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 0.6628 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.
This is funny enough I did not want it to get lost in the flip.
Please consider the following quotes, none of them made up:
March 27, 2006: "Members of the Duke men's lacrosse team: You know. We know you know. Whatever happened in the bathroom at the stripper party gone terribly terribly bad, you know who was involved." Ruth Sheehan, News & Observer.
March 27: "At the intersection of entitlement and enablement, there is Duke University, virtuous on the outside, debauched on the inside...a group of privileged players of fine pedigree entangled in a night that threatens to belie their social standing as human beings." New York Times columnist Selena Roberts, railing against a "code of silence."
March 28: "There's no question the student-athletes were probably guilty of all the usual offenses--underage drinking, loud partying, obnoxious behavior. But the allegations of rape bring the students' arrogant frat-boy culture to a whole new, sickening level." Herald-Sun editorial.
March 29: "I don't fault the girl for not keeping up with the news and the history of rich brats who get drunk and don't know how to act... Those animals reportedly kicked her around like a dog." John McCann, Herald-Sun.
March 31: "There's something disgustingly wrong when a Duke University men's lacrosse team puts some skewed code of silence ahead of telling Durham, N.C., police everything they know. [Not one of the players] has broken ranks and spoken to investigators about what happened at the house that night. The code is that strong." Johnette Howard, Newsday.
March 31, 2006: "I'm so glad they didn't miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape!" CNN Headline News' Nancy Grace.
March 31: "The racially charged lacrosse team sexual assault scandal that is roiling Duke University has also exposed deep divisions between the elite private school and the more humble Tobacco Road community that surrounds it." USA Today.
March 31: "The question: Did a group of privileged white athletes commit a racially tinged and violent crime?" ABC's Nightline.
April 2: "University rape highlights racial divisions in South." London's Sunday Telegraph.
April 10, after defense attorneys announced that DNA results found no links to the students: "Look, I think the real key here is that these guys, like so many rapists--and I'm going to say it because, at this point, she's entitled to the respect that she is a crime victim." Wendy Murphy to Nancy Grace.
April 16: "Lax Environment; Duke lacrosse scandal reinforces a growing sense that college sports are out of control, fueled by pampered athletes with a sense of entitlement," LA Times headline.
April 25: "[The accusations of rape against "generally privileged, younger white men conjures up memories of that classic American sex story: the pretty female slave being summoned up to the big house to sexually satisfy the master." Time magazine's Jeninne Lee-St. John.
May 3: "I'd even go so far as to say I bet one or more of the players was, you know, molested or something as a child." Wendy Murphy.
June 5: "Hitler never beat his wife either. So what?" "I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth." Wendy Murphy.
As Nifong's case was fracturing, this from the New York Times hard news story by Duff Wilson, from the unbiased liberal media: "By disclosing pieces of evidence favorable to the defendants, the defense has created an image of a case heading for the rocks. But an examination of the entire 1,850 pages of evidence gathered by the prosecution in the four months after the accusation yields a more ambiguous picture. It shows that while there are big weaknesses in Mr. Nifong's case, there is also a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury."
-------------
Is that enough to cause you to engage in self awareness, Sam?
1.) Staten Island Yankees - great ballpark to see a game in, even if they are satanists in training.
2.) They have a pretty nice not-expensive public golf course in the hills I've played on that I can't remember the name of.
Your so right. Every Friday night my liberals friends are always debating Eminem and Rakim for best rapper alive. I mean it starts with "Eminem is the best". Then someone is like "Well, he's white and that's black music so we should count his as 3/5th's as good as Rakim to make reparations for the pre-13th Amendment period" Then someone will be like "Well, we want to make sure that Latino rappers have a place in this competition, so I nominate Big Pun" Then the first friend is like "There should be two categories for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Latino's". And on and on.
I won't even get into our discussions of the Grey's Anatomy cast.
Jesus, Ray. Half or more of those quotes don't even support your thesis. Aren't you a lawyer? Aren't you supposed to be good at constructing arguments?!
The "It's Nice But You Have To Go To Staten Island" Country Club, I think.
Ive never been more eager to institute a measure of Primate transparency than I am now, after reading this curious statement. Please don't spare us the details of your lucky life and your even more unusual ancestors. For starters, how old are you, where were you born, and where were you raised? And don't worry, I don't own any black helicopters.
Of course if you're not white, then your statement makes a bit more sense. But let's go to the videotape before we start saying anything more.
You are clearly a misogynist. The best rapper is a differently-abled and preferably obese lower class white woman over 40.
The NYT also screwed up the run up to the Iraq war in a huge nasty way. Breaking news, organization make mistakes. How does this speak to liberals and their obsession with race?
And no, I (and I hope no one here) wants to religitgate the Duke L. case. I remember you as being very gung ho on it back then and clearly still are, but it just is not that interesting or significant. For example the Obama/Clinton primary battle speaks much more clearly the the mind of liberals than does the Duke L. case.
EDIT: I guess Sam is sort of engaging you on this, so my saying it was just you is a bit of an overstatement.
a) the most strident voice in the pro-railroad crowd
b) the second most influential. Maybe even more influential than the NYT editorial board since she hammered home the same talking points repeatedly.
Is this even under debate any more? Of course college sports are out of control. Perhaps what is fueling it is more up for debate, can the various head coaches, college boosters and NCAA officials come to the front of the room and join the overly entitled athletes (who nevertheless are being taken advantage of in some of the sports)?
Bitter Mouse:
You need to define "out of control" first. Yes, they are "out of control" in various ways - some of which I've highlighted - but gang raping black women and then forming a code of silence to protect the gang rapists because they are teammates is not one of them.
C'mon people, I can't be the only one willing to rise to this bait!!!
Yes! If, for example, they are also against opposite-sex marriage. Or if they work for the OED and don't want to change the definition.
Or, they could be just stupid. E.g., if you really liked gay people (so not bigoted) but felt (stupidly) that allowing gays to marriage would shatter society and cause the collapse of civilization.
Tricky one, there. Because illegal immigrants come from all cultures -- on the face of it, it appears to be a purely legalistic or financial motivation. But if your solutions are (or are extremely likely) to be implemented in a biased fashion, then they are bigoted solutions. For example, restricting immigration visas from China and India is a bigoted policy. If you support this, then you either don't understand bigotry, or a bigot.
Not in general, no. You could oppose certain types or implementations of wealth distribution because they were inefficient or likely to do more harm than good. (There, I left you an out). I would have to see some pretty impressive data of the latter, however.
...the source of disdain from all corners of BBTF, resulting in her getting shot into the sun, if my terrible memory is to be believed. Of course I could not pick her out of a lineup, but I think that is a point in my favor actually.
Hey, I answered this a while back (I think it was buried in another post though.
Agreed, but I wanted to rag on college sports for a post.
Despite what zonk said, no, not really.
2. Can people oppose illegal immigration without being bigoted?
Yes. (Despite this, I'm with Szym on open borders.)
3. Can people oppose wealth redistribution without being some combination of racist/cruel/greedy/selfish?
This is really really general, so generally I'd say yes. But it's too big a question the way you've put it, so any answer's kind of meaningless.
Seriously?
Duke LAX= indisputable proof of the lib plot to destroy White America
(Naturally I'd be perfectly happy to see the perpetrator beaten within an inch of his life, possibly within a centimeter)
I know it's difficult for you to be confronted by the reality that challenges - or exemplifies - your worldview, but yes.
Geeks and Nerds around the world rejoice!
Should I just start totting up all the times that Ray says something that is vastly more applicable to himself than anybody he's arguing with? I'd probably break my keyboard within a couple of minutes, but it might be worth it in some kind of sociological sense.
I think so. I didn't find a single "trolololol" in the thread.
What "six ####### years ago" part? He never stated that.
But I was unaware that an example of liberalgroupthink from 2006 is too far out of date to be relevant.
Ray, I say this as your friend. You are making a pretty big fool of yourself today.
Re: 2033, Ray wasn't even out of the blocks before SBB lapped him on that one.
So USA Today is now part of liberal group think?
We'd have to check his schedule to be sure.
I'm constantly shocked by people who think that Obama is a Marxist. People said that Bush was a Nazi, but that was metaphorical; no one thought that Bush was actually a member of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. I get the sense that there are a lot of people out there who think that Obama works straight from Trotsky's playbook, that he bases his economic decisions on passages from Das Kapital, and so forth. It's just so bizarre and clueless and divorced from any understanding of what Marxism is and of what Obama's actual policy decisions have been. I mean, yesterday the government sold its last shares in AIG. A Marxist would've seen the financial crisis as a wonderful opportunity for permanently nationalizing a big chunk of the banking, insurance, and auto industries. I guess the argument is that he's too clever for that and that his Marxism is of the stealthy, crypto, homeopathic variety. And that way lies madness! ####, Cathie Adams would probably collapse in panicky, screaming convulsions if she ever met a real Marxist.
EDIT: I guess that if you say that Obama's a socialist you'd be wrong, but at least you can point to some things that he has in common with socialists. Obama and Marxism is just either crazy talk or the desire to conflate democratic socialism with Stalinism in order to scare people away from the former.
I'd say Occam's Razor applies: people who say spectacularly stupid things most likely don't know WTF they're talking about. I very strongly suspect Cathie Adams doesn't know Marx from Stalin from Francois Mitterand from Pee Wee Herman.
And amusingly it is having (seemingly) the opposite effect with socialism and I believe communism experiencing a surge in approval. Oops.
I am pretty sure it is not worldview but extreme fear at having to go over that complete train wreck again. To have an actual argument about it you're going to need someone to defend the people behind it (not going to happen) or extrapolate that one incident into an indictment of all liberals which is just plain silly since pretty much every liberal has long since disowned it.
I'm not addressing SBB's silliness today, nor Rants' wackadoodle conspiracy mongering. I am addressing Ray, who is my friend, and his tendency to make a fool of himself in public today.
Seriously?
Yes. It's the distilled essence of modern liberalism, post hoc efforts to blame or otherwise spotlight the prosecutor notwithstanding.
Of course liberals are bothered by the subject, as the examples not only hit very close to home, but are in fact home.
Can you point to prominent liberals who went against the groupthink narrative at the time? I'm hard pressed to think of even one, though I'm sure there were some; I'll try to look tonight. But all too many of them didn't, for the obvious reason that they _do_ subscribe to the groupthink.
You don't say.
So, when you supported the war in Iraq, you were subscribing to groupthink, right?
I'm fascinated by your insights. Please explain more about liberals.
And it's worth noting that the prosecutor of course played them like a violin. He knew what to serve them, and they were lapping it up and going back for seconds and thirds.
Example.
Nifong early on accused the players of hiding behind a "stone wall of silence." (Sound familiar? Liberalites quickly parroted the comment.) Nifong said to CNN: "It just seems like a shame that [the players] are not willing to violate this seeming sacred sense of loyalty to team for loyalty to community." The only problem? Nifong was lying through his teeth. The co-captains had already voluntarily given statements to police and taken DNA tests, as well as offering to take polygraphs.
Liberals swallowed Nifong's "version" of events whole, not stopping to bother how utterly cartoonish it was to think that some players would not try to stop other players from gang raping a girl, or at a minimum would hold silent the "fact" that a gang rape had occurred, all because they played lacrosse together and the girl was black and they were "privileged" so they were entitled to her.
Of course. Successful white parents and families -- all of them -- teach their children to rape black strippers. I mean, if your family took you to Europe a time or two when you were a kid, the unavoidable lesson from all that privilege is that you are free to rape black strippers.
And the first thing the lacrosse coach taught them was, naturally, "Guys, if one of you rapes a black stripper, the rest of you have to stonewall the cops. That's policy around here. Got it?? GO BLUE DEVILS!!!"
Thus the code of silence.
Isn't that obvious?
2048:
Well, this is easy. All you have to find is all those people who were saing "let's eait and see what the evidence is". Right?
And yes, Ray, this post proves that you were right all along about all liberals and every position they've ever taken. Congratulations.
I went to Duke.
And then once the facts began to go against him, he made the break from good person to evil. (*) What he knew was that the media would buy what he was selling, which was a narrative of class/privilege/race/power. He knew this because it is the liberal narrative. And so he knew that by going down this road he would have plenty of soldiers, undrafted by him but invested in the cause and willing to do his bidding, and he knew he would be painted as David, battling for good, against the white man's Goliath. He was right about this because it happened.
Had he known at the outset that what ultimately happened was likely to be the end result, he would surely have put on the brakes (although that would have required him to be rational), but as it was he took several steps out on the limb before he realized that he was out there and that it was too late to turn back.
(*) And make no mistake about it: what he tried to do to these students, in railroading people that he quickly learned were probably innocent - and then definitely learned that they were - was pure, sheer, horrific evil. To put these men and their families through that, to attempt to ruin lives, was truly beneath contempt.
And thus we know that Vlad rapes black strippers. QED.
That wasn't close to all that happened, but at the very least liberals cast it as an episode that "raised issues" of "race," "class," and "privilege" when it didn't.(*) And they did that because they view the world through that prism.
They also treated people differently entirely because of their race. The demands they made on the whites would never have been made of non-whites, just as Sharptonesque news outlets, in the days before the internet, published the central park rape victim's name because she was white.
(*) Other than, perhaps, within the echo chamber.
It's sad that liberals raped puppies like this. It's the worst most terrible thing ever. Except for a second Obama term, naturally.
It is *hard* out there for a pimp.
Who the #### you think you is ... ############' Ron O'Neal or something?
Jim Rice is in the Baseball HOF. Genesis, Heart and Rush are in the Rock & Roll alternative. The most popular shows on television are Big Bang Theory, How I Met Your Mother, Mike and Molly, and sixteen different versions of CSI and Law & Order.
People are _stupid_ McCoy.
Well, in the CP5 case, they demanded that the non-whites, precisely as guilty as the Duke Lacrosse whites, go to prison. So you're right about discrepancies.
Who's they? In the Duke LAX case, it's the media and campus left and Duke administration, at least, who demanded that the players waive all rights and talk to the cops -- all because they were white and the "victim" was black.
Who made "demands" in the CP5 case and upon whom were they made?
EDIT: And of course the fundamental difference in the cases was that in the CP5 case there actually was a rape and deadly assault committed, thus you'd expect some sort of public dismay.
The fundamental difference between CP5 and Duke LAX was that the families of the CP5 didn't have the social power to prevent their children from being railroaded for a crime they didn't commit. But hey, don't let facts like that get in the way of your #####-hurt whining about how hard it is for whitey, man.
Doesn't fit the preferred "poor white men have it terrible" panty-wetting.
No, the fundamental difference is that a crime was actually committed in CP5, unlike Duke LAX. And the defendants confessed in CP5. Other crimes to which they confessed were also thrown out. I'm comfortable with the appellate decisions, though not delusional about the likelihood that they could have been accomplices.
The city's fighting their shakedown suit and has subpoenaed the CP5 documentary production company. Go, New York, go New York, GO!!
Why, seeing as they're white? They're not poor?
I'm pretty clear on your position. It's hard, white man. So terribly hard for you. Struggle on. One day you'll be free.
I still regularly listen to Rush and am aware that it is further evidence of my uncoolness.
Actually, not really, since I've never been railroaded by a mob for a crime I didn't commit. I have, however, been blessed with the ability to empathize with people that happens to, even when they're white. So I'm doing okay.
I still have "Snakes and Arrows" in my car and play it on occasion. The documentary that came out last year about them was pretty good as well.
LOL. New day, same Sam: Lose argument; claim other person is a fool.
Also ... Woo-hoo!
The cops lied to the suspects and demanded they confess to a crime they had no involvement with whatsoever. Those confessions sent them to prison for a long time.
You cannot win this comparison, and it's really not seemly to try. The Duke case was a travesty of justice. The innocent defendants had they lives majorly interrupted, and the media convicted them in the absence of evidence. But they did not go to prison; the system, after ####ing with them mightily, reversed course and exonerated them. This is so not an example of white folks getting the short end of this particular American stick.
But they didn't #### up. That's the point. This is their worldview. Which is ###### up, yes, but, sadly, it means this wasn't a #### up.
OK, but that's not the outside world, i.e., media and political factions not involved in the case. That was the travesty in the Duke LAX case (and the topic of conversation here) -- the voices who had no idea what the evidence was inserting their racially-tinged ideology into the justice system ... and making demands.
The Duke LAX case was a travesty of justice, but it was more than that, and it's the "more" that we're really talking about.
I haven't read the first 1900 or so post in this thread, but Ray and SBB, do you really want to get into an argument about how liberals and conservatives respond to rape and how that represents their world view? That line of argument hasn't exactly been a winner for conservatives lately.
Sure, the Duke lacrosse case was a black eye for many in the media, which says nothing about the liberal world view. Plenty of liberals didn't jump on the bandwagon at the time, including me.
? Race/class/privilege has much to do with public policy and even politics.
And despite people here saying "A liberal narrative? Who? What? Where?", the Gang of 88 -- the professors at Duke who did not cover themselves in glory -- where liberals. Academia is not exactly overrun by conservatives. And the media was more liberal than not and engaged in liberal bias. And the liberal columnists who were pimping the narrative were... liberals.
I'll ask again is there any evidence to back up this assertion? Seriously saying "Duke" and "Liberal Media" does not count as evidence.
Filing a false police report is a criminal offense.
Which assertion? That this represents the worldview of liberals, or that it is an example of media bias?
As to the former, the quotes I provided in post 2003 are certainly evidence of what the worldview of liberals is. And there's more where those quotes came from; it's not like such quotes from the Duke case are in short supply. And it's not like it's a mystery what the worldview of liberals is, so this particular side bar is kind of odd. They constantly talk about race/class/power/privilege, so it's kind of bizarre of them to be doing the "Who, us?" routine now.
As to media bias, it certainly was an example of this. The NY Times reporting of Selena Roberts and Duff Wilson, among others, was simply not an objective accounting of the facts and what could reasonably be inferred from them. And I'm speaking here about hard news reporting coming from the Times, not what came out of their editorial page.
The majority of self-declared conservatives are Creationists, so that shouldn't come as much of a surprise.
So some random media quotes define the world view of liberals? I assume you have no problems if I decide to pick something semi-randomly collect quotes and decide that describes the worldview of Libertarians, right?
It is not a mystery what the liberal world view is, but when you talk about it you are almost always wrong - I suspect because you are not interested in understanding what exactly the liberal world view is.
An example of you being wrong. In this sub-thread for example race has been brought up insistently by the not liberals.
Woo-hoo!
But he went with the gun over the razor-edged boomerang? Huh.
Why the liberals here are denying this is left as an exercise for the reader.
That's nice. Can you tell me what the liberal view is on cheeses are for the next topic. Seeing you are an certified liberal expert who has studied them in their natural habitat. Tell me, are you currently considering a speaking tour, because I would really like to hear you in person on this subject.
I've been out for the evening, but what I'd like to know is if SBB has ever elaborated on his rather weird proclamation earlier today, to wit:
Yeah, this oughta be good.
Don't ever change, Ray. I don't ever want to be put in the position of wondering if BTF has been overrun by a bespectacled pod person. It would totally blow my mind.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main