| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
Tuesday open thread
Here’s your open thread for today.
I’ll start it off with my thoughts on Barry Bonds’ hitting his 715th HR this past weekend, passing Babe Ruth’s 714 to become #2 on the most career homeruns list. The only one left to catch now is Hank Aaron, who holds the record at 755 HRs.
Bonds is not ruling out a return to baseball next year, so assuming he’s healthy, he’ll be back because his ego is too big to miss out on the opportunity to pass Hank Aaron’s record.
I just cannot get excited about him passing Ruth’s record. Not just because of the steroids controversy (see more here) but because he’s just an all-around jerk. Of course we don’t get to pick and choose those who breaks records.
Are there many people out there, outside of Giants’ fans (and the person who catches HR #756), who are excited about Bonds’ inching closer to Aaron’s record?
—
On an unrelated sports note, don’t forget the Hurricanes play the Sabres tonight in Buffalo – game six game time is 7:30 PM ET. If the ‘Canes win tonight, they’ll go on to face Edmonton in the finals. If it goes to seven games, game seven will be played in Raleigh Thursday night.
WED AM UPDATE: The ‘Canes lost in a heartbreaker last night: 2-1 in OT.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
34 Responses to “Tuesday open thread”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
When major league baseball gives a Mr. Congeniality Award, Bonds is out of the running. Stearoids, schmeroids. Would the Babe have made his record batting against Satchel Paige or some of the other Negro League giants? Perhaps all the pre-Robinson records need an asterisk to say “*against an all white competition.” And the Robinson records need “*quit the Army in the middle of WWII.”
Of course, my last paid admission to ML Baseball, Willie Mays muffed an easy grounder and I yelled “O.K. Willie, it’s only a game!”
Hey, I would go drinking with Teresa as long as she didn’t bring you know who along. I just don’t see her as First Lady, or as HE sees her, First Payday. I want Barry to make it. You too.
Did anybody ever tell you you are cute when you are mad?
House Republicans hit bottom, start blasting and digging.
Another story the MSM will never report.
I love the name “Charity, Freedom and Diversity Party”. Always remember: secular progressive European governments are our intellectual and moral betters. The MSM says so.
Don’t much care about Bonds. Do performance enhancing drugs improve hand-to-eye coordination? Do they improve optimum swing? If the “just-barely-made-it’s” were removed, how many would he have then? Considering he was a jerk before the juice, did the alleged drug intake make him worse? I guess if they let him play, he gets the records he sets.
Mwa – yes 82% are against it…..This year…. Give them 5 or 10 more years and it will be law. Same things the “progressives” are trying to pull off here.
- Bang
“Another story the MSM will never report.”
Reuters is running it. They’re not mainstream?
This is great:
LINK
Now, what were some of our resident liberals saying about how liberal policies were making things better? Or that they were not at fault for such things as societal collapse and the resulting problems in the schools with education?
“Now, what were some of our resident liberals saying about how liberal policies were making things better? Or that they were not at fault for such things as societal collapse and the resulting problems in the schools with education?”
Sowell makes a classic mistake: mistaking ‘liberal’ for ‘democrat’ in civil rights. Loads of democrats back then weren’t liberals. They were the ones opposing civil rights.
Gee andrew, the Democrats all tell us that they were responsible for civil rights today. Someone’s lying, imagine that! Also, I see that’s the only argument you’ve managed to find about what he’s saying.
Liberal ideology, making the world worse but feeling good about it!
- Sev… Remember the “NUANCE”….Them’s the “old left”… these are the “new left”
- You have to have some way to get around all the dichotomies, and conflicted memes….
- Bang
“Gee andrew, the Democrats all tell us that they were responsible for civil rights today”
The ones that remained, sure. But back then? Bull connor was a democrat. Today do you think Bull Connor would vote democrat? He was no liberal. He was conservative.
“Sev… Remember the “NUANCE”….Them’s the “old left”… these are the “new left”"
The democrats loss of southern white males isn’t nuanced at all. Its rather stark. Like I said, Bull Connor? not left.
Andrew are you reading the same article as the rest of us? Because I have now read Thomas Sowell’s article “Preserving the Liberal Vision” twice and there is only one place he mentions “Democrats” and that was on the Civil and Voting Rights Acts. He points out the voting records on both those Acts with Republicans having a higher percentage for. I do not see one place where Sowell says all Democrats are liberal or all liberals are Democrats. He talks about liberals period not their party affiliation he is talking about a philosophy a vision about how liberals think they have all the answers. Which history has proved the liberal answers of how to better society were and are wrong that’s it nothing more and nothing less?
Reuters is running it. They’re not mainstream?
It appears you are right, andrew. Must have been a fit of temporary sanity on Reuter’s part.
But don’t worry – things seem to be going back to (ab)normal.
“Thomas Sowell’s article “Preserving the Liberal Vision” twice and there is only one place he mentions “Democrats” and that was on the Civil and Voting Rights Acts.”
Thats the part i’m talking about. Confusing ‘democrat’ with ‘liberal’ on civil rights. Lots of democrats back then were decidedly NOT liberal.
And andrew, as usual, manages to fixate on a piece of trivia and misses or ignores the greater truth and point of the article.
“And andrew, as usual, manages to fixate on a piece of trivia and misses or ignores the greater truth and point of the article.”
Uh, the liberal commitment to civil rights is not trivia. Nor is the fact that people confuse democrats back then with liberals. They werent. They never were. And its those democrats that don’t vote democrat anymore.
And once again, andrew, you’re obsessing over the nit and not the meat of the article. But that’s a well known liberal “debating” tactic, and really required when your entire argument is based on feel good emotions and not facts.
“And once again, andrew, you’re obsessing over the nit and not the meat of the article”
Its not really nit. Its one of the points he put into his piece.
Andrew is trying to twist this into “Conservatives were and are Prejudice” no matter what the party affiliation if you were in the south (Robert Bird W.V. D). Andrew is defining people from the 60’s using today’s litmus test of what a liberal and a conservative are, you can’t change history Andrew!
“And its those democrats that don’t vote democrat anymore.”
Hey Andrew that’s because most of those Democrats are dead now, Oh but I forgot they can still vote Democrat.
“Andrew is defining people from the 60’s using today’s litmus test of what a liberal and a conservative are, you can’t change history Andrew!”
Of course not. Some people were for progress, for liberalizing. And some people were for conserving the old ways. Conservatism. And party makeups of today don’t really match that.
Sowell is trying to make a point about liberalism by talking about democrats in the 60’s. Loads of democrats in the 60’s were definately not liberal. Loads of them wanted to conserve the old ways.
andrew is still picking the one and only trivial thing in the article that he can use to attempt to obsfucate the issue, again. Ad nauseum, while totally ignoring the fact that the liberal agenda has been a train wreck of monumental proportions. Intellectually disingenuous at best.
And gee, if all those Democrats turned Republican, how does that account for Robert “KKK” Byrd?
“andrew is still picking the one and only trivial thing in the article that he can use to attempt to obsfucate the issue, again.”
again? people are asking about it and i’m addressing it. But its not nitpicking — sowell used it as an example, he wasn’t nitpicking — and he’s wrong.
“And gee, if all those Democrats turned Republican, how does that account for Robert “KKK” Byrd?”
Some of them turned towards civil rights. But I don’t think we still have democrats against civil rights. They either left the party or shaped up.
Some people were for progress, for liberalizing. And some people were for conserving the old ways. Conservatism.
For one thing it wasn’t “Liberalizing” it was reaffirming rights granted to everyone under our Constitution it was the Federal Government forcing States to do away with the “Jim Crow Laws”. The Jim Crow Laws in the Southern States was an “in your face thing” to the Federal Government after the Civil War. After WW2 there was a movement to end the Jim Crow Laws it was in the 50’s that the Supreme Court ruled that the Univ. of Texas must admit a black. You have no idea what Conservatism is, the people that wanted to keep the Jim Crow Laws they were prejudges or racists they were not and have no resemblance to Conservatives. Read a little history Andrew you might be enlightened.
“it was reaffirming rights granted to everyone under our Constitution”
The civil rights act was explicitly going beyond the constitution and limiting private discrimination too. That woolworth’s lunch counter? That wasnt constiutional.
And yet one more time andrew, you are obsessing over one item to allow you to deflect the very valid criticism presented in Sowell’s piece. I notice you seem to completely ignore the fact that every measure of the health of a society got worse after the liberal ideology was forced into both law and society at large. This is the point of the article, and you consistently try and deflect attention by obsessing over one small item.
It’s a tried and true approach liberals often use in arguments, thinking they are clever, in order to derail any discussion or focus on the real issues. Common practice when you have no facts or connection to reality, it’s intellectually lazy and dishonest, and you tend to practice it a lot around here. And I suspect everyone sees thru your little attempts at obsfucation.
Andrew The Civil Rights Act did not go beyond the US Constitution it forced State, City and County Governments as well as Private Businesses to obey the Constitution. We are a Republic of Laws set forth by our Constitution if we were a Democracy then it’s majority rule.
In 1954 the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kans., declaring separate facilities by race to be unconstitutional. Blacks in the South used legal suits, mass sit-ins, and boycotts to hasten desegregation. A march on Washington by over 200,000 in 1963 dramatized the movement to end Jim Crow. Southern whites often responded with violence, and federal troops were needed to preserve order and protect blacks, notably at Little Rock, Ark. (1957), Oxford, Miss. (1962), and Selma, Ala. (1965). The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 finally ended the legal sanctions to Jim Crow.
These Acts force the Southern States to Follow the US Constitution and the States to over see that Private Businesses were and are obeying the law of the United States.
Yes, you’ve said that about ten times now and no one is buying it. Move on, please “andrew” (or is it “shortz” or “h.garner” ?). –ST
Sev, instead of “tried and true”, it is the “tired and dishonest” approach liberals use…
PCD, it is frustrating when indisputable facts especially in history are presented to liberals and it parts their hair as it fly’s over their heads. They say they are open minded and progressive and conservatives don’t want change we want to keep the same old ways (stagnate, no change, closed minded). I guess I am since the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are over 200 years old and believe that both have been misinterpreted and trampled on by the Judiciary and Congress. If believing this Country is great because of its people and not the Government I guess I’m a Conservative. If believing the restraints the Government has placed on Capitalism has slowed the growth and economy in this Country I guess I’m a Conservative. If believing the way we are Taxed is a complete abortion and needs to be completely redone I guess I’m a Conservative. If believing in individual freedom of choice with out Government interference I guess I’m a Conservative.
I am still trying to figure out how liberals = progress. Do liberal think so highly of Castro due to some mind warped ideas of progress?? Seems to me the old addage is true, birds of a feather do flock together. If Castro’s Cuba is progress, let’s go back to the old ways.
Also I find it funny that one of the greatest times of change, was not brought on by a democrat, but by the first republican President. The more I learn about the Republican party, the more I realize that this is the instrument for change, for the better, in this country. – Lorica
Jim and Lorica,
Liberals do so think of themselves as the highest evolution of man. They think they are better than anyone else and treat all non-fellow travellers with contempt. The only “liberals” they disavow are Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mugabe because they massively killed people, but only a grudging disavowal.
PCD, Clinton said it best when he said “They the Government know better on how to spend your money than you who earned it”. That is one of the liberal visions they would take your whole paycheck and give you back what they deem you need.
Early in the Clinton Administration, Lloyd Bentsen said that the Clinton Admin wanted to lower interest rates to enable taxpayers to pay more taxes.
The reasoning was if you weren’t paying so much interest to banks, you could pay more in taxes.