User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5972 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
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.
I'd say it's far more likely that many parts of that story are figments of Wolff Bachner's imagination.
Wolff Bachner is the Resident Gaming Writer for Inquisitr.com. He is an avid gamer, who has been playing computer games since the first adventure game, Colossal Caves, became available in 1976. Wolff enjoys doing in-depth reviews of all the newest MMORPGS, while actually playing them. When Wolff isn't gaming or reporting all the latest gaming news, he also covers Breaking News and Politics for Inquisitr, with a focus on Israel and the Middle East.
Wiki suggests that there are three bridges from Jersey (Outerbridge Crossing, Goethals Bridge, and Bayonne Bridge) in addition to the Verrazano-Narrows bridge from Brooklyn.
I mean mainstream media, but I'm not going to change your belief that CNN/CBS/NBC/FOX etc. care more about reporting actual news than toeing the corporate line.
Coincidentally, Republicans have been going downhill with "blacks" since about 1860.
But 47% of Americans aren't black!
"The Times plunged into this story of an alleged sexual assault — an always sensitive subject that is further complicated in this case by issues of race, class and politics."
Only in the modern liberal mindset did it "raise" any such "issues." Why? Because the modern liberal sees everything in American life through that prism.
Katrina and Bush
Obama and Sandy
Looking like you are actively engaged with the care of actual Americans is part of the job.
And let's not forget (e) the "rapists" played lacrosse. And as we all know, there is that sacred lacrosse code which decrees that when several lacrosse players see some other lacrosse players raping a woman, they don't try to stop the rape, and they don't come forward afterwards to identify the rapists, because they all play lacrosse together.
The vast, vast majority of liberals, including many in the media, seriously believed all of (a) through (e) -- hilariously believed (e) in particular -- in swallowing the accuser's story whole.
To be fair to Dubya, that's photo of him doesn't mean he didn't care about the harm done to NOLA by Katrina. It means that his PR secretary that released that photo was blind to the optics of it, or one might say, "incompetent."
And I'm not going to change yours that the Wolff Bachners of the world constitute a credible alternative by default.
"Privileged" is their euphemism for envy.
The only issue of "race" raised was the mob trying to take away the right of due process and a fair trial from white people -- by making demands they'd never make of non-white people. That isn't, naturally, what the Times meant.
The day I envy frat boys from Duke is the day I ####### shoot myself.
Yes, we know.
No more than they give everyone in politics a pass. Like I said on the last page at the start of this offshoot, I'm not a Republican or Bush/Romney supporter. The fiscal cliff is the latest fairly trivial bandwagon that the media, on both sides of the political spectrum, has chosen to jump on. They have far bigger fish to fry, but they never will, regardless of which party is in the White House.
It sounds like white people should wake up!
Fortunately, we've got staff on hand to explain it to you in excruciating detail
Ray's apparently feeling a bit verklempt today, so he's pulling out his comfy sweatshirt and having a tub of moose track Haagen-daz with SugarBear. Hug it out, boys; hug it out.
You "seemed" wrong. It was largely liberals and the supposedly non-existant liberal media who did it. They were way out in front of the facts, which provided fuel to the prosecutor to begin to make up the facts to fit the narrative. Such as when he buried exculpatory DNA evidence beneath a hail of documents. Such as when he had the accuser pick her "rapists" out of a lineup -- a lineup that was literally 100% filled with lacrosse players, and thus amounted to a multiple choice exam with no wrong answers. He played russian roulette with the lives of the students - regarding the bogus photo lineup, it was sheer luck as to which of them would be left without a chair when the music stopped - only it was he who was pulling the trigger.
Because prosecuting DA's from Carolina are a well known liberal bunch.
Idiots.
Any guess as to whether a pint of secretly-substituted Ben & Jerry's would taste bitter to their refined tastes?
Plus only parts of Staten Island were devastated while other parts got through relatively unscathed. Its basically a commuter suburb where the main benefit is free ferry service to downtown Manhattan. In fact I would guess unless you lived or have family there, most New Yorkers would never even set foot on Staten Island.
Seriously. I mean the Duke lacrosse case? Is Whitewater next? Will we hear about a storm stained dress?
I love that some folks presume liberals are all about race, and so bring up race in every discussion as a way to preemptively defend themselves from charges of racism (sounds like Bush foreign policy, so consistent I guess).
And yes Ray you can believe the three things you listed without being a bigot, however many of the people who believe some or all of those things are bigots (which is the other half of the equation you never address).
EDIT: And I have defended the principle of those against gay marriage rights as being possibly non-bigoted in threads past for many posts in the face of liberal opposition (and no sign of conserva-libertarians anywhere - funny how they disappeared then).
Also important is not getting really terrible policy as part of a deal - raising the medicare age is not just cruel, it’s absolutely moronic. Arguably the worst government spending cut you could possibly make. Of course, in the media it’s just scorekeeping. They won’t mention that raising the medicare age will cause national health care spending to rise, taking two dollars out of the pockets of would-be beneficiaries for one dollar in savings. They’ll pretend that Obamacare will pick up the slack, even though millions of people will be left totally uncovered thanks to GOP governors’ intransigence on medicaid expansion. They’ll talk about how we need “painful” cuts when they’ll never suffer a ####### drop from them.
For the record, the reason Ray is so adamant about this is because the NY Times editorial board took the pro-accusations, pro-Nifong stance. And in Ray's world, the NYT is the voice of every "liberal" in the nation.
Yeah; self-awareness is not exactly a liberal strongsuit. They like to tell themselves that the emotions and motivations which drive them are not the emotions and motivations which drive them.
And yet, they're always so clear as to others' "motivations."
Unless by "takers," he thinks Republicans mean only "blacks." In that case, see 1860.
I've never said anything about Bush's complete failure of governance during Katrina being even slightly motivated by "racism". That's your fantasy, not mine. When it comes to racial sensitivity, Bush is right near the top of the current Republican crop.
Now the effect of his incompetence fell disproportionately on low income blacks, but I've never imputed any sort of lowlife motivation to Bush beyond his hostility to the idea of basic competence in government, as shown by his appointment of clowns like Brown.
Two of your links about the camps were from FOX News. Are they revealing information, or hiding it?
I'm confused.
Well not trivial, but not nearly as urgent as portrayed. Jan 1st, 2013 if there is no deal inplace it is not a crisis (except perhaps of perception which I admit can be important in economic matters). From a real perspective a deal on January 15th or February 12th is not substantively worse for the economy than one on December 15th (again excepting perception fueled by the MSM and ther "OMG a cliff!" coverage).
It's not what the backwoods DA did, it's the rousing support from the full spectrum of modern liberal thought he received.
They went all in on the idea that the "racist," "classist," haven of privilege America was finally being "exposed" by the case, and it was an embarrassing failure and mockery of justice. Many of us said so when it was going on, the modern liberal's excesses being so excrusiatingly obvious to centrists with brains.
Whenever a modern liberal says "race," "class," or "privilege," just remember the Duke lacrosse case. (Which isn't to say the modern liberal will be inevitably wrong or misguided, but remember the Duke lacrosse case. And, one supposes, the Tawana Brawley "case," though that was merely a warmup for the main event.)
With a couple slight tweaks this passage could easily be a Weakerthans song.
"Racism" vs. "racial sensitivity." And the difference in your mind would be...?
I agree with Andy, but would like to state that 'right near the top of the current Republican crop' is a pretty darn low bar as far as GOP racial sensitivity goes. Still he does vault over that low bar very well.
Yes.
I think he's saying Bush's racial sensitivity is a point in his favour as compared to other Republicans.
So the key difference would be "Racism" = Bad, "Racial Sensitivity" = good
What is so strange about that is the optics around 911 were done so well. Bush with the bullhorn at Ground Zero looked good. It made people feel good. It stands in stark contrast to what was done in Katrina.
Racism bad. Racial sensitivity good. Like when Bush talked about how the practitioners of Islam were by and large good people and the acts of the terrorists should not impugn the majority of Muslims. He showed sensitivity there (religious, not racial, but it was the example on the top of my mind).
EDIT: Coke to greg (U)K, who I hear is thirsty.
I’m kidding, I’m kidding, I’m kidding.
You're so damned cute sometimes.
"Racism" vs. "racial sensitivity." And the difference in your mind would be...?
"Racial sensitivity" was meant as a compliment to Bush, not a charge against him. It was in reference to Bush's immigration reform proposals. I'm not sure what your point is.
EDIT: cokes to Bitter Mouse and Limey Greg.
And again, what this means is "the NY Times editorial board." Otherwise, it's just a bunch of Dittohead stupidity masquerading as outrage.
I took it to be that inadequate "racial sensitivity," like "racism," also evinced a fixation with race. And, less importantly, that it was a convenient fallback when "racism" itself wasn't present.
Sometimes you win. Sometimes it rains. There really wasn't a readily available photo op around Katrina, like that. There's no iconic framing for the devastation of the slums of the 9th Ward the way "Ground Zero" was already iconic by the time the bullhorn thing happened. About the only way to give the POTUS a visual of the swath of destruction in Katrina's wake was, in fact, to put him on a plane and fly him over it.
Just don't release a photo of him from literally high above and beyond the pain.
I guess the point was, responding to 9/11 was pretty easy politics and optics. They didn't screw up the easy play. Katrina required a little more work, and they didn't make that play at all.
Don't be silly; it's wasn't just the NY Times editorial board, though that board is modern liberalism's primary opinion outlet. At the very least, it was also the Duke administration (*), campus left, and the left on other campuses.
(*) Which cancelled the rest of the lacrosse team's season and fired the coach, an absurd overreaction based entirely on ideology and politics and, frankly, anti-white racism. That never would have happened with similar allegations in a similar posture involving black basketball players. (Yes, I understand that Duke basketball is bigger business than Duke lacrosse, but that isn't the deciding factor. If it had been black volleyball players and a white stripper, and the volleyball season was cancelled -- which never would have happeneed -- the campus left would be protesting the cancellation of the season.)
I took it to be that inadequate "racial sensitivity," like "racism," also evinced a fixation with race. And, less importantly, that it was a convenient fallback when "racism" itself wasn't present.
As is often the case, you took wrong. But don't let me upset your Grand Narrative about Liberals.
!!
So, just to get this out in the open, for you and Ray, the reaction of the most impacted heart of the case - Duke University - and their most activist elements on campus, are now the standard bearers for "liberals" everywhere.
Idiots.
To understand the outrage playbook that Ray and SBB are working from here you have to understand that the disappearance of white male privilege is, to them, actually "anti-white racism" (and sexism.) To level the field is to be "bigoted" against the powerful, you see.
(*) Which cancelled the rest of the lacrosse team's season and fired the coach, an absurd overreaction based entirely on ideology and politics and, frankly, anti-white racism. That never would have happened with similar allegations in a similar posture involving black basketball players. (Yes, I understand that Duke basketball is bigger business than Duke lacrosse, but that isn't the deciding factor.)
The Times overreacted to the rape charge at first, and much worse, brushed over the emerging facts in a followup story that barely mentioned the strange actions of the prosecutor Nifong. It was not the Times's finest hour. Duke was if anything even worse, and Nifong should be spending serious jail time for his part in the fiasco. That's what happens when stories are just too good to be true---they often aren't.
No, what's out in the open is that the NY Times editorial board is the predominant opinion outlet for modern liberalism. It was supported by many other factions of modern liberalism, a few of which I listed, including the Duke administration, the Duke campus left, (I'd imagine) The Nation, and the campus left elswehere.
I'd be happy to read contemporaneous dissent from any serious faction to the dominant modern liberal narrative of the matter.
I have to leave for the day, but the main problem is that money absolutely rules politics in most of the developed world, and nowhere moreso than the US. The SEC let Madoff run wild for almost 10 years, knowing he was running a multi-billion dollar ponzi scheme. There are many more examples.
I've driven across SI, and even around it a little bit, but I guess my only foot-setting experience there has been when they make you get off the ferry before they let you get right back on the ferry. But in that respect it's no different from lots of places in the area that are cut across by roads or railways. I don't think I've ever set foot in Elizabeth, or Jersey City, or Jamaica, either. Sometimes there is not a crying need to go to such places.
W likes people too much to have a problem with any particular subset of them
Women he's fixing to execute, that's one of his little out-groups.
No, honestly, despite his stone callousness on some issues, the current GOP national leadership makes 43 look like Eleanor Roosevelt.
It was far from the Times finest hour, in that the editorial board took the pro-accusation stance, and then, when their reporter had the temerity to report the actual facts as they were brought to light, the editors sacked him and replaced him with someone who would not contradict their previously established editorial position. That's terrible editorial policy. (It should be noted for the "liberal media bias" nutters that the Times news department got the reporting right until the editorial board intentionally sank that ship.)
The implication is clear: to focus on "racial sensitivity" is to focus on race, and a lack of "racial sensitivity" is tantamount to racism.
Money is power. Power is politics. In the rest of the world, power is guns, or tribal allegiances. But more often guns.
Power always serves power. How is this a story?
I have never benefitted from white privilege and would not have benefitted from it in its heyday. (A heyday you can read about, in grand detail, in the Joe Kennedy biography that just came out.)
Nor did I say the bigotry at work in Duke LAX was against the "powerful." It was more crude than that -- it was against white people.
It probably had something to do with the party itself. The players hiring strippers/escorts is probably outside their team code of conduct.
A room has 15 boys and one girl in it.
Racial (gender) sensitivity: Good morning gentlemen… oh, and lady. *chuckles all around*
Racism (misogyny): Get the #### out of here, #####, you’re not welcome.
or, less extremely, “Are you sure you’re not supposed to be in home ec?”
One acknowledges there are not just males in the room. The other (and I admit the first example is quite extreme) specifically attacks her for being different.
And the point is that the identity of the involved parties - in this case, their race - drives the response from liberals. IE just because race is present means that racism must be. This, more than an objective review of the facts, is the driver.
OH MY ####### GOD ARE YOU REALLY THIS LACKING IN A BASIC IRONY DETECTOR?
It's so easy to keep going and never have to think about another possibility when you just make up #### as you go, huh?
Is this a trick question?
OH MY ####### GOD ARE YOU REALLY THIS LACKING IN A BASIC IRONY DETECTOR?
I have never benefitted from white privilege and would not have benefitted from it in its heyday
Asked and answered.
Precisely, That is everything to the modern liberal. A person's status, privileges, obligations, immunities, all of it, depends on his or her racial identity. And they don't even flinch from that truism -- they celebrate it.
Now, our forebears bequeathed us a world in which that kind of thing was also commonplace, so the 21st century modern liberal was neither first nor foremost in this practice. Therein lies the dilemma. The right answer, obviously, is to get rid of all of it but it's not hard to understand why that wouldn't be self-evident to everyone. The wrong answer, even more obviously, is a racial spoils system managed by modern liberals.
I love how comfortable you are in saying this, but my guess is that replacing that "white" with any other demographic doesn't come as easy.
What are the rules again:
1) There is no racism
2) If there is racism, its Liberals, blacks, etc. against white people
3) Profit????
Out of vague curiosity do you have any evidence for this assertion?
Because I could assert Libertarians defining characteristic is that rainbows shoot out of their nether regions on a regular basis (as a completely random example), but that doesn't make it true.
1) There is no racism
2) If there is racism, its Liberals, blacks, etc. against white people
The rules are that racism exists, including against white people.
Among innumerable other things, the Duke LAX case.
With tiny little cupcakes.
INNUMERABLE THINGS!
True enough. A classmate from law school who lived there had a Halloween party there. My first and last visit to Staten Island.
So you are drawing out rules regarding "everything to the modern liberal", stating race is formost based on the Duke case that pretty much every liberal here agrees was handled badly by the prosecution and the NYT. Or are the liberals here not "modern liberals"?
Give me one issue, example in the past 10/15 years that the Right, Republicans have used against x (non-white) people excluding gay issues and immigration reform (too easy)?
selfishness and greed. always has been. always will be. they dress it up for public consumption, but it is obvious enough to the electorate that they never have and never will be able to appeal to it.
Why? I'm not arguing on behalf of rightists or Republicans.
I would love an example of this from a liberal on this board. We liberals (and just ask Ray or Joe K - WE ARE LEGION!) must have posted something that reflects this, in fact we must have posted hundreds of hints of this. A couple examples would do wonders for your generalization.
selena somebody.
(checks wikipedia)
yup. selena roberts. what a sorry person
Yes you are.
More things than there are numbers, IOW? That's....a lot of things.
I would think it would be self-evident from how the liberals here bent over backwards to embrace Herman Cain.
And here I thought we were all statists and collectivists (well nigh communists) in our desire to grow the government and enslave everyone in endless governmental dependancy. Where does our desire to assign everything to race fit into that narrative? I am so confused*.
* Note: I am not really confused, more amused, but hey the words rhyme so there is that.
You just made the broad allegation that liberals are concerned with race, yet you won't even give a second thought to anyone on the Right. Thereby, proving the point that racism is some liberal construct from your worldview that doesn't require you to even look the other way. I just wanted to confirm.
They fit very well together, actually. Taking people's incomes and wealth becomes more palatable if they can be delegitimized, and if they're merely the product of a racist system and white privilege, they're less legitimate.
Not concerned. Obsessed.
A southern cracker bigot may be a "racist." That doeesn't mean he's obsessed with race, in the sense that he sits around all day explaining things in a way that race is the pivot around which all his explanations revolve. He does neither really; the obsession I'm talking about takes both intellect and contemplation. It's not meant to be a slur; it's more descriptive and sociological.
Thus the notorious "Negro Deduction" on federal income tax returns; in the event of an audit, you are expected to be able to pass the "paper bag test". Great for Jay Z, a terrible injustice for one half of Kid-n-Play.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main