Off-Topic

Official Scoring question

Rocco — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:56:25 GMT

Runner on 3rd, 1 out. Batter hits ground ball to second base intentionally, 2nd baseman throws out the batter and the run scores. How is this scored in the score book?

Hi

wiscguy12 — Wed, 27 May 2009 03:53:05 GMT

Hey, everyone. Just wanted to say hello to anyone who maybe reads this. Knew here, so just getting myself out there.

History's verdict on Dubya

lamboo — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:18:43 GMT

Excerpt from Charles Krauthammer's latest column:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Observers of all political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government. Victor Davis Hanson (National Review) offers a partial list: "The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq (i.e. slowing the withdrawal), Afghanistan (i.e. the surge) -- and now Guantanamo."

That's happening before our eyes. The Bush policies in the war on terror won't have to await vindication by historians. Obama is doing it day by day. His denials mean nothing. Look at his deeds.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Change you can believe in" my a$$.

socialism - yes we can!

lamboo — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:35:31 GMT

Check out Newsweek - sums it up pretty succinctly.

Govt. telling auto-makers how to make cars, taking over banks, telling corporations how much they can pay their executives, using the stimulus package to further infiltrate health care, telling the banks who they must lend to... (we all saw how well that worked with F-Mae / Mac)

The package littered with enough pork to choke Jimmy Dean when EVERYONE knows and it's been proven time and again that cutting taxes stimulates the economy and invites consumer confidence.

To purloin a liberal talking point... we can't SPEND our way out of this.

More govt. isn't the answer - never is.

Stimulus Bill - Read it now...

OTN — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:43:16 GMT

Stimulus Bill
HR1: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
http://www.thomas.gov/home/approp/app09.html#h1

02/13 - House Stimulus Bill Voting
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll070.xml

A new direction?

lamboo — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:09:52 GMT

With the symbolic (eventual?) closing of Gitmo and the triumphal introduction and enthusiastic reception of Hillary to the State Dept. the new administration has signalled to the global community that we're standing down, burying our heads in the sand and returning to a pre 9/11 state of awareness and readiness. A little red meat for the anti-war leftists who were sorely disappointed when Barry O failed to pull out of Iraq NOW!

No longer will terrorists (suspected or otherwise) be detained, subjected to harsh interrogations or have their rights to due process infringed in any way.

Now there's change our enemies can believe in.

The majority party has successfully peddled the conventional wisdom that since we haven't been attacked lately there is no danger. Despite the fact that a former detainee has returned and is now a leader of a Yemeni branch of Al Qaida. But I'm sure that releasing these vermin won't result in any American deaths, as the threat was oversold through the "politics of fear".

I hope that we DON'T capture OBL... if he's still alive. We couldn't detain, interrogate or rendition him. While I would take him to the top of a tall building, douse him with airplane fuel and give him the choice of burning or jumping, the authorities would undoubtedly appoint a special prosecutor to charge him and a defense team to represent him. It took four long years to prosecute Moussaui and they STILL couldn't convict him - he had to plead guilty. Imagine the circus OBL's trial would generate.

The UN would probably LOVE to offer him a prestigious seat on their War Crimes Tribunal. Who better to rail against the transgressions and depredations of the "Great Satan"?

As that great patriot Popeye use to say... "ooooooooooh, how embarrass-SKIN!"

who do you hate on this site

jthomas1999 — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:09:19 GMT

ok who do you hate on here.

MSM = crickets chirping

lamboo — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:08:53 GMT

Lets say that a Republican Governor and close associate from John McCain's home state is caught red-handed trying to sell a Senate Seat in the aftermath of Johnny Mac's successful election bid...

wonder what the MSM's reaction would be?

The silence is deafening.

Jeramiah Wright

larryktown — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:21:19 GMT

The good reverend is back at it again.

"December 7th was the day we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima."

If you don't watch O'Reilly you missed this stupid POS say this.

Remember Pearl Harbor.

Why I like Obama

MrConservative — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:50:33 GMT

http://blogs.lancasteronline.com/smartremarks/2008/09/17/why-i-like-obama-redux/

Rahm Emanuel

jimmythegreek — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:22:46 GMT

Well, that didn't take long. Our incoming president of change is going with more of the same with his selection of Clintonite Rahm Emanuel to be his chief of staff. It's puzzling to me that someone who spoke of bi-partisan cooperation throughout the election would choose someone as firmly entrenched in the democratic party as Emanuel. I hope this is more of a comfort level choice for Obama than a sign that he is going to surround himself with like minded liberals. I've heard Robert Rubin's name thrown around as Treas Sec, which would again harken back to the clinton days.

Also interesting that GWB and BO spent today plotting on ways to spend more of our money. Auto bailout and Stimulus 2 on the way.

Painful

Another Stimulus Check?

jimmythegreek — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:36:36 GMT

I can't believe they're actually considering this. Spending money like drunken sailors seems to be a prerequisite for public office right now. 160bil for stimulus 1, 700bil for wall street "rescue." Race to 1 trillion seems to be on.

A novel idea might be to let the free market system run it's course. Need more money? A) spend less B) Work more. Pretty simple.

What happened? One posters opinion...

lamboo — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:38:34 GMT

What I find interesting is that this is being spun by the pundits as a triumph of Barrack's call for govt. regulation and the devastating choice of Palin as McCain's running mate.

Every BO supporter I've spoken to has mentioned these 2 reasons as the primary factors that decided the election.

Some perspective is clearly in order.

In 2004 Bush won with a mandate and tackled an aggressive agenda. The war went badly and the Dem minority ruthlessly obstructed him at every turn, biding their time til the 2006 elections. Which they dominated with a shrewd use of conservative, often ex-military candidates... winning back control of Congress.

They continued to dither and obfuscate further - choosing to launch witch-hunt investigations rather than concentrate on any meaningful legislation - and helping to make a shambles of Dubya's lame duck years. With Dubya's help of course, he's not blameless in all of this.

And then came the Rock Star.

Still after skating through scandals and gaffes that would have destroyed any other candidate it was still a horse race in September. The surge had worked brilliantly and the War had largely disappeared from the MSM's headlines AND as a campaign issue. Palin gev McCain a much needed bounce and all the reputable polls had it within the margin of error. Toss in the expected late October tightening and the Dems knuckles were whitening.

Then came the Wall St. crash. Less discerning citizens followed the MSM's lead and attributed it primarily to the current administration. Regardless of the Dems complicity in inserting themselves into the market and forcing lenders to offer questionable loans to high risk minority home buyers and intensifying the housing market collapse - this was sold as a failure of capitalism and a triumph of greed. A perfect tsunami of financial meltdowns and misinformation doomed the already longshot bid of Johnny Mac.

Whats doubly ironic is that racism was NO factor in this "transcendent" election. So OB got 97% of the black vote rather than 92. Black voters did not decide this election. Nor did racist non-blacks. So much for the "Bradley Effect".

Every expert will dissect this as a referendum on this or that - mostly to back up their own personal political prejudices. But in the final analysis we are governed less by people than by events. In this instance the events favored the Dems.

Next time - who knows?

OT: Election Aftermath

jimmythegreek — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:24:57 GMT

Well, congrats to those who voted Obama. For as much as I fear for what is to come, I also am somewhat curious about what he, pelosi and reid will roll out. McCain ran one of the worst campaigns ever and Bush/Chaney/Rove may have dug a whole to deep to crawl out of.

For us conservatives, I hope the party leaders have gotten the message not to throw some liberal/moderate disguised as a conservative. Time to get back to the principles that made us powerful in the 80's.

Not a good night as I watched my traditionally red state (nevada) go all blue. Welcome to california east.

Let's all vote ourselves a raise.

larryktown — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 15:55:25 GMT

City of Milwaukee voters enacted an ordinance with their vote that REQUIRES all employers with less than 10 employees to provide 5 sick days, those with 10 or more 9 sick days.

Northwestern Mutual Life employs what, about 2,000 people. That's 18,000 days that they will now be REQUIRED to pay employees who decide not to show up for work for any reason. I'm wondering if they might be looking for office space in Brookfield as we speak.

So now that we see how easy it is, if you're not happy with your rate of pay, just pass an ordinance REQUIRING that employers in the municipality you work in pay a minimum of, what's fair, $20, $25, $30, $50 an hour.

Or how about passing an ordinance requiring free day care, free health insurance, free transportation or whatever your little old heart desires.

People b*tch and moan when corporations move their jobs overseas or to Mexico. There does come a point where a company has to make a decision and protect their shareholders, and yes, that's you and me if you have a 401K!

Lefty ideas that sound good often have consequences!

Last one to leave the city, please turn out the lights!

Transition Republicans will act like adults

larryktown — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:43:11 GMT

Remember 2000. White House staffers removing the W from the typewriters.

Leaving the WH in a mess.

President Bush promises a smooth transition.

Who are the adults?

What's going on with JSOnline?

kegman — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:49:44 GMT

I haven't seen any new articles since Friday?

Our big gov't is better than YOUR big gov't!

Conrad Mazian — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:22:19 GMT

This article elucidated why I can't stand the Republican Party quite nicely

The traditional American Right likes to bill itself as a movement which calls for smaller government and more freedom. They usually identify with the Republican Party, and claim to be the only alternative to the big government tendencies of the Left. If their policies and beliefs are implemented, America would be a much more free and just society. Or so they claim.

It must be asked, does conservatism (mainly the Republican Party) really stand for these lofty ideals? Does the mainstream conservative movement really offer more freedom and liberty than the Left, or is it just authoritarianism of a different stripe? When the policy proposals and intellectual beliefs of the mainstream Right are examined, it is hard to conclude that, while they are better in some respects to the cause of liberty than the Left, they are not much better and in some cases are much worse.

For the purposes of this essay, let us examine just several areas, (1) The conservative’s attitude towards government, (2) The conservative’s attitude towards the "justice" system and (3) The conservative’s attitude towards issues of war and peace. A casual examination of each of these areas will show that the mainstream conservative movement in general, and the GOP in particular, are hardly allies in the struggle for freedom, peace, and liberty.

Conservatives and the Government

Conservatives are fond of bashing the government. In just about every Republican campaign you hear of the desire to cut spending and government and restore power back to "the people." Yet a closer look will show that the conservative movement has no problem with the government. They just have a problem with the other side (the Democrats) running the government. As long as it’s a Republican running the show everything will be OK, but if it’s the Democrats then our freedom – no, our very way of life – is threatened by these wasteful spending moral reprobates.

Except for a brief year-and-a-half period after Jim Jefford’s GOP defection in 2001, the Republican Party has controlled both houses of Congress since the "Republican Revolution" occurred after the 1994 midterm elections. For all their lofty talk about reforming and cutting government nothing real significant happened. After rallying up the troops talking about how they were going to eliminate the Department of Education, cut funding for National Endowment for the Arts, and cut wasteful spending in general, the most significant thing they could show for their "revolution" was a term limit on Congressional committee chairs.

Wow.

For most of the Bush administration, Republicans have controlled the Presidency and both houses of Congress. Instead of seeing spending decrease, we have seen it increase. Instead of seeing programs eliminated we have seen programs expanded (in education, Medicare, the arts, and a host of other areas). Instead of seeing government agencies scrapped, we have seen new government agencies erected. We’ve seen a war waged on deceptive grounds, irresponsible spending, large deficits, and a staggering overall growth of government. The fact that government has grown at a larger rate under Bush than it has under Carter and Clinton appears not to matter much to the conservative movement. After all, Bush is a Republican. And he’s a Christian. No big deal.

Aside from the duplicity and hypocrisy of conservatives on their alleged dislike for big government, the Right has no problem trying to use the government to impose their way of life upon others and enact their own social agenda. While the Left seeks to use the government to impose their secular, utopian morality to eradicate hunger or "end hate" (or whatever other dreamy proposal they come up with), the Right believes that government power and taxpayer money can and should be used for such objectives as "strengthening marriage."

While it would be wonderful to have stronger marriages instead of sky-high divorce rates, the Right seems to believe that the government can just fix everything with a few new laws or a few new taxpayer funded programs, none of which are supported by the constitution. The fact is the government has little to show for their social engineering programs and that such matters are better left to private entities and the Church.

Yet many conservative organizations will withhold their endorsements for candidates who do not believe tax dollars should be doled out to ineffective "conservative" programs that seek to "strengthen marriage" or "teach abstinence" or whatever else. Bottom line is this: Government has no business playing marriage counselor and such matters are better left to the clergy rather than some know-it-all state bureaucrat.

Many religious conservatives would also like to create a Superstate for Jesus, to help make America a more "Christian nation." How else do you support bizarre laws against sodomy and smoking, as many religionists do? As a pastor, I’m firmly opposed to homosexual behavior, and I do not see an inherent right in the constitution to engage in gay sex, but I’m hardly supportive of some state-sponsored Bedroom Patrol and fail to see how such laws promote freedom.

Christians err when they seek to take sin and social ills and turn them into government crusades. The logic of the conservative support for the drug war goes like this: (1) Drugs are bad and sinful (2) Since they are bad and sinful there must be laws against it (3) The government must enforce these laws at any cost. Now I agree that drugs are bad and sinful, but I also see how the State has used the Drug War to engage in all sorts of tyranny and authoritarianism. To most conservatives though, the tyranny can be justified because drugs are bad.

The Drug War has been a colossal failure and has brutally destroyed many innocent people. Yet it receives some of its strongest support from mainstream conservatives and well-meaning Christians. They unfortunately do not understand the nature of government and believe authoritarian conservatism is the best way to make America a more "Christian nation."

In sum, both secular and religious conservatives are opposed to government only when it’s the other team that is running the government. Deep down inside they actually believe that the government is really their ally and can be used for great good if only they were the ones in control of it. As has been seen by this Republican administration and Congress, the mainstream conservative movement loves government and has no desire to see to see it reduced. They want it just as involved in our lives as the Left does.

Conservatives and the "Justice" System

Why have so many conservatives cheered on the legal persecution of Martha Stewart? It’s partly because most do not understand the federal system and what Stewart was even being charged with and partly because they just simply support an unfair legal system. Its part of their image of being "touch on crime" when in reality they are tough on freedom. While many conservatives are (allegedly) suspicious of government power, they are more than willing to support it unconditionally when it comes to matters of law. Thus the victim of police brutality always had it coming, the big corporate CEO on charges is always guilty, and the police, the feds and the prosecutors are always right.

Conservatives love the law. They rigidly adhere to it and see any deviation from the law as worthy of a beheading. Therefore, they are much more likely than leftists to support rigid maximum fines and penalties for even the slightest of transgressions. It is conservatives who support the outrageous fines and penalties for drug offenders. It is conservatives who pushed for the unfair and unjust "federal sentencing guidelines" (which make sure that small time federal offenders are punished in disproportionate amounts to the severity of the crimes they actually or supposedly committed) and it is conservatives who support many Police State measures such as the Patriot Act.

In the eyes of most conservatives, Martha broke the law. Cased closed. No questions asked. But those of us with a more libertarian disposition go even further than that. We want to know whether or not the law was just to begin with. Also, how do the enforcers of the law go about nabbing their target? Conservatives, by and large, are not willing to challenge whether or not the law is morally just. Nor do they care to spend a lot of time looking at some of the corrupt and deceitful practices of the police, feds, judges and prosecutors. In the beloved Police State of the mainstream Right, the bad guys are always the accused and the good guys are always the State. The State can do no wrong.
You also won’t find a whole lot of conservative sympathy for those who have been wrongly imprisoned or wrongly put to death by the State. These "law and order" types will just rationalize this problem away, either by denying that such cases exist, or by simply asserting some innocent people will have to suffer for the greater good. How this is conducive to the cause of freedom and liberty is questionable to say the least.

On matters of civil liberties, it is the Left that is more reliable than the Right (except on matters of religious liberties, where the Left wants to purge religion from society). In the eyes of the Right, only crazed hippies are opposed to the Patriot Act. Conservatives, who seem to love militarism, use war as an excuse to suck up all kinds of personal liberties. Besides, they reason, sometimes when you are fighting a war, you have to surrender some of your freedom. If you don’t agree, then you don’t care about national security, you are ignorant, and you can just leave the country. This brings me to my final point, the conservative love for war.

Conservatives and War

The Right loves war. Right-wing foreign policy "realists" believe that negotiation, diplomacy and containment are for wimps and simply does not work. War is not a last option, but a first priority for the Frum-Perle-Wolfowitz Axis of Aggression. The Right lied and deceived its way into getting a war with Iraq, a war against a nation that posed no real threat to the United States.
Conservatives also show themselves to be incredibly calloused to the suffering of foreigners caused by their beloved wars. I’ve heard not a few conservatives make remarks like, "We ought to just make the entire Middle East a parking lot." Most of these people saying this were only half-serious. But I fail to see how it is funny to joke about causing the mass killing of millions of people because you don’t like them.

To fight all the conservatives’ desired wars you need more manpower. Who is more likely to support the draft? The Left or the Right? The Right, which supposedly hates government, loves the military. They believe in enormous wasteful spending to keep the bloated military machine obese. Not only that, many have no problem with the anti-freedom concept of the draft. Not only are you obligated through the force of law to fund the military machine through your taxes, you also owe the State your body and possibly your life.

Many on the Authoritarian Right have prattled on about how the draft is great for American because it teaches young people "responsibility" and contributes to the safety of America. What it really does is teaches young people that they are slaves of the State and that their hopes, dreams and freedoms take a back seat to the wishes of government thugs who want to use them to do their dirty work.
In the eyes of the Authoritarian Right, America is always right, everyone else is always wrong. If you question this, then you are a liberal, or even worse you are a subversive that doesn’t support our country! The final recourse for any frustrated conservative discussing foreign policy with a non-aggressor is telling them to leave the country if they don’t like it. When all else fails, the authoritarian attacks the person’s patriotism, intelligence, personal morality, and allegiance to their homeland. This is rather fitting for the authoritarian conservative, who would prefer dissenters get out of the way and physically leave the country rather than have their statist agenda challenged.

Conclusion

When one really takes a look at mainstream conservative thought, it becomes quite clear that they are not really supporters of freedom and liberty. In fact, they can support some of the worst forms of tyranny and repression possible. As has been stated in the body of this essay, they have no problem with the government so long as they are the ones running it. They seek not to shrink, but to expand the government into our daily lives. They put a blind and dangerous faith in the legal system and support injustice in the name of being "tough on crime." Most dangerously, they believe in using the U.S. military to impose their authoritarianism around the world, no matter what the cost is to human life and personal freedom.

Those of us who have awakened to this fact have said goodbye to the mainstream conservative movement. While not liberals or leftists by any means, we seek not to associate ourselves with the Republican Party. We have in fact realized something that most Republicans and conservatives have not noticed: that the government is not our friend and that statism and authoritarianism can only be used for harm and not good.

Today’s conservative movement is boiling down to this: You can either support the watered down statism of the mainstream Right and their troubling authoritarianism, or you can subscribe to a more logically consistent and freedom-loving philosophy of those of us dissenters who reject both traditional Left and Right paradigms.

Who's on the ballot?

Conrad Mazian — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:17:08 GMT

Nice reference site:

http://www.politics1.com/p2008-ballot.htm

Go to the home page and you can get links to most of the presidential candidates. F*ck the Dems and GOP. They piss on our heads and tell us its raining. They trot out second-raters that get worse every year (hated the first President Bush? Wait'll you meet his kid!)* with no vision or integrity. People sit there and worry "well, the other side is worse!"

Not really - it's the same. It's just semantics. Think for yourself, go off the grid, and if you decide that Obama or McCain truly represent the values you support, and you feel they have the integrity to do as promised, good for you, vote for that guy. But at least see what else is out there.

* - in the interest of not riling the conservos, feel free to replace "the first President Bush" with "Bill Clinton" and "kid" with "wife"

Clay Aikens a Dad

Mr Slave — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 23:19:02 GMT

Is this a publicity stunt. I was pretty sure this "guy" was playing for the other team. Scary looking dude, I think.

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/american-idol-crooner-clay-aiken-now-a-father/11789?nc

Current fiscal crisis due to capitalist greed?

lamboo — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:38:08 GMT

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306978378974502

Not hardly - read the above for an unbiased analysis of the root causes of our market meltdown.

Whats needed is LESS govt. interference, not more.

In fact less = more...

more market stability and accountability.

I have complete confidence in Joe Biden

larryktown — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:30:56 GMT

The one and only VP debate occurs on Thursday.

As everyone who listens to the main stream media knows, Sara Palin is totally unqualified to be the President of the United States and is an ignorant person who was nominated simply because she is a woman.

Joe Biden was nominated by a man with no no experience to be his VP to help sooth the Countrys concerns about his lack of experience.

Joe Biden is a brilliant man.

Joe Biden thought FDR was POTUS in 1929.

TV was not invented yet in 1929, when "President Roosevelt" appeared on it in 1929 as Joe said.

Joe Biden asked a parapalegic man to stand up at a campaign rally.

Joe Biden thinks that Barack Obama is clean and articulate.[For a black guy]

Joe Biden thinks that Barack's last name is America. "Barack America"

And on and on and on.

In the event that John McCain is elected and dies in office, Presiden Palin should name the "brilliant" Joe Biden as her VP to help her along.

I'll take Sara even up in the debate on Thursday.

McCain For President-A Very Scary Thought

MrConservative — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:47:02 GMT

This is what John McCain will bring if elected:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7yDbwWNCUc

Lipstick on a pig

larryktown — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:49:32 GMT

The presidential campaign is heating up. I have been following politics for a long time and one thing that struck me in the past was how fast the Bill Clinton campaign responded to the George Herbert Walker Bush campaign. I beleive that both partys learned from that model. At the GOP convention, Sarah Palin made the hockey mom, lipstick remark. I believe that the Obama camp, following the Clinton model, tried, but failed miserably, to respond to Palin's punch line. I have seen the tape at least ten times. Obama says. "you can put lipstick on a pig", stop for the applause line. Watch the people in the back, they are lauging and cheering. Is there any question that they know where this is going? Now he continues, " it's still a pig". As with the Clinton model, Obama's campaign tried to answer Palin's line. They failed. Anyone who watched this tape knows exactly where Senator Obama was going. Now, he's trying to spin his way out. Good luck with that one Senator Obama.

Joe Biden

larryktown — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:28:35 GMT

I'm guessing that most people don't follow politics as closely as I do so I thought I would post this little tidbit. Joe Biden was at a campaign rally yesterday. The normal low level politicans were there to greet him. Jumpin Joe took the opportunity to recognize a local politician, a state senator I believe. Joe introduced him and asked him, axed him for those from Reo Linda, to stand up and take a bow. Problem was, the guy was in a wheelchair! Nice move Joe! Now I realize that those on the left consider GWB to be the dumbest man on the planet. Same as GHWB, Ronald Reagan, Dan Qualyle, etc, etc, etc. Imagine if any of these Republicans had done that! Let's elect the NEXT dumbest man on the planet, John McCain. Not my first choice, but obviously the best choice in 2008.