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 0.9288 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.
The fact that I became a vegetarian while living near New Orleans tells me that I could probably do anything in the world if I put my mind to it.
I went all the way. (Note: Being an innately Bad Person, I'm no longer a vegetarian, though I probably eat meat -- & hardly ever red meat, at that -- maybe once a week, if that.) No shrimp, no catfish, no nothing. Never have felt compelled to sample crawfish, except maybe in etouffe once.
Wikipedia claims that "Kerry threw some of his decorations as well as some given to him by other veterans to throw."
Here is an article from a firsthand witness, who says that Kerry threw his own ribbons as well as various things that other people had given him to throw. Never pretended to be throwing all of his decorations are, did what he did in plain sight, etc. Article concludes by essentially politely calling the people who harp on "THREW SOMEONE ELSE'S MEDALS" misleading jackasses.
So it seems like it's possibly true in some sense, wherein "ribbons" may not strictly be "medals" (whereas both are "decorations" and in fact there are specific ribbons given out specifically with, and specifically representing, specific medals), the implication is just typical right wing fever swamp material. He never claimed to be throwing his own "medals" specifically; he did throw his own decorations, potentially including those representing medals; the decorations of other people that he threw were specifically given to him so that he could throw them over.
If any of you wingnuts have a better explanation than "THREW SOMEONE ELSE'S MEDALS" being right wing fever swamp material with implications by omission and misleading phrasing, and evidence to prove it, I'm all ears.
I'm guessing that Youk is experiencing significant genetic drift since the trade. Right?
Any change in Kevin Youkilis' genetics would automatically have to be an improvement.
Couple of points here:
1. DiPerna and I have both been civil in this thread, and I have only posted in it once until this point. And DiPerna as he noted did not get involved at all until #205. What you said above was less civil than anything I said to Eso or about you IMO, and although DiPerna was sarcastic, he wasn't really that nasty (YMMV).
2. I simply said that I thought it was funny, in view of the all sturm und drang about political threads, that you posted this. It doesn't bother me in the least that you did so, and if it did, I would simply go talk about baseball on another thread or go back to the NBA Thread. Given the site's history, however, it was unrealistic to think that the thread would die after 20 jokey posts about Obama and Youkilis, particularly in an election year.
I also notice that DiPerna and I got called out for going a little meta, whereas this post from Joey B seemingly got a pass:
One interesting theory would be that "what David Nieporent believes is the perfect and only qualification for SCOTUS justice is not, in fact, the perfect and only means a person could be qualified to be a SCOTUS justice."
Another theory might go so far as to suggest that there exist multiple paths via which someone might qualify to be a justice, and no candidate must pass through only the Gates of David.
A final idea is that no matter how much he whinges and cries, practical experience dictates that Elena Kagan is obviously more qualified to be justice of the SCOTUS than David Neiporent, and all of his whinging about her "judicial reasoning" is little more than sour grapes.
OK, I was exaggerating to make a point.
But I'd considered the baseball analogy. Most of the Court comes up from the federal circuits, so, sure, the things they do are a lot like what the Supreme Court does. Most federal appellate judges started as either federal prosecutors or federal bureaucrats. Any other kind of lawyer (or a non-lawyer) could be appointed, though, and could be effective in the role despite never having been a federal appellate judge. I don't see how those jobs demonstrate Supreme Court skills any better than, say, that public defender in Georgia.
I understand that no one cares about this kind of diversity, so it will not have any effect on actual Court selections. Obama is not going to say, "Hey, an Ohio state district court judge, perfect" (and neither will any other President). But it's odd and interesting to me that the Supreme Court has become so limited in this way, to draw from this relatively tiny pool of potential Justices.
I just read Furtado's #259 [edit: the post RR just quoted in his #311].
Then I read it again, to see if it really said what I thought it said.
Holy ####.
Dude, you wanna troll your own blog, go right ahead; but trolling your own blog and not owning up to it when called on it? Not a good look.
And it explains why Clarence Thomas is my favorite Supreme Court justice by a wide margin: because whether you like his POV or not, he has a very consistent view of what Constitution does and does not allow and he follows it relentlessly, even when it takes him to places where he personally does not want to go. THAT is the true test of principle, and it gives the lie to Wilkinson's thesis that judges just reverse-engineer their personal opinions about what they like and don't like to fit them into "constitutional"/"non-constitutional" boxes.
Gonzales v. Raich, the medical marijuana case, is a perfect example of this: Thomas wrote a fantastic dissenting opinion where he made clear that although he obviously thought smoking weed was a stupid habit, that the federal government nevertheless had absolutely no business regulating the growth of marijuana for personal consumption under its Interstate Commerce Clause powers. (In other words: Wickard v. Filburn was wrongly decided.) Meanwhile Scalia sold his soul and joined the majority upholding federal interference, even though he voted with the earlier majorities in Lopez and Morrison.
In a nutshell that's why I consider Scalia to be something of a hack (albeit a brilliant hack) and Thomas to be the most principled conservative/libertarian on the Court: he actually DOESN'T 'cheat' intellectually to find his way to an outcome that squares with his personal beliefs. Instead he goes where he believes the Constitution forces him to go, whether he wants to be there or not. (Lawrence v. Texas is another example: Thomas said in his dissent that he thought the TX anti-sodomy statute was an uncommonly terrible law, and that he would have sought to overturn it if he were a member of the TX legislature, but that this was the job of the state legislature to overturn and not the federal courts since he couldn't find anything in the Constitution that prohibited Texas from passing these sorts of benighted, stupid laws.)
Dunno. I think I'd believe his sincerity, but crazy plus sincere is not exactly what I'm looking for in a politician.
Yep. Folks around here (and in general) treat the Constitution the way evangelical literalists treat the Bible. Nothing good comes from any of it.
Example: the commerce clause doesn't actually say anything useful, for either side. It's a nebulous piece of crap, textually. You can see in it any goddamned thing you like.
But, what's worse, is once those with the power of concencration decree, it's almost impossible (without violence) to gainsay what they decree. They become holy. Priests and their writs. We need guides; we need guides that are institulionalized in our system. We don't need this pull toward an unquestioning holiness. That is a big problem. That needs to be degraded.
This is why 85% of all libertarians are lawyers or programmers.
Doesn't prove that they didn't run bad campaigns, but Jonathan's fundamental point is that what passes for analysis generally starts with the result and works backwards.
Not saying I agree with Jonathan's point -- my recollection of Kerry's campaign is not positive. But I think the approach he's taken has an awful lot of merit.
Can there be any doubt about this? Yet, we all pretend we make arguments detached from our psychology. It's ludicrous.
Mark Twain, as usual, sums it up neatly:
But, remember, the difference is power. You and I have our views, and so does the Supreme Court. But it has an army and navy to go along with it's undeniable edicts.
I agree with this, and am quite certain (though like others up thread I rarely have reason to dig into SC case law anymore) I could recognize his opinions above all others on the Court, though Scalia definitely has a recognizable style too. Thomas and Bryer are the most interesting two justices to hear speak, no matter the topic.
It's possible Twain did say it and Shaw just said something very similar, I guess; I don't know 100% that Twain didn't say it. I do know that Shaw said something very similar to it.
Look, if you tell me that having served as a p.d. would be a useful experience for a justice, I'll agree wholeheartedly. As would having served as a trial judge. Or an ALJ. Or a litigator. But those should be in addition to time spent on the appellate bench, not instead of. That's both because being an appellate judge is good training for being a justice, and because, from the perspective of everyone else, there's no way to evaluate how good a justice a person can be if this person has spent their whole career plea bargaining on behalf of guys caught in buy-and-busts.
I agree with this statement. David, are you ever concerned at how difficult it is for SC justices to get confirmed now-a-days? It seems like you can't ever have said something interesting on abortion, guns or pot. That bothers me.
In short, we don't even get the best legal minds from the appellate court. We get the ones that people think can get confirmed.
There's a strong observation bias here too, though. I work as an academic in hard science, so the few conservatives that are around mostly shut up at work, since they're outnumbered 20:1. In grad school, I think there were probably 20 socialists, 20 liberals, and a conservative; he didn't have much of a chance. I've no idea if anyone I'll talk to today votes Tory (or BNP!?), but I know they won' mention it; any political discussion is likely to be effectively "Labour is too socially conservative, and LibDem is too fiscally conservative.", and draw close to consensus. So outliers visibility is suppressed.
I'm guessing you were the one who constantly didn't have the nuts to own up to anything he said or did.
This may be a shock but reading political threads isn't my first priority in life. I haven't had time to follow-up on this thread as I was busy with my wife last night and I am at work today. I still don't have time to read the last few pages. I have read this page.
I assume there were responses. I also assume they are the same responses I have gotten when I have made similar comments in the past, so....
The idea that any post which mentions the current President must devolve into a rancorous discussion is laughable just like the mention of breasts doesn't give people permission to go Beavis and Butthead and just like wearing a short dress doesn't open a woman up to crude comments.
Also, the idea that I haven't responded or taken someone to task for something written here doesn't mean the person has gotten a pass. It either means I have already tried to addressed the issue with a blanket statement or I haven't read it.
When I have more time I will catch up on the thread and will try to respond to both the silly comments and the valid questions.
If you haven't gathered by now, I do not enjoy babysitting these threads. With the redesign, those of you who belligerently blather on and on will be free to do so with a lot less hassle from me. (BTW, if you are offended by this comment I probably am talking about you; if you are not, I probably am not talking about you.)
As I said before, "Holy terrible analogy Batman!"
Plus I'm dumbfounded that after all this time running a website you would assert that a mention of the current President should not be expected to "devolve into a rancorous discussion."
I am also a bit dismayed by your assertion that the political disagreements expressed here are akin to Beavis and Butthead slobbering and saying, "hee hee, he said breastmeat" or some such thing. For what its worth the caliber of political discussion here, trolling included, tends to be far higher than at overtly political sites.
*An assertion that the Christian bible is meant to be read literally is a relatively recent phenomena
Fools walk in...
This literalist, and all those of my acquaintance, would freely offer the obvious answer: it was his sister.
Two points:
1. The laws transcribed by Moses, including those condemning incest, came many centuries after Cain's lifetime. There were no biblical prohibitions on it when Adam's and Eve's kids were making families.
2. Most literalists believe that many of the debilitating aspects of sin's entrance into the world (thru the serpent's deception) occurred gradually. One can see that viewpoint in the Bible, the many-century lifespans prior to the Noahic flood, Abraham dying at 175, Moses at 120 about 5 centuries later, to the "threescore and ten" of the psalmist. The inference is that the genetic issues related to inbreeding did not become significant until many years had passed since the forbidden fruit was eaten.
*The "assertion" may be relatively recent, but the assumption of literalism functioned from New Testament days (probably for Old Testament times, too) pretty much up thru the Enlightenment. The persecutions of Copernicus and Galileo, though based on misinterpretations of scripture, illustrate the literalist assumption. They also illustrate that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
Well, that leaves me out.
If being a literalist means you get to make #### up, sign me up!
yes.
You see in Genesis Ch 1, Adam and Eve are told to be fruitful and multiply- and they (before the fall- i.e., being kicked out of Eden) obeyed and were fruitful and multiplied....
or, you see their is a later reference to Eve having many children after Seth- some of whom were undoubtedly daughters, and Cain and Abel were already adults when Cain slew Abel (and people lived several hundred years back then dontcha know) of course that requires accepting that Genesis is not written in strict chronological order,,,
so Adam and Eve had Seth and then lived 800 years after that having many sons and daughters and one of those daughters became Cain's wifie at some point in time?
Sometimes you people are no fun at all.
It also allows you to magically find human rights in the "personhood" of corporations too.
but Corporations are made up of people!!!
getting back to 337
or as the commentary to the online version of the King James Bible puts it:
that back and forth gets a little prickly, and some exasperated soul asks:
The final response, after explaining that Adam and Eve had heaps of youn-uns in their 900 odd years (and their being no laws against incest back then):
Can we then eat them?
And as with a number of books of the Bible, Genesis isn't always chronological. One example: Most of Ch 2, that portion after the sabbath discussion, is additional details concerning day 6 of the creation account. That's the logical interpretation whether one thinks the Bible to be God's inerrant word or whether one considers it to be semitic tribal legends.
We evolved!
Yes, bad analogy. The proper analogy would be: a woman wearing a short dress goes up to the man and says "Let's have sex," and then halfway through the sex she suddenly calls foul and then later she suggests to everyone in the community that maybe the man is a bad person because she didn't really give the man consent to have sex with her.
No, "When did you stop beating your wife?" is a classic question assuming a fact not in evidence- and there is a perfectly respectable response, anything along the lines of "I've never beaten my wife"
or "Have you stopped beating your wife?" can be seen as a trick question- if you answer "no" [because you never started so how can you stop?] the assumption is that you currently beat your wife, if you answer "yes" then you are implicitly admitting having beaten your wife in the past
"Where did Cain get his wife" queries OTOH are legitimate questions that have long history, if you as a "literalist" are going to assert that the Bible is the word of God, and it is literally true, and these stories are true, not just allegories* then you #$%@ well better be able to answer these types of questions
*I was raised Roman Catholic, and while I have quite few shall we say disagreements with the RC Church, one thing I am in absolute agreement with the Church is Protestants, particularly literalist/fundamentalist types have a really wrongheaded and butchered interpretation of the Bible - at every level
devolved, you see people like Methusaleh lived longer back then because "our" current shortened lifespans are the result of the mass inbreeding among the first few generations...
This. While the literalist interpretation does have an answer (sister, or mother, #######) it's still an answer that needs to be given if you're advancing your interpretation. The correct answer to the wifebeating question is a fist to the face.
I'm personally of the opinion that if there is a Judeo-Christian God, He's truly ineffable, and hence not bound by logic. Take that, problem of evil and paradox of the stone! Things get easier when you can just say masha'allah to everything.
352: Still, evolution. Darwin wins!
We call this the Julian Assange case.
Winner. Cain's wife was Ukrainian. Clearly.
Apparently he met her while she was waitressing at a steakhouse.
The Bible just gets weirder and weirder all the time, man.
You watch your ass, Victoria Jackson, the Chuckster is gunning for your place in the pantheon of washed-up wingnuts ...
51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
No mention of Rick or Laurie.
Meh, Thomas is certainly more consistent than, say, Scalia, but he's not any moreso than Ginsberg. Breyer isn't significantly inconsistent. The thing that makes Thomas notable is that it's clear how he's going to vote before the oral argument because his consistency is far more predictable than the other relatively consistent justices. Also, there aren't that many cases where Thomas signs on to a decision that goes against where he wants to go, and certainly not any major cases. Raich doesn't count, considering it would have overturned Wickard v. Filburn.
Oh Chuckles. No one working on the gay agenda has a tight cahoot any longer.
You forgot to allow the people who claim the only "consistent judicial theory" is "strict constructionism" to beg their question. No soup for you.
I always crack up at that concept considering how much disagreement there was about what everything meant back when the Constitution was actually written. Ahistorical constructions claiming historical validity are always fun.
Textual inerrantists are a funny lot.
Wait, that's not going to be effective trolling at all. Never mind.
On what scale?
3d6, probably.
Yeah. Certainly not 1-10. But being generally in good health with no medical issues to speak of, rarely sick, while working a job that leads to a sedentary lifestyle and not eating great probably equals out to an average or slightly below average Con score. Of course, that's ignoring potential age group modifiers, I've got a better Con than the average person twice my age. What, not everyone has figured out what their RL stats are? I'm a whole mess of average, for the most part. 10, 8, 10, 12, 15, 9, or thereabouts.
eta: That's right, this is a D&D threadjack attempt. WOO, SAVE VS. NERD RESISTANCE! The 15 could probably be as high as 18 or as low as 12 depending on how much you count or discount standardized tests and cultural bias in determining intellect.
Ah, you're going in the current stat order. I learned "Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma" (or "SIWDCCh") as a child and never successfully trained myself to make the switch.
Wow, are you sure you should be slumming here? Throw in a 12 inch penis and you could qualify as an average poster at MMA.com
2 minutes = 14 (pretty much a 3-18 scale). For INT or IQ if on a 3-18 scale you can usually use your measured IQ/10 (get a roughly correct bell curve).
It is not recommended you reverse engineer your health/con stat by finding out how many hit points you have.
I learned it as Str Dex Con Wis Int Cha back when it was still 2nd Ed.
I was doing it off the probability of rolling 3-18 or above. I definitely do not have a 150 IQ, as evinced by the current soccer thread example of me and mathfail.
I did find the following very amusing:
Yes, the whole beta area is a figment of imagination. You got me.
As is the even more frequently evoked catchphrase of right wing comfort food, "states' rights", a noble concept which seems to be quickly dismissed by the Scalias of the world as soon as a state decides it wants to reign in corporations rather than Mexicans.
Could a Neshoba County Fair argument be far behind?
The poster in question apparently comes to this site to be pissed off about its choice of topics and the people on it. His political views tend towards "ask not what your country can do for you, ask why you're such a commie libtard." His primary interest in baseball seems to be aggravation-based. If he were a paramecium, he'd be against osmosis.
I dunno, Jim. You just pulled up baseless personal shot at you from 100 posts before to dismiss it sarcastically. You're a natural at this!
The common law system has at least some precedent, in the literal sense, for judges interpreting the law and building law based upon past judicial systems. Marshall wasn't building on a house of sand. Maybe a foundation of sandstone, but it wasn't totally new.
eta: Kinda sad that my D&D hijack died :(
Could a Neshoba County Fair argument be far behind?
Might be, except that the candidate who most famously invoked that slithery catchphrase at that particular venue has long since gone to his reward.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Re: #375--
The poster in question apparently comes to this site to be pissed off about its choice of topics and the people on it. His political views tend towards "ask not what your country can do for you, ask why you're such a commie libtard." His primary interest in baseball seems to be aggravation-based. If he were a paramecium, he'd be against osmosis.
That's almost "Don't immanentize the eschaton"-worthy. And it's also completely accurate.
Also, I let this pass in my first response, but who's talking about "strict constructionism" in the first place? Scalia says, for instance,Scalia calls himself a textualist, but I suspect that most non-legal-theorist conservatives who use the term "strict constructionism" mean pretty much the same thing, and don't mean "overly literalist." And then of course there's originalism.
See Davey, you're a natural at this "reading the words to mean what you want them to mean." Just keep making it up as you go, tyke.
Even the gods toyed about on the beaches of Troy. It's amusing sometimes.
That is utterly ridiculous.
Quick, where's Diomedes?
10:08 Amy Howe: The individual mandate survives as a tax.
10:09 Amy Howe: It's very complicated, so we're still figuring it out.
10:10 Tom: So the mandate is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the Court.
10:11 Amy Howe: The Medicaid provision is limited but not invalidated.
10:13 Tom: The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.
and then there is the Supremacy clause:
It has been pointed out by more than a few people that Congress theoretically has the power to divet the SCOTUS of teh ability to pass on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress:
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Someone tell John Boehner so he can get started on that!
Edit: After a good cry, of course.
CNN's headline says the mandate was killed...it's been up for 5 minutes. Everyone else says it stays. Big oops for someone.
For once, CNN is thankful no one pays attention to them...
Isn't that technically accurate?
IOW, Roberts split the baby. He killed the mandate, but kept the penalty. IOW, congress can't tell people that they MUST buy insurance, but they can levy a fine for not buying insurance.
Sort of a stupid fig leaf for Roberts, but hey, it's cool by me.
10:18 Amy Howe: The money quote from the section on the mandate: Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.
10:20 Amy Howe: The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate.
So early reports are that the unconstitutional mandate has been ruled constitutional.
But let's wait until people (not me until tonight) have a chance to read the whole decision.
10:22 Lyle: The key comment on salvaging the Medicaid expansion is this (from Roberts): "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding." (p. 55)
10:25 Amy Howe: The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main