Escape from Elba

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - whiskeypriest

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 91
31
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 12, 2019, 07:31:04 PM »
I'm pretty confident that nothing short of the use of the n-word registers as racist with Red.    And that doesn't mean that I believe Red to be a racist.
Well, thanks.
Then you must agree that using racism ,which  did not happen, to libel a family deserves financial
punishment.
And how is being pro-life racist?
Are you suggesting there would be no pro-life movement if most babies aborted were white?
I was around in the days before Roe and blacks were most vocal in opposing abortions. Led by Jesse Jackson who said he feared the guys in the white coats more than the ones in the blue coats.
You seem to have problems with the phrase, "akin to". You may want to look that up.
LOL
Ah. Nice dodge. You have no response to having your deliberate misrepresentation of Gillibrand's comments pointed out to you. Behave as expected.
I didn’t misrepresent anything.
You simply ignored Gillabrand’s posturing.
You seem to have problems with the phrase, "akin to". You may want to look that up.

32
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 12, 2019, 07:22:19 PM »
I'm pretty confident that nothing short of the use of the n-word registers as racist with Red.    And that doesn't mean that I believe Red to be a racist.
Well, thanks.
Then you must agree that using racism ,which  did not happen, to libel a family deserves financial
punishment.
And how is being pro-life racist?
Are you suggesting there would be no pro-life movement if most babies aborted were white?
I was around in the days before Roe and blacks were most vocal in opposing abortions. Led by Jesse Jackson who said he feared the guys in the white coats more than the ones in the blue coats.
You seem to have problems with the phrase, "akin to". You may want to look that up.
LOL
Ah. Nice dodge. You have no response to having your deliberate misrepresentation of Gillibrand's comments pointed out to you. Behave as expected.

33
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 12, 2019, 06:18:43 PM »
If you read this:

“I think there’s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have, as a society, decided that the other side is not acceptable,” Gillibrand said.

“Imagine saying that it’s OK to appoint a judge who’s racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic,” she continued. “Asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America ... I don’t think those are political issues anymore.”


...and conclude that Gillibrand is saying pro-life people are racists, you are either too stupid or too intellectually dishonest to engage.
Those are not mutually exclusive alternatives.

34
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 12, 2019, 06:17:44 PM »
I'm pretty confident that nothing short of the use of the n-word registers as racist with Red.    And that doesn't mean that I believe Red to be a racist.
Well, thanks.
Then you must agree that using racism ,which  did not happen, to libel a family deserves financial
punishment.
And how is being pro-life racist?
Are you suggesting there would be no pro-life movement if most babies aborted were white?
I was around in the days before Roe and blacks were most vocal in opposing abortions. Led by Jesse Jackson who said he feared the guys in the white coats more than the ones in the blue coats.
You seem to have problems with the phrase, "akin to". You may want to look that up.

35
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 12, 2019, 01:56:26 PM »
I really dont think any of you are behind Biden so point is moot here.  I think you will be working to present another candidate
I'm "behind" anybody who can beat Trump.

While I wouldn’t endorse it as the message for any one candidate (see Warren slowly moving up the polling on the basis of strong policy proposals) you cant deny that this will be THE dynamic of 2020, and why a relative little known candidate with zero cable presence like Corey Booker can beat Trump by five points in a national head-to-head poll right now.
Yep.  And if I can add another cliché to the mix, Democrats can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good (or even the "okay") in the general election.   I thought HRC was a mediocre candidate (not because I disagreed with her policies, but because she has never been good at defining herself),  and while that didn't stop me for voting for her, I believe, unfortunately, that the perceived mediocrity stopped a goodly amount of people from doing the same..

Clinton was, as we’ve said before, a perfect candidate for President who was terrible at being a candidate for President.  Everything she told America about Trump was true, that he was dangerously unqualified, ignorant and incurious about policy, and inappropriately beholden to Russian interests.  But she lacked the fire and inspiration to get people to listen.  Now Americans have had two and a half years of a Trump Administration and that message has gotten through.  Which is another reason why kiidcarter8’s argument of “look at how much ground Trump made up in 2016” doesn’t hold up.  The con job Trump implemented can’t work four years later because Americans know now who he is, what kind of President he would be.  If the Rasmussen polling was right, this wouldn’t be a big problem for him going in to 2020.

It isn’t.
I do not think kid appreciates the dynamic of his data. It is one thing for the fox to chase down the hound. Trump is the hound: all of the factors that helped him gain on Clinton from where he was 18 months out work against him now. Most of the factors that worked against Clinton are now his. Everyone knows who he is as president, and a majority do not like him.

18 months is a long time, though. Obligatory anything can happen comment here.

36
Movies / Re: Movies
« on: June 11, 2019, 05:48:20 PM »
Someone tell me this is actually happening:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10095582/

37
Baseball / Re: Major League Baseball
« on: June 11, 2019, 03:17:46 PM »
As do I.  I would move there if offered a job.
I hated living there, though I always loved visiting it.

38
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 11, 2019, 03:13:22 PM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/abortion-supporters-have-made-trumps-reelection-more-likely/2019/06/10/1dd4b9c4-8bb9-11e9-8f69-a2795fca3343_story.html

Interesting take on Biden vacillation from Michael Gerson....



Quote
  .....This has left nearly monolithic parties to appeal to a more ethically complex country. A 2018 Gallup poll found 29 percent who believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances, 14 percent in most circumstances, 35 percent in few circumstances and 18 percent in no circumstances. So nearly 8 in 10 Americans believe that abortion should be available in all or some circumstances. And nearly 7 in 10 believe that abortion should be restricted in all or some circumstances.

Biden’s traditional position on this issue — that there should be a difference in government’s role in “the first day and the ninth month” — could effectively appeal to a country with these views. And his opposition to federal funding of abortion was one of the last remaining ways for a Democratic politician to tell Catholics (and others) that their ethical concerns have some degree of merit. Now, a Democratic presidential nominee is not allowed even a hint of reticence. Abortion must be supported and funded as a positive good.

The moral question is obvious: How does this allow Biden to live with his Catholic conscience? But the political implications are also relevant. Biden has made it harder — significantly harder — for cultural conservatives who are disturbed by Trump’s cruelty and prejudice to vote for Biden, should he be his party’s nominee.     
Well, the radical shift to the right on state laws restricting abortion is going to cause people who support it to rethink the way they view abortion. Advocating for greater protection as a response strikes me as natural.

39
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 09, 2019, 10:35:10 AM »
Quote
More than 57 percent of African American women [in fatal encounters with police] were killed while unarmed; white males were the least likely to have been unarmed when killed at just under 20 percent.     

-- from one of the Washington U. studies in Josh's link

Not sure how much clearer the problem could be.  Almost triple the rate.  We need to keep asking our city officials why our sworn protectors and public servants are using deadly force on unarmed citizens.
As the prosecutor in the Noor case put it, "What is threatening about blonde hair and a pink sweatshirt?" Dark hair and a hoodie, on the other hand....

40
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 07, 2019, 03:30:54 PM »
So we now know what it takes for a police officer to get significant jail time for shooting an unarmed civilian.

41
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 06, 2019, 07:09:47 PM »
Presented not to convince those of you who are full of shit, but to provide those already conscious of the climate related security issues with additional information to share with those grappling with why these are important issues.


Good paper, and the section on scientific reticence is worth reviewing.   My work touches on climate data a little, so I'm aware how climate change models often downplay rapid feedback loops and make fairly conservative projections.  Many don't sufficiently reckon with actual deforestation rates in the tropics, and rises in methane release from multiple growing sources.   I will pass this along.   Thanks.
LOL.
But also explain how effectively murdering  millions of poor people around the world by shutting off carbon solves anything.
We can adapt climate change.
We cannot adapt to ending our reliance on the abundant supply of carbon to provide the capital to build a better world.
It was specifically not for the full of shit. That means you.

42
Baseball / Re: Major League Baseball
« on: June 06, 2019, 10:26:40 AM »
Bottles strikes me as an excellent nickname.
My bad. It is "Barrels".

43
Baseball / Re: Major League Baseball
« on: June 06, 2019, 08:55:11 AM »
For.what it is worth, we got Miguel Cairo's kid, and someone with the nickname Bottles.

I am starting to think our starting pitching depth might not carry us through this year after all.

44
Previous Administration / Re: Trump Administration
« on: June 05, 2019, 07:51:35 PM »


"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress" says nothing about how any determination for the Electors' voting.

Nor does anything in the 12th Amendment, or you would not have bitched and moaned about my not putting them in the same post.

You got bupkis.

No I have the Constitution.  The appointment of electors is a delegated right granted to the states by the Constitution and while that right can be amended( i.e.12th ) it cannot be amended without Congressional approval NOR  in any manner that changes the overall purpose of the presidential election system.  And that system is an indirect election carried out through the Electoral College.
What the Nevada Legislature was trying to do a was convert Nevada ELECTORS into agents of other states.
Blatantly unconstitutional.
You keep saying that, but the states that set up winner-take all *did* change things without a constitutional amendment.
No. They didn’t. Article II gives the the right to elect electors anyway the states choose.
Nevada proposed doing away with electors effectively scrapping the Electoral College.
Blatantly unconstitutional

Dude, you pulled that one waaaaaaay out your ass!
Try reading the Constitution.
You should try understanding it.

45
Football / Re: College Football
« on: June 05, 2019, 07:48:49 PM »
Simple tweak

1) set a deadline for entering the portal. If after that date, then you will sit a year.  No special circumstances
2) Player should lose scholarship immediately (if enrolled, then at end of current semester) upon entering portal
3) School should be granted a scholarship credit when one of their players enters--which they can use to grab someone else out of the portal, or their own player back if both parties decide they can stay...or to use for the next incoming class.

Losing their scholarship immediately will give players pause.  Sort of like leaving early for the draft.  There are no guarantees...and you might be shooting yourself in the foot.   There should be no free tests of the water for the kids.

I'd stop at number one. And restrict freshmen from using it at all.
Somehow, I picture you as the guy with the whip on a Roman trireme. Row, galley slaves! ROW!

Though assuming by "freshmen" you mean during your first football year, as opposed to academic year, your points are valid. I am not sure why some kid who is looking to transfer has to wait until June to look for offers, rather than March. But you can't put in the transfer inquiry because you were fourth string your first game or Coach Saban stepped over your gassed, unconscious body on the practice field your first day to scream at a sophomore.

Actually, I am not sure that concept should not stretch to all years. Once fall practice starts you are locked in.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 91