudly proclaiming that the Russia story is a witch hunt.


At least two Senators in a position to know have put their names to the news that Comey told Congresspeople that neither Trump nor his team were targets of the "collusion" investigation.
   1391. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:35 AM (#5454083)
1385: TROLLING.


A complimentary term to the original gob-slobbing he's doing for the regime.
   1392. BrianBrianson Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:36 AM (#5454084)
It's probably trolling - SBB has also pushed "Bonus runners in extra innings", "Chuck Berry was bad at music" and other obvious trolling.

But cockholster is such a fun word to say. It just rolls around in the mouth so pleasingly.
   1393. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:36 AM (#5454085)
In all honesty - he's old, and his memory is going.


Yeah. We can add senile to the list of derogatory terms to describe the cockholster.
   1394. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:37 AM (#5454086)
At least two Senators in a position to know have put their names to the news that Comey told Congresspeople that neither Trump nor his team were targets of the "collusion" investigation.
Not only isn't that accurate, and not only does it misunderstand how investigations work, but it's nonsensical. By definition, if there's a collusion investigation then Trump and his team have to be subjects of it. That's what the word "collusion" refers to: whether Trump and/or his team were in bed with¹ the Russians.

¹It's a common metaphor, Ray. Don't get your pantries in a twist. I don't think your hero is gay.
   1395. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:39 AM (#5454087)
Also, for clarity's and honesty's sake, while others may be working on a "only refer to the original Trump/Putin relationship via 'cockholster'" theory of rhetoric, I do not. It's too evocative a turn of phrase to let lie dormant when it can clearly and obviously be applied to the Trumpista defenses of their Dear Leader Who Is Strong and Powerful.
   1396. Zonk is One Individual Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:40 AM (#5454088)
In fairness, the threat was only based on a recommendation from Rod Rosenstein.

It was a perfectly normal review of outstanding threats to be made that the DoJ undertakes all the time.

Trump showed strong leadership by accepting the recommendation and making the threat.
   1397. Zonk is One Individual Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:42 AM (#5454089)
But cockholster is such a fun word to say. It just rolls around in the mouth so pleasingly.


I've always liked knob gobbler...
   1398. BrianBrianson Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:46 AM (#5454090)
It's perfectly possible that all the colluders are now ex-members of Trump's team, so that Trump and his (current) team aren't the subject of the investigation. Since everyone we know was colluding with the Russians is now out, this fits the available facts.

Of course, if Teh Donald or his current team is under investigation, it would behoove everyone who knows to deny it publicly. So I don't assign much meaning to SBB's wanking* material.

*At least one statement was issued by a woman, so hopefully Ray won't try to pretend that's a homophobic joke.
   1399. . Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:46 AM (#5454091)
But cockholster is such a fun word to say. It just rolls around in the mouth so pleasingly.


If Woodward and Bernstein would have brought the story about Comey "asking for more resources" to him (*), Ben Bradlee would have made both of them his cockholster, and made each of them each others' cockholsters.(**)

(*) A/k/a the one that the NYT put a big-ass font headline over, anonymously sourced, that turned out to be fake news.

(**) The line on the London tube in from Heathrow has a stop on it called Cockfosters, an even more euphonious word that sounds particularly pleasing with a British accent.
   1400. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 12, 2017 at 09:46 AM (#5454092)

In all honesty - he's old, and his memory is going. It why he asked Merkel like seven times if he could negotiate a trade deal with Germany - he just plain forgot he'd already asked. It's why he said he launched missiles at Iraq - he just plain forgot. It's why he describes his meeting with the President of China by talking about the cake - it's all he remembers. It'll happen to you if you get old. About a year before my grandfather died, he stopped in the middle of a story (about going to town for a paper that morning or some such mundane thing) and said "You know, I used to be able to remember things." That really, really stuck into me. (Though I'll forget it if I get to be old, I'm sure).

I wouldn't blame Trump's memory lapses on his age. He'd have been exhibiting exactly the same traits when he was 50 or 30.
Page 14 of 19 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 16 >  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
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (The Berhalter Thread?)
(243 - 1:44pm, Dec 18)
Last: spivey

NewsblogChicago Cubs manager Joe Maddon reveals the book he says is helping him manage millennial players
(96 - 1:43pm, Dec 18)
Last: Man o' Schwar

NewsblogThibs' Hall of Fame Tracker
(516 - 1:39pm, Dec 18)
Last: Rally

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (December 2018)
(681 - 1:39pm, Dec 18)
Last: Davo and his Moose Tacos

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(3770 - 1:36pm, Dec 18)
Last: JL72

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Braves voting thread
(2 - 1:10pm, Dec 18)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(402 - 1:06pm, Dec 18)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-18-2018
(18 - 12:51pm, Dec 18)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

Gonfalon CubsNow what?
(362 - 12:35pm, Dec 18)
Last: Red Voodooin

NewsblogTHE HALL OF FAME VALUE STANDARD (Bill James rank 25 worst players in HOF & 25 best not in the HOF)
(115 - 11:32am, Dec 18)
Last: Rally

NewsblogOT Gaming: October 2015
(918 - 11:16am, Dec 18)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight (as quoted on MLB Network)

NewsblogUPDATE: WEEI denies it will change Red Sox broadcasts to a talk show format – HardballTalk
(21 - 11:08am, Dec 18)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

NewsblogRed Sox owe $12 million in luxury tax, showing why they'd want to shed payroll
(18 - 11:06am, Dec 18)
Last: jmurph

NewsblogMLB: Mets to sign catcher Wilson Ramos
(58 - 11:01am, Dec 18)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2319 - 10:07am, Dec 18)
Last: NJ in NY (Now with Toddler!)

Page rendered in 0.7288 seconds
46 querie(s) executed