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 0.7397 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 adore It's Always Sunny and it's take on nihilism. I was talking about tension above and there's a lot of it on the show - the one-liners aren't setup obviously and the situations always make me curious exactly *how* their crazy schemes will fall apart. In the midst of it all, Charlie and Mac are actually quite complex characters, far more deeply sketched than the character in most comedies. I love the way they use the Dennis character as well - nobody on screen ever directly confronts the notion that he's a straight-up sociopath, but they have filled in the picture bit-by-bit over the entire run of the show. See "The D.E.N.N.I.S. System" or the episode (I ofrget which) in which Dennis awkwardly asks about feelings and a slightly horrified Mac replies "I've had feelings every day of my life," after which there's just that juicy few seconds of awkward silence.
The actors play the characters so well that I can't see them as anyone else. Even Danny DeVito, who I've seen in many roles for my entire life, is Frank Reynolds forever in my eyes. I was watching Law & Order DVDs a few weeks ago and came upon the episode in which Mac is one of the defendants in a thrill killing but now I can't see him as anything but Mac in the episode, which makes it horrifyingly funny.
The way Manning has been treated has been a complete travesty. It's probably the single biggest thing that I hate about the Obama administration. The fact that it happened will forever be a stain on his legacy (though to be fair, compared to other presidents, if that's his biggest stain then he's very, very clean).
And I am a big fan of people leaking government documents if they have a good reason for it. Targeted leaks about things in which the government knowingly lies when our vested interest is in the truth (which is not always, with the exceptions basically being security related) are a great thing.
But having said that, a massive document dump with minimal security precautions in place is not a good idea.
The first half of the first season is terrible, but I thought it became good - not great - after that. The thing with Dollhouse is that they built a show about slavery and the abuse of human bodies. The only way to do that justice is to make it a thriller about destroying the Dollhouse and the evil corporation behind it. But for much of the first season, it was a show about the cool stuff you can do with human slavery technology. It stopped being that after the first season, and it got reasonably good.
I'll be the first person to admit I had a hard time getting over all this. It was shown as evil, yes, but Whedon himself seemed enamored of the evil, and too much so. If this wasn't the case, he did a really poor job of making that even slightly clear. I'd have to re-watch, but I think there had to be a way to offer something a little more stark regarding the good and evil bits. "It's complicated" can only carry me so far sometimes.
Enver Gjokaj made the show worth watching on his own.
Easily, that kid has talent coming out his ears. Still hoping for a breakout for him, but I have a horrible feeling it isn't going to happen; he may be another truly excellent actor lost in the tide.
This.
If this isn't the final season, I don't see how it can. They've dragged it out too long, and ANOTHER season of explaining it would be torture. I love the characters and the chemistry and the story-telling, but it's just dragging things out now.
I fully expect to watch the episodes when the torrents hit the net an hour later.
I very much enjoy the show. My parents and sister find it hilarious because they instantly recognize/relate to the scenes where the guys play video games/board games (as my friends and I would have been good source material when we were teenagers).
The Sheldon Cooper character (and actor) is great, but the real boost to the show was adding the women to the group. The actress that plays Penny is VERY cute, but the other two women are simply funnier.
It's on my short-list of "download the prior seasons and watch during the summer". Every 5 minutes I see of it at the end of a prior show's recording has made me laugh.
The best drama series in TV history, and on the short list of greatest thing ever shown on TV (with Band of Brothers, The Simpsons, Arrested Development, Firefly, and a couple of others).
But that's the thing - and where I take serious issue with people like Greenwald. I feel fairly sure that I agree regarding Manning's treatment - but then, Glenn's need for sensationalism and hyperbole (which extends far beyond the Manning case) makes it awfully hard for me to get any sort of good grasp on precisely what that treatment was/is.
To wit - I know he's kept in solitary confinement... but what we "know" about his detention depends greatly on who you most trust regarding that detention... Greenwald? David Coombs (his attorney)? Villiard (the brig commander, who did speak with greenwald)?
I think it was done that way because it was meant to mirror the dawning realization of the characters that what they had seen as at most a necessary evil was actually horrible and unjustifiable. Like that North Korean guy on the news the other day, who didn't really understand that there was a world outside the labor camp where he grew up until he escaped. When the guards with whips have always been there, you don't really think to question them.
Whether or not it was handled in a way that it works for you as a viewer is a separate question, of course.
And like the Bush-era torture programs, no one really seems particularly concerned by it.
Manning's torture has been all about the US government not being able to get at Assange, and using Manning as a totem. #4 on the list of reasons I didn't cast a vote for Obama last month.
You either haven't watched the same show I have or you haven't had the same life experience I have.
My point was that instead of simply accepting that some people like it and moving on, you have to stereotype those folks as "lame". But in the next moment you state, unequivocally, that Seinfeld is one of the best shows ever. I suppose I'm unsophisticated if I disagree (see above, I find Seinfeld unwatchably bad).
Entertainment obviously spans a wide spectrum. In my opinion, that means we should all select what we like and enjoy ourselves. In your opinion, I'm a bad man with no taste. I suppose, to come to your way of thinking, I should decide that you're a bad man with no taste. Happy to do so if it helps.
I started watching this show a few weeks ago on NetFlix and somewhere in Season 6 (I think, might be 5). It is pretty good, but not great. I doubt it will end great, but I think good is reachable.
I don't think that saying why I like or dislike something amounts to personally insulting someone who disagrees with me. I do disagree with you about the quality of these shows, but that's a separate issue from insulting you - which I don't think I've done.
For a fair bit of time, I was following the Manning case and detention relatively closely - I'll admit that, yes, since he was transferred to Leavenworth last spring, I haven't been reading as closely...
But that said, what is the basis of the torture allegations?
I'm not saying I buy whole clothe or without exception the government's spin on his detention, but like I said - the inherent honesty of those reporting it as 'torture' (particularly Greenwald) is likewise in question...
EDIT: and just to be clear -- I'm aware of Philip Crowley's statements, charges from Amnesty International, and the UN report... I'm just saying that there seems to be leap from 'cruel and degrading' (which, I think, describes the majority of detentions/imprisonment for any manner of crimes in the country) to 'torture'.
It's nowhere near torture in the Bush-era sense, but having your clothing and everything else removed from your cell as a result of being placed on suicide watch as a punitive measure is in some sense torture.
I can totally agree with this, I don't believe it is unreasonable or inherently immoral for a state to wish its classified documents remain classified. That is why, since 1215, any state that fancies itself opposed to the idea of totalitarianism can't just arbitrarily detain/confine/torture someone indefinitely without charge or trial.
And really, you can nitpick about Manning releasing a boatload of cables and not being selective enough to winnow the wheat from the chaff, but I don't think he was in the mindset to mable through everything at his leisure to find the juicy bits. The fact is, he uncovered a serious war crime in contravention of many international laws, and the story was somehow flipped to portray Manning as the bad guy. I'm not saying that Manning should not have been punished, but 900 days and counting of solitary confinement and sleep deprivation is certainly more than any punishment he deserved. If any other government on earth (except Israel of course) did this, the US would be all over them.
On solitary confinement, see Amnesty International's report on California prisons. There's far more to it than just one pull-quote, but I think this is pretty convincing:
That doesn't make Dollhouse great -- ED's limits alone would prevent that. But it does make it interesting.
But the thing is -
My understanding is that his defense is presenting evidence of suicide attempts... I won't claim any expertise regarding handling of prisoners or detainees, but if you've got a high profile prisoner that is "suicidal", isn't removal of items that could be a means of suicide only logical?
Again - I'm not placing any complete and total faith in the government's view of events... and if I had to just make a blind call (and that's all ANY of us here are making), I'd probably come down on the side of the defense or at least, make some finding of culpability/punitive actions by at least individuals involved in his detention. But- there's enough in the manner of logically feasible alternative explanation that I wouldn't exactly feel rock solid certainty in that judgement.
In my defense, I was a little drunk when I made it. But I stand by its content, mostly.
I did - as well as the other testimony that's been offered thus far.
I'm not seeing it... I see a very strong possibility that there was retaliation by specific individuals/guards who were pissed off concerning various aspects of their duties in guarding him. I certainly don't excuse that - but I bet this is par for the course in the life of a prisoner, military or civilian (that's not to say all prison guards are pissed off ########## either). I also see - again, not being a psychiatrist or having any training in the area - a pretty strong possibility that a 'suicide watch' was appropriate... again, I don't claim any expertise as to what that should entail, but removal of items that could be used towards such an end likewise seems appropriate. Finally - as noted above, I also see a strong possibility that the terms of this 'suicide watch' might well have been abused for purposes of further retaliation.
No argument there... but then, the argument would seem to be that our entire prison system... civilian AND military is guilty of torture.
Without looking it up, I'd be willing to bet that there are something on the order of 100K people in various states of solitary confinement (isn't the Colorado Supermax prison wholly made of prisoners in solitary confinement?)
We are still placing people in solitary confinement - most of whom are not cause celebres - it's absolutely an issue I'd agree with needing change.
My beef here is solely with the twofold idea that:
1) Bradley Manning has been subjected to specifically extraordinary treatment that other prisoners are not subjected
2) Bradley Manning occupies some special space (due to his crime) that makes him somehow 'especially' victimized by it
...the bottom line is that if it's generic prison/detention reform we're after -- sign me up, I'm wholly onboard...
If it's the "special case of Bradley Manning" we're addressing... well... count me out, absent learning something we haven't learned to date.
You take criticism too well, I don't think you understand the internet.
Seriously, "South Park"
My take, sometimes the most gut splittingly funny 2-3 minutes on television, followed by 2-3 minutes of something lame and unfunny, followed by 2-3 minutes of something both amazingly offensive and unfunny (a really really bad combination) followed by 2-3 minutes of something simultaneously hysterical and mind numbingly offensive...
I used to watch, then stopped for a few years, then every now and then when channel surfing and its' on, and I'll stop, and watch, until something lame and/or unfunny offensive comes on... then its time to change channels...
I actually watched a good chunk of recent episode whose "thesis" can can basically described as: "Birthers are angry men suffering from an inferiority complex due to the fact that they have small dicks"
How do such men express their rage? By attacking the offices of Federal Express in order to express their displeasure with the Federal Government... until it's pointed out to them that FedEx is a private company... so they attack American Airlines... How is the crisis (rage sweeping the nation) abated? The surgeon general announces that a statistical error has been made and that in actuality everyone longer than 1.5 inches is bigger than average... Everyone feels better about themselves, and the nationwide rage epidemic is abated...
How is that not gonzo? Of course if you are a Teaper you may miss the humor, jsut as if you belong to one or the other of the shows various targets you may miss the humor.
This is a similar tactic to that which has been used regarding the food supply. Michelle Obama goes on a campaign to promote organic food and home gardens, even writing a book about it, while her husband has been a huge enabler of corporate control of the food supply by supporting Monsanto and others. Unfortunately, most Americans never look beyond the public statements to see what is actually happening.
I must have my conversations crossed up - and, sincere apologies (no, really) - have a meeting in five minutes - but someone made reference to the lameness of the audience of BBT (and, implicitly, shows they don't like). I agree, critique a show all you want but criticizing an audience for enjoying a show that, at the end of the day*, is really just a running gag is arrogance. You don't like the show? Fine, don't watch. You want to tell me why you don't like it? Fine, don't expect me to care. There simply isn't enough substance in either Seinfeld or BBT for any of us to be getting our panties in a wad.**
* For effect, sorry.
** If we can't get wound up about The Hobbit, we certainly shouldn't be wound up about a sit-com. (and, mostly, I'd agree with that).
EDIT Apologies for not going back and reading to get it straight. Damn, I'm going to be late.
Except that Manning pissed away the status of 'whistleblower' when he instead decided to become a bullhorn spigot... and this was then exacerbated by his being -- frankly, used -- by folks who were more interested in furthering their inherent disagreements (many/most of which I share, incidentally) with aspects of US foreign policy.
Again - I'm absolutely onboard with a broader based discussion on the need for reform in our entire criminal justice system... Several of my family are intimately involved in the Centurion Ministries program and I've also got a good friend involved in Northwestern's Center for Wrongful Convictions. I've heard recounted firsthand dozens of stories that make Manning's travails sound like a weekend at the Hilton.
...but - I get none of that general discussion from the Bradley Manning discussion. I get "pawn" for other purposes.
So we have found the limits of Srul's ability to rationally discuss Israel. Good to know.
A convenient position now that the Israeli state is the only power in the region that has been given free reign to ignore non-proliferation agreements, I'm sure.
People who can't differentiate between canon & cannon should probably be shot out of one of the latter.
*Hi-five.*
No, he nailed South Park. It has the occasional funny moment, but not enough to really be worth watching. And certainly not worth the hype.
And the Venture Brothers is really, really funny. It's following an early Simpsons trajectory where each season is funnier than the last. Now I want to see where it peaks. The 4th season was utterly hilarious.
In fairness to Barry, while that's bad, it's not quite as bad as it sounds, since the law didn't exist during the administration of Taft or anyone before him. So it's "only" 16 administrations, rather than 43.
It would be more interesting to see them shot out of the former. How would that even work?
I guess if you had a really big priest, he could swallow them and then vomit them back up...
For me, it's his needless and cruel assassination of Vince Foster.
In fairness to Barry, I included the year the legislation was introduced.
Yes.
I can sort of see that. Yet, I think we really need to take in account the evolution of technology in our lives when we discuss whistleblowers. Ellsberg didn't have a near limited forum of billions of people to dump the Pentagon Papers to like Manning (w/Assange) has. Perhaps going forward, mass digital dumps will be the norm for people who want to expose dirty secrets. Now obviously the content of the Pentagon Papers was not as timely sensitive as what was on Wikileaks, so it's not an apples-to-apples.
A great show, but I think it's already peaked.
The prison system tortures people every day, but Manning's torture is peculiar and notable even within the gigantic moral fistula that is our criminal justice system.
Authors whose works decline in popularity in academia after their death could be fairly said to be shot out of the canon. For example: I think O. Henry was shot out of the canon around 20 years ago.
Obvious, inner circle HOFer. Anyone votes against him is an idiot.
It does however have some fairly high moments. The conclusion to the Mormons episode for instance.
Punsihment? Revenge? Deterence? Justice (Assuming we can agree what that means - doubtful)? Rehabilitation? Removal of a threat from society? And if it is more than one what is the priority, especially where they can conflict (for example punishment and rehabilitation often conflict)?
And that is even ignoring the side issues like cost, victims rights, "cruel and unusual" & death penalty, mental illness, how to handle wrongful convictions, and so on.
The whole thing is a train wreck, but unless people define what they are trying to accomplish arguments will circle endlessly never accomplishing anything (Well it is the internet, but you know what I mean).
I know, and I appreciate it! Saved me the trouble of having to look it up.
Turning a profit for the owner of the prison. Duh.
Every other democracy in the world has the same set of theoretical problems with their criminal justice system. There's nothing even resembling a world consensus over the goals and methods of criminal justice. But the US has a massively outlyinging awful criminal justice system. That's not because we have less of a plan for criminal justice than Canada or France, it's because of fixable injutices within the (imperfectly theorized) system.
You don't need a new overarching theory of criminal justice to advocate for ending massive torture within the system.
Well, technically, most people and organizations tend to ignore agreements that they're not a party to.
I think you missed my point. I think you can arrive at a fine Criminal Justice system without such an overarching theory, but I don't think you can discuss Criminal Justice rationally without having such a theory, or at least acknowledging parts of it and its importance to one's points.
For example (warning I know next to nothing about the Manning case being discussed and the example is extreme for illustrative purposes) if punishment and deterrence are all that matters to me then I might think it an excellent idea to pick out high profile guilty parties and horrifically punish them to the point of driving them insane. If I held that view (I don't) and you held the view that Rehabilitation and Removal of threats from society are paramount (and argue thus) and we never mention or acknowledge our fundemental differences in criminal justive theory then we will argue in circles forever regarding the case.
What I am saying is that there is not some ideal people agree to as a foundation for the argument, there is a strong set of assumptions that are often not talked about when people jump into specific details of specific cases.
So long as you're equally sanguine about the possibility of Iranian nukes, okay.
I think it could be argued it is because the US has arrived at a different de facto assumptions about Criminal Justice than most of the rest of the first world does. SImilar to how the US had a different health care system regarding access and affordability than most of the industrialized world (yes I am simplifying, you know I hope what I mean).
I think you are both being a bit out there. Yes Isreal is not party to the agreement. But regarding Nukes it generally does not stop there and the US and other nations could have exerted influence regarding the situation and obviously never did.
One can be a non-party to a treaty and still impacted by its existence. There is also a ton of room between passively allowing and actively trying to stop. And also treat two nations differently even if neither signed a treaty.
I tend to detest the fact that everyone I play online is far, far better than me at the game.
Who in their right mind would be as sanguine about an Iranian nuke as an Israeli one? You're drawing a silly equivalence between a democracy and a theocracy -- one committed to the elimination of Israel.
I don't restrain this to online games.
I simply detest DayZ. You run around in miles and miles of generic terrain than you run into a zombie, that bites you and you die, or, more likely, one of the roving gangs of players who will just murder you.
Iran is a signatory of the agreement.
I'm not saying yay, or nay, but specifically criticizing them for non-compliance of an agreement they didn't sign is a little ridiculous.
I have never played it, but it seems a sandbox zombie survival game would be better with human-as-survivor interactions. The perma-death adds an interesting element to the game, that helps to keep the game from turning into an all out warfare.
No, I'm responding to a very specific point from Dan. He said "there's no problem with Israel having nukes because Israel didn't sign the non-proliferation treaty." This is of a logical piece with his over-arching position that the only binding limits on a person or nation's actions are those agreements and contracts to which they willfully agree.
Given these assumptions, then the fact that Iran has not contracted to abide by the NPF then Dan should apply the same logic to them as he does to Israel.
There are arguments one can make to distance Israel's possession of nukes from potential Iranian nukes, but agreement to abide by the NPF is not one of them.
***Israel is not a democracy, it's an ethno-religious oligarchy at best. It's South Africa before apartheid. If Israel was a democracy, it would not be a Jewish state.
Its utterly weird.
I thought DayZ was just a free mod for another game. I had a friend that tried it, but had trouble getting it to work on his PC. So I never took the plunge to buy some military game I'd never play just to fight with some mod.
And if all those ####### "Christians" in pre-war Europe had acted like Christians are allegedly supposed to act, there'd have been no need for a Jewish state. The current state of Israel is a tragedy born out of historical necessity, with a few marginal "winners" and many more losers, but blaming the Jews for acting out of self-preservation is a case of blaming the victim at its worst.
It's nothing of the sort. Palestinians serve in both the Knesset and on the Supreme Court.
The last sentence makes no sense. If the purpose of a Jewish homeland is to allow the Jews to not have to be a persecuted minority, Israel only makes sense as a Jewish-majority state. (And, of course, it's the height of lunacy to tell Israeli Jews who don't want to be a persecuted minority and who formed Israel so they wouldn't be, that they should want to live as a minority in the Middle East.)
This is in a nutshell is why I hate online games.
I thought Guild Wars 2 has done a great job of minimizing the bad parts of online games while making the good parts better.
Sorry, I keep forgetting to respond to your GW2 email! I will do so now.
What GW2 does well is that there are incentives to cooperate with others in events and stuff.
Which government signed that? I honestly don't know.
Channel 4 aired a documentary following a 16 year old Dominican, Paterson Segura, looking to get signed out of an academy. It's directed towards an audience that isn't very familiar with baseball, but was an interesting little snippet.
Channel 4 On Demand Link
If that doesn't work outside of the UK here's Channel 4's youtube version, which hopefully will...
Link
This
And somewhat this (more the first).
It's part and parcel of why I don't like the use of Bradley Manning as a cause celebre to indict the general criminal justice, detention, etc system as a whole -- because the crimes of which Manning is accused are a relatively niche case... espionage/aid and comfort are NOT common crimes. The nature of such crimes does lead me to accept that some manner of special handling are appropriate - which includes much more stringent handling of contact with others (of any sort) than other crimes. That's not an argument for isolation, nor do I deny there's plenty of smoke here regarding institutional punishment... but I see more pissed off individuals for a variety of reasons.
We've hashed this over in previous threads, but I'll just reiterate that I completely reject the argument about drone warfare... mainly because the objections, when laid bare, don't seem any different than the objections in regards to formerly employed tactics like air raids, offshore missile strikes, or special forces/wet team insertions.
My only real beef with US drone 'policy' is that I don't like the current command & control apparatus, which places drone strikes and the go decisions in the hands of intelligence agencies.
The GOP 'counteroffer' - which is largely the same as the flatly rejected pre-election GOP stance - is now not only being eye-rolled by Democrats and the WH, but Boehner is now catching some serious flak on even that offer from his own right flank...
Jim DeMint took to twitter to bash the counteroffer, using the same language routinely used to bash the WH/Democratic proposal -- and Heritage has also announced its opposition.
I'm almost feeling sorry for Boehner... almost.
DeMint tweet
You've got that wrong.
It isn't Day Z that is doing it, it's War Z that is saying all those things.
They are two different games by two different developers.
War Z is the copy-cat that is now facing a forum rebellion because of a rogue moderator who spilled the beans about the truth behind the developers.
You should in no way attribute the evil of War Z with Day Z.
(And this is coming from someone who hasn't/won't be playing either game.)
This is what I was getting at, especially the lack of any real oversight. My apologies for conflating "decisions on who and when to attack" and "drone policy" in general.
Iran has Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians in its parliament. Does it not qualify as an ethno-religious oligarchy either?
So, if the Governor is traveling on official business, aren't the citizens of Arizona entitled to know where?
Ah okay, thanks for correcting me.
Israel occupied and controlled the West Bank and Gaza from 1967 until recently (and still largely CONTROL the areas they do not "occupy") the people living there did not and do not get to vote for the Knesset- unless they are Jewish.
It's not as bad as South Africa before apartheid, it's more like pre-civil rights act US South...
Also on the cliff, Pelosi is apparently filing the threatened 'discharge petition' later today. This would require the bill passed by the Senate last year (which extends tax cuts for all but the top bracket of earnings) permanently to come to the House floor for a vote.
Word is that the Democrats will have all 193 caucus members as signatories - so it just needs 25 GOP signers...
Will it get any?
There are some obvious leaners -- Tom Cole is already on record as supporting this (which doesn't necessarily mean he'll sign on to the Discharge petition, of course). There was also a story in The Hill yesterday about Boehner and Hensarling cleaning house and whacking the crap out of some GOP caucus members who weren't as supportive of leadership as desired -- sounds like at least half a dozen Congressional Republicans are losing preferred committee seats due to going rogue.
The gauntlet is clearly being thrown down... the question - especially in regards to the Discharge petition - is now going to be whether this backfires or strengthens GOP unity.
Interesting stuff -- I'm not sure I like Boehner's odds here... could be his Borodino, could be his Waterloo, could be his Austerlitz.
I think I'd rank them in that order so far as likelihood.
I like Matt Yglesias' proposal that we should replace the fiscal cliff with a law allowing Pete Peterson to kick Obama and Boehner in the balls really hard if they fail to pass a deficit plan.
The hits just keep on coming!
Witness this from a National Journal roundtable on GOP 'outreach' -- because, you know, if I'm looking to cook up strategies for 'outreach', the pasty white, son-of-privilege-alone, snide lecturing Jonah Goldberg is precisely who I'd turn to for advice!
Good luck with that.... is there a place where I may donate money to have this idea put into commercial form, flier form, condensed into bumper stickers, and otherwise get this "message" further disseminated into those communities? Because I wholeheartedly agree that every non-pasty Jonahsze and Jonahguel needs to read it.
It's not as bad as South Africa before apartheid, it's more like pre-civil rights act US South...
True, but the assertion related to Israel proper. Israel, of course, offered the Palestinians a state with the vast majority of the West Bank, and were turned down.
Nor does it really matter whether Israel is more like South Africa or Alabama ca. 1965; most of the people complaining on this thread appear not to support the concept of a homeland for the Jewish people. That's what's animating them, far more so than tangential details of comparative political systems.
So, if the Governor is traveling on official business, aren't the citizens of Arizona entitled to know where?
Probably in the moated castle of Mitt Romney's accountant, and she ain't gotta show you no stinkin' papers. That's for Mexicans.
Oh and Mitt took a new job today - Board of Directors for Marriot
I don't see how a "deficit plan" is possible until we can arrive at baseline framework, agreed upon across the divide, about the role of entitlements in the debate.
Liberally speaking (cap L) - I just utterly refuse to negotiate changes to entitlements in a way that forces me to accept the big lie that pretends entitlement spending (and funding) is indistinguishable from discretionary spending and revenue.
If that means going over the cliff, so be it -- it feels weird marching over the edge arm-in-arm with the teapers, but I'll take the near-term economic hit over a furthering of a foundational, ideological trojan any day of the week.
Not new, old. This is the third time he'll have been on the board. He basically leaves every time he goes for public office and then comes back when he loses or he leaves office.
Or, perhaps, stand my ground, go over the cliff, then step aside. Either way, I think his ability to govern the House is gone with either outcome.
What if nobody else will take the job?
Right, the "What part of 'illegal' don't you understand?" party that wants to make it nearly impossible for Hispanics to become American citizens in the first place, now wants Hispanics to think of themselves as American citizens. I suppose we'll next be seeing a "Virtual Citizenship" category that enables the lucky recipient to be a member of Sheriff Arpaio's posse.
Clearly it's easy to find a job if you're a creator class maker and not a moocher class taker. Hell, see how easy Mitt Romney applied himself and found gainful employment in this "bad economy?"
The Speakership is a position of power, both in the government and in the Party. No politician has ever turned down an opportunity to accrue more power.
does this matter?
no, senator demint is just that, a senator. this is a negotiation between the house and the president.
why did he do it? because senator demint has carved out is role as the anti-all spending guy and so he took the required swipe at a plan that doesn't just attack spending.
the senator also doesn't think much of the speaker so this is a freebie at getting in those licks
This is an incorrect reading of the thread in my opinion.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main