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 0.6010 seconds
55 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.
He will have less than a week to actually write legislation. There will be at most two or three days. Boehner has zero leverage, because it is quite clear that he can only deliver 50-100 votes for any compromise. Obama and the D's are going to have to deliver the rest. If he proposes anything significantly to the left of "Plan B" he likely loses his speakership. Plan B was already pretty far right, with money being stripped from children's programs and food stamps gratuitously thrown in. Functionally, his bargaining power has decreased from 218 votes in the House to around 50 votes in the House. Obama should probably not offer anything more than the current deal. If he does, he should get some variant of the payroll tax exemption thrown in.
Assume we go over the cliff:
The media has been building up "the cliff" as a thing for a little while now, pretty much since the election. The media story will be pretty clear on why we went over. Boehner either loses his speakership or faces a protracted balloting process.
What passes in January? Do R's in the house actually refuse to vote for a middle class tax cut package? I assume that's the first order of business in the senate.
In that package:
1. tax cut for all those below 250K
2. Permanent expansion of child tax credit and EITC.
3. unemployment extenders + other forms of mild stimulus with payfors.
Does Obama have to offer more than that? Should he? R's have nothing that O wants, really, plus all those policies are very broadly popular. The only other additional item is the Debt Ceiling. If O really is willing to stick to his guns, he can destroy the Republican party's image for a generation.
lol, perhaps the biggest hyperbole I've read since Karl Rove's plan for a "permanent majority" via K Street. That only lasted what, 2 or 3 generations? possibly less, I forget.
A political generation is 8 years. I suppose I should have clarified.
Edit: To clarify, he blamed parents want for sports, stuff, than safety.
EVERYWHERE!
...jeebus... is this a man or a Dystopian Novel writ large?
The Untold History of the United States---> "Thirteen Days" (via a scene)---->Me successfully resisting the urge to rewatch "JFK"----->me unsuccessfully resisting the urge to look into Bugliosi's book, or read Jack Ruby's wiki article*----me being assdeep in 'conspiricy mode'
*But I did discover that in 1986 Bugliosi participated in a 21 hour long, broadcasted mock trial of Oswald, with actual witnesses. Fascinating.
edit: heh...and i worte this without reading 4209.
Which is a smart move for the NRA because it would only get worse if La Pierre had to answer questions.
fair enough, but betting the "under" on any particular political move changing the landscape for even 8 years is easy money. the public generally doesn't act/react in ways that partisans of all stripes want them to....
They will be the Zimmermilitia, the greatest patriots of them all.
PLus, you can have someone you know.. take out the crazy!
But hey - sure - let's put everyone with 'mental illness' in a national database!
Good lord... I'm not so sure I think Wayne should have a gun... or at minimum - I think he belongs in the national crazy people database he proposes.
That would require them to be thoughtful about how they handle their PR.
George Zimmerman.
Based on a scripted statement reading, I really cannot see any way it would be a good thing to have this guy answering questions...
So you're saying we can create more heroes?
That's ridiculous. They had a week to write that speech!
This was already asked and answered previously. That you ignore it does not mean it didn't happen.
This is what I am experiencing. I feel like a bad person. Still it bubbles up within me. Tomorrow I will be responsible and want to have a well run country, today on the Winter Solstice I want to celebrate the Earth turning back again towards the sun*.
* Yes I know this is not a good description of what is happening.
He may not have been cheered, but perhaps clipping the so-readily-mockable things from his speech might have forestalled the mocking. I mean, there might have been some legitimately fine ideas in what he said... but it's awfully hard to get past the endless stream of nonsense.
Seconded, with Christmas Tidings.
Since I believe that nothing can stop this kind of crazy that hasn't revealed itself yet, then La Pierre's rantings are just as insane as the left's rantings.
He talked about violent video games being a cause. Utterly silly, but no sillier than claiming that the current state of "loose" gun laws were a cause.
He talked about violent movies being a cause. Utterly silly, but no sillier than claiming that the current state of "loose" gun laws were a cause.
He talked about posting an armed guard in schools. Utterly silly, but no sillier than claiming that the current state of "loose" gun laws were a cause.
Etc etc etc. Why liberals think that they have some sort of intellectual high ground on the NRA is laughable. The liberal viewpoint on this is just as silly and cartoonish and childish as the NRA's is on the opposite end of the spectrum.
So basically, your argument is that Wayne calling for a whole bunch of non-tangentially related businesses is silly, but the one business that actually is related to guns, "The Gun business" is silly because its extra super silly?
THAT'S YOUR DEFENSE?
What is the "liberal position"?
While yes - there are most certainly 'liberals' who would be happy to ban guns outright - I don't know of ANY liberal of any influence or power who says anything of the sort....
The predominant liberal position on guns seems to be: 1)universal background checks for all manner of gun purchases, 2)banning of certain types of weapons (i.e., "assault weapons"), 3)banning of extended capacity magazines.
I personally support 1) & 3) very strongly - 2) seems hazier if only because 'assault weapons' seems a meaningless term.... but what's so crazy about 1) and 3)?
Stricter gun control, at the very least. And they will get it, because a crisis has provided an opportunity for them.
so you have gun sales increasing but not to folks who as a group are versed in gun safety and understand very clearly the danger presented by a gun.
It's become almost a disease...
Because without him, it becomes a *true* circle jerk.
Ray, LaPierre represents a useful position. Insane Huffpost commenters do not. So his saying silly things carrys more weight than random silly liberals.
As I've said before, I support the idea of an organization that says "Not one inch". It's hard to get behind that when he comes out just batshit insane.
Yeah, why interrupt the high fiving to consider a challenging viewpoint?
The sales increases are due to conspiratorial types hoarding weapons, in exactly the manner Adam Lanza's mother hoarded weapons.
And nothing can be done about "crazy", it is almost as if mental illness were a disease and we all know there is nothing to be done regarding disease but give up and suffer.
There has to be somthing between the real liberal position on guns and Ray. I am seriously there are country miles there, there has to be something.
Because you're not offering a challenging viewpoint?
Which is bad for wildlife. Not sure of the state of duck and geese populations (though living in the flyway, they look fine to my untrained eye) but in many areas the deer are too thickly spread, especially in the hills where their food supply is already at a paucity.
And why would that be a bad thing? Barring your belief that it's all pointless (and a trip down to the beach to kill an Arab?), what is the problem with stricter gun control, exactly?
Well, there's the fact that peer reviewed studies have shown that even the full-of-loopholes FAWB meaningfully decreased murders, while violent video games have been shown to not adversely affect empathy.
So, you know, besides all the people who have actually looked at the matter in a serious way.
I don't agree. HW certainly offers a thoughful, non-liberal position. And only people like ray think that all of those on the "left" march in lockstep.
I never said that nothing could be done about mental illness; but the approaches through drugs and therapy are part science and part art, and you simply will not cure or fix anything approaching 100% of the people, so, yes, there will always be crazy that will detonate like a ticking time bomb.
In Lanza's case, his profile - aloof, strange, anti-social - fits large swathes of kids. And he hadn't done anything criminal before this, and, really, gave no indication that he was capable of this. So it presented a particularly difficult problem. One kid out of every X of them who fit Lanza's profile will detonate no matter what you do. Stricter gun laws can't stop that.
I'm saying that we need people like Ray. To me at least, he doesn't come off as batshit insane.
I agree on this -
In fact, I have no real problem with gun safety even being offered in schools... I took a gun safety course in jr high -- in fact, I'm fairly sure it was taught by the NRA. Growing up in a rural area, lots of these lessons were also reinforced by the gun owners and enthusiasts in my life - but there was a sort of philosophical underpinning to that in-school safety course that seems absent nowadays.
To wit - it was about the responsibility of handling a firearm... the main thrust wasn't the idea "this thing can protect you from the crazies/government/hordes of whatever" -- the thrust was that this is a very powerful tool, holding it vests you with enormous responsibility above all else, and then plenty of the practical (how to check a chamber, never point it at anything you would shoot at, etc).
This is how advocates like the current LaPierre folks do no good -- Wayne might very well be well-versed in all of those theories of responsibility... he probably is -- but that's NOT what he sells...
He's selling mania, fear, and the like - why should we be surprised when the manic, the fearful, and the paranoid seem to be listening most to him?
Right. It's just John Cleese in the argument sketch.
No it isn't.
So something could be done (not 100%, but something)? Great let's increase funding for researching and treating mental illness that could lead to violence. As a liberal I will gladly work for that.
Sound like a deal?
I'd prefer batshit insane to reflexive contrarianism and nihlism. e.g., Joe K. is more interesting IMO.
Because the right to bear arms is a... right, and rights shouldn't be infringed upon lightly, and everyone knows that liberals don't plan to stop at "stricter gun control" but they will always be agitating for stricter and stricter gun control as long as anyone is allwed to bear any arm. So let's stop pretending that's not the case. Just like taxes will never be high enough for liberals, or Obamacare ultimately isn't universal enough for them, or wealth redistribution is never redistributive enough for them, so too will stricter gun control never be strict enough.
Do you really not know yourselves, or is your self-unawareness simply the obvious act it plays as?
I would let people walk on that pier, but I know they will just keep walking until they fall off the end, so why take even a step onto the pier. One or two step is never enough, don't you people know that?
One can't cook up a big steaming dish of nihilism with a healthy seasoning of paranoia!
The slippery slope only slides one direction, right?
It beats actually working?
This is what's frustrating to me. Ray keeps repeating that there's nothing that could be done, but he refuses to examine the counterfactual. In societies where something has been done, including strict gun control, we don't see these kinds of mass shootings. Yet he loudly and obnoxiously repeats that there's nothing that could be done.
And then he accuses "liberals" of not engaging.
My preference is for a mix. A logical premise built on defined assumptions can be nice. Pure politics and maneuvering is fun. Reflexive partisan sniping can be entertaining (especially when my side is the one sniping I admit). Contrarianism serves a purpose when thoughtful. Nihilism is boring - not because it is not philisophically significant (it is), but because it is poorly suited for the actuality of of politics. Insane has its place.
that is the flip side of the saem working theory and entirely plausible
but that lends itself to party creativity and i confess to not being comfortable assigning that level of credit
i do buy that folks got the word on what a 'certain significant befefactor' wanted and folks nodded and did what was asked
You pretended that Australia, a country with just 22 million people and vastly different demographics/culture/climate/geography, could be compared evenly to the US.
There's the crux of the matter for you, Ray. You're paranoid and belief that "liberals" are out to get you.
And here's the great catch 22: any country that enacts strict gun control is completely different by virtue of culture. So even though strict gun control has worked to reduce murders in literally every country in which it has been enacted, it could never work in the United States.
Studies that demonstrate an effect of the FAWB in reducing murder INSIDE the United States are ignored. What more evidence do you want? Like really? What more evidence would be convincing to you?
A part of the modern GOP and its ilk spends much of its time projecting its own worst tendencies and weaknessess on others. Rove is a master of the meme. And to be fair liberals and moderates are not immune to it either.
Any time I hear someone screaming about flaw 'x' in a person/cause/group I ask myself if the screamer has that exact issue, and most of the time the answer is yup.
Well, again, as at Utøya, sometimes we do. But that's not the main issue. Consider this analogy: San Francisco had a devastating earthquake in 1906 and a pretty bad one in 1989; both led to some preparedness reforms. Another big earthquake will hit some day, and minor ones hit all the time, but 83 years is beyond most human memory, and really, if a super-big one hits, the current codes will be useless anyway, the coast is toast and all of that. So the argument is, why bother regulating anything, these things are rare and we're defenseless against them.
But the argument sometimes verges on: there are big earthquakes from time to time, so why have any building codes anywhere? Why prepare against the minor earthquakes that hit SF, or the floods and winds and droughts that hit other places?
It ain't friggin' Mars fer chrissakes...
I mean, no one's talking about verbatim copying any legislation, forcing people to drink Fosters, and remember Paul Hogan again.
And you have decided prima facie that nothing can be done, and dismiss evidence that something can be done as out of bounds for whatever reason you can think of, because you are more interested in defending your prima facie assumptions than having a rational conversation on the subject.
Why, it's almost as if liberals didn't force me into Obamacare.
They push for higher taxes, more government, more spending, more redistribution. Those things affect me directly. The push for stricter gun laws doesn't affect me directly as I don't own any guns and don't ever plan to, but indirectly it is an infringement on freedom, and all because liberals don't understand what is happening in situations like the Lanza murders.
Remember your "social contract"? That affects me.
What is your argument, exactly? That liberals aren't out to push their agenda? Their agenda affects me. It has to, right? You guys weren't moral enough to get together on your own and pay for health care for everyone; you demanded I put my own skin in the game also.
It's almost as if you are incapable of convincing a majority of the citizenry of the republic to support your policies, and then get frustrated and lash out when you lose elections.
I should have properly stated that we don't see these kinds of mass shootings at anywhere near the scale.
I asked Joe this a while back and I don't think he ever answered. What country is a better match for the US?
Seriously, colonial heritage from GB. English speaking western democracy. Frontier/western heritage/mythology (the Western and its themes are pretty much exactly represented in Australia and their thoughts about the Outback during that roughly same time period). Culture of violence and gun loving. Swept through the country dealing with the aborigines in a brutal fashion. Basically a country of immigrants. And they are large enough to represent a very fair 'proof of concept' - seriously they are what, 1/14th, how many statitical studies need more than that to determine something statituically.
Arguing Australia is too different to be meaningful is arguing no other nation in the world, no other experience in the world, other than here in the US is meningful, because we are a special flower unlike any other in the world and our people are not like people elsewhere.
It does! It gives you benefits like "not having to defend yourself from bigger, stronger men, every time you walk down the street." Your precious "rule of law" and the "social contract" you throw into scare quotes are THE SAME THING, Ray.
I'd be curious to hear precisely what changes Obamacare wrought on your life... I presume you had health insurance prior to 2010, correct?
And I would expect this sort of rank "America is super special like a snowflake in hell" argument from Joe. But I'd like to think Ray wouldn't fall for it.
Windows8 changed everything.
Sure, but in what way is Australia not a good match for the US then? What other country is better?
He should have it. The ABA offers a group plan to its members.
Canada in all honesty.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main