Now THAT'S Leadership
If greasy hair, All-Star game ties, family conflicts of interest, and just all around ickiness don't top your "Commissioner Wish List," why not try David Stern, Commissioner of the NBA? Now there's a Commish I can get excited about. Stern is underrated because he's so good; just as with an umpire, if you are too aware of the Commissioner's existence, it's probably not a good thing. Stern has quietly brought salary caps, consequences for unacceptable behavior, and other necessities to the NBA, while being so unobtrusive that many NBA fans probably couldn't name him and most NBA fans certainly couldn't tell you what the heck he looks like.
And in the last 48 hours, Stern, already an exemplary Commissioner, truly outdid himself. This week, Tim Hardaway made a series of comments that, paraphrased, began with, "I hate gay people because they're gay and that's awful," and ended with, "I wish I hadn't said that because it has turned out to be inconvenient for me that I said it." You know, Tim, perhaps you should try something other than speaking out loud, because that really isn't working for you. Or for anyone, really.
So here was Stern's response, after immediately informing Hardaway that he was no longer welcome as one of the retired players due to appear at today's NBA's All-Star Weekend Kickoff:
- "We removed him from representing us because we didn't think that his comments were consistent with having anything to do with us. He's on a flight (back home) now." Any questions?
- "You tell me why there are Constitutional amendments, why there are federal issues, issues about gay marriage, and property rights. This is a country that needs to talk about this issue." Any argument?
Well done, Mr. Stern. And be careful, Mr. Hardaway, because karma's a bitch.
UPDATE/MEA CULPA REPORT
It was correctly pointed out that in this thread, I made an inappropriately vulgar joke. So I have deleted the comment, filed a CGV complaint against myself, fast-tracked the process by pleading guilty, and logged a "strike" against myself. Two more and I'm outta here. Dang--karma really IS a bitch!
0 recs |
338
comments
Comments
Not a Stern fan
by mikeA on Feb 17, 2007 8:05 AM PST 0 recs
And
by mikeA on
Feb 17, 2007 8:19 AM PST
up
0 recs
Really? I thought he said something
by Nico on
Feb 17, 2007 8:22 AM PST
up
0 recs
Much rather have that
And it is a WHOLE lot better than baseball who has a suspension and no one serves it for 2 months. Horrible process in MLB.
by OaktownPower on
Feb 17, 2007 8:29 AM PST
up
0 recs
Stern still handling damage control well.
BLITZER: LeBron James said this, he said: "If you're teammates, you have to be trustworthy, and if you're gay and you're not admitting that you are, then you are not trusting." He makes a point.STERN: I don't think he makes a point. I mean, I think he's trying to be helpful in the debate, but if a person feels threatened by society and by the kinds of publicity that is engendered -- here we are, in THE SITUATION ROOM, talking about the subject -- obviously you could understand somebody not wishing to come out.
BLITZER: But is this the situation like gays in the military, within close quarters -- the locker rooms in the NBA, these guys are all together. Is that an issue that it's worrisome because of this -- all of a sudden it's come up because of Tim Hardaway?
Oh, and Wolf Blitzer has to be the biggest douchebag outside of Tim Hardaway. wWhat year are we living in, 1949?
by Ozzz on
Feb 17, 2007 1:48 PM PST
up
0 recs
{Applause}
I just don't understand why anyone would care so much about people being gay.
I'm not wholly unsympathetic to their feelings. In their limited worlds, homosexuality appears to be a rare and different sort of thing. I certainly can't fault folks who, out of ignorance are uncomfortable with what they perceive as the other. They should strive for more and we should strive to help them, but in the mean time, it's a perfectly normal, human reaction.
Then there are folks like Retired Miami Heat Guard Tim Hardaway. What the hells is going on in his bedroom that he is so thoroughly concerned with what's going on in other folks' bedroom? How does one so visceraly hate people he has never met who live in a way that has no impact on him, what-so-ever? Is he just in the same boat as Hitler, Walt Disney and Freddy Quimby?
I mean, I understand folks being uncomfortable with people that for whatever reason they perceive as the other. But I don't understand why they would care, why it would be so important that this uncomfort could rise to the level of hatred. I just don't get it.
by devo on Feb 17, 2007 8:51 AM PST 0 recs
Wow.
by salb918 on
Feb 17, 2007 9:08 AM PST
up
0 recs
I know! What took people so long?
by Nico on
Feb 17, 2007 9:11 AM PST
up
0 recs
But Hitler's sack
by LawDaddy on
Feb 17, 2007 11:03 AM PST
up
0 recs
It's true, he was half nuts.
by Ozzz on
Feb 17, 2007 1:46 PM PST
up
0 recs
The third person I compared him to ...
If you google the three names (I just checked) what I was getting at will become quite clear.
I certainly would not want to draw a direct comparison to Hitler. Hiter's actions led to the deaths of millions and millions of people. Retired Miami Heat Guard Tim Hardaway may have just as irrationally evil of beliefs (or he may not ... one interview is not the perfect lens into a person's soul) but I'm optimistic that he won't be as ruthlessly effective as Hitler in putting them into practice. That's a fairly critical difference.
by devo on
Feb 17, 2007 9:19 AM PST
up
0 recs
I believe what you're thinking of are French
by devo on
Feb 17, 2007 9:36 AM PST
up
0 recs
There isn't
by TexasAsfan on
Feb 17, 2007 9:51 AM PST
up
0 recs
he was being sarcastic...
The latter is not good.
by Cutthemullet on
Feb 17, 2007 12:14 PM PST
up
0 recs
Well I'm glad
by TexasAsfan on
Feb 17, 2007 9:14 PM PST
up
0 recs
as someone who studies psychology, worships logic,
More like making a commonsensical inference than exhibiting ESP.
by Cutthemullet on
Feb 18, 2007 10:08 AM PST
up
0 recs
and the best example....
Plus I love how your narrow-minded view others who you view as narrow-minded, I love irony
by TexasAsfan on
Feb 19, 2007 8:15 AM PST
up
0 recs
I knew it...
by HugeAthleticSupporter on
Feb 17, 2007 4:06 PM PST
up
0 recs
That explains
by Nico on
Feb 17, 2007 4:09 PM PST
up
0 recs
<groans....with season just
by ak_A on
Feb 17, 2007 5:04 PM PST
up
0 recs
Beautifully put, devo--
by Nico on
Feb 17, 2007 9:09 AM PST
up
0 recs
Stern's unobtrusive?
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Feb 17, 2007 9:13 AM PST 0 recs
doubt it
by Cutthemullet on
Feb 17, 2007 12:12 PM PST
up
0 recs
Hmm ...
by rubin sierra on
Feb 17, 2007 6:36 PM PST
up
0 recs
To Be Fair and Consistent ..
To be honest, I am uncomfortable with political topics like this, because I am a conservative and wondering now, are only opinions from the Left welcome here at AN ??
Are Republicans as well as Democrats welcome to post here? Just wondering - no offense intended to anyone.
by Randy Bell on Feb 17, 2007 9:43 AM PST 0 recs
Great Poitnt
As far as AN is concerned, I would think that everyone is welcome, I'm a pretty proud Republican, and am very active, and I'd hate to think that Republican/Democrat would be a demographic category that would eliminate me from participating in a site that doesn't have anything that directly talks about politics in general.
by TexasAsfan on
Feb 17, 2007 9:57 AM PST
up
0 recs
Thank You and ..
I have no problems with the NBA or their policies, I just wanted to admonish us to be careful to avoid any polemic discussions that could make fellow A's fans feel divided ..
What unites us is our common hatred for the Halos {g} ..
by Randy Bell on
Feb 17, 2007 10:03 AM PST
up
0 recs
AN has members of every political stripe
As far as Stern and Hardaway are concerned, Hardaway's entire job with the NBA is glad-handing and P.R. -- it's not like he's an electrician or financial expert. So if he starts creating huge PR headaches with statements like "I hate gay people" he's really not doing his job.
I'm not sure what you mean about the NBAPA. Is it that if Hardaway picked a fight with a current, openly gay (or even closeted) player, the union would go after Hardaway and the League? I should hope they would. This isn't the NFLPA we're talking about here.
by Nick on
Feb 17, 2007 10:13 AM PST
up
0 recs
Re: NBAPA
by TexasAsfan on
Feb 18, 2007 9:58 AM PST
up
0 recs
I get it now
In the first place, there's the difference in their jobs -- a player is there to play, and only incidentally (in all but a few cases, like Lebron) to market the league. But the players aren't League employees, directly, and aren't assumed to be "representing the league" when they speak. Hardaway, on the other hand, had a job which consisted of nothing except talking up the League. So Stern or anyone else could say about a current player, "Just ignore him, he's a bozo, and his job is rebounding and scoring, not discussing social issues." Not the case with Timmy.
At the same time, you're right IMHO, the NBAPA would naturally need to get involved if a member were disciplined. The players as a whole and the League have signed a legally-binding contract, and it matters (or should matter, at any rate) to everyone involved in the contract that the whole contract be followed. Furthermore, as an employee under the National Labor Relations Act, the homophobic player in question would have a legal right to express a pretty wide range of political views, and the NBAPA would have good reason to tell the League to stop disciplining and fining members for expressing those beliefs.
Now here's the complicated part. People can sue under federal discrimination laws if an employer promotes or tolerates a discriminatory atmosphere in the workplace -- even if the boss isn't grabbing female supervisees, if he knows that male supervisees are doing it and says, "Boys will be boys," the company can be held liable (at least, that's my understanding as a non-lawyer -- attorneys here should chime in especially if I'm wrong). But there's no Federal law banning workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, so, unless the homophobic player says what he says in a state with such a law, the League probably has nothing to worry about. UNLESS the Basic Agreement includes a standard, boilerplate clause in which each party agrees not to discriminate against any bargaining unit member on the basis of race, gender, religion, etc -- the "etc" part often these days includes sexual orientation as a protected category.
So, if Amaechi and Hardaway were both still players, could Amaechi tell Billy Hunter that he wants to file a grievance against the League for not disciplining Hardaway for his statements (on the basis that letting people say those things violates the non-discrimination clause)? And would Hardaway tell Hunter he wanted to grieve his subsequent discipline?
Like Jay Gould said, "I can hire half the working class to kill the other half." Hardaway evidently thinks Amaechi's sexual orientation destroys the unity in the lockerroom. I happen to think that it's Hardaway's hatred that does so, and that kind of b.s. only serves to weaken the players in their struggle with management (to say nothing about the Heat's struggle with the Magic!).
by Nick on
Feb 18, 2007 11:19 AM PST
up
0 recs
hey...
by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on
Feb 21, 2007 1:23 PM PST
up
0 recs
$0.02
That's a pretty good opinion for how the NBA should handle their affairs if that's what it wanted to enforce on its players; it would certainly be consistent.
To be honest, I am uncomfortable with political topics like this, because I am a conservative and wondering now, are only opinions from the Left welcome here at AN ??
I am not in any way shape or form part of the rule-making establishment on this board so please just take this as advice:
Political topics are discouraged because the discussion can get out of hand very quickly. However, politics, morals, values, current cultural affairs (to include the sporting world), and economics are intertwined in complex ways and do, on occasion, get broached on this board. A vast majority of the boards' members tilt leftward, so you, as a conservative, are the strange-looking fish in the tank. When topics do get broached and the moderators are either not looking or feel that the discussion is staying civil and actually benefitting the level of discourse and idea sharing on the board, I believe that everything is cool.
Moderator(s) [the establishment], please correct me where I am wrong.
by LowcountryJoe on
Feb 17, 2007 10:13 AM PST
up
0 recs
Hehe ... OK .. Thanks ..
So far as people leaning left or right, or having different religious views or lack thereof, that is OK so long as it doesn't divide us as A's fans, we should all be online friends here ..
Take Care ..
by Randy Bell on
Feb 17, 2007 10:22 AM PST
up
0 recs
Oooh,...
...a tolerant conservative, huh? I've always heard that they existed but never knew anyone to actually have seen one, yet converse with one. <sarcasm>
.. I still say it is our common unwavering Hatred of the Halos that unites us as fellow Green & Gold fanatics .. {g}
Yes! But you must be an equal-opportunity hater and despise the Rangers, Mariners [when not feeling pity for them] and Angels all the same. Hell, you must also HATE the entire rest of the AL; at least until the World Series starts begins.
Let's go A's!
by LowcountryJoe on
Feb 17, 2007 10:35 AM PST
up
0 recs
that's a no brainer
it's tough to hate the rangers as much now that showalter is gone, same with the mariners and bret boone.
by xbhaskarx on
Feb 17, 2007 10:55 AM PST
up
0 recs
No, YOU'RE wrong
Your line of thinking leads to rigid and static opinions that cannot flex with the changing climate (the science behind "the hockey stick" be damned). There's a slippery slope to that way of thinking, Mike!
by LowcountryJoe on
Feb 17, 2007 11:02 AM PST
up
0 recs
Hehe .. {g}
.. the tank of the "entire U.S. electorate" seems, if I'm not mistaken, to have elected two democratic presidents {Carter, Clinton} in the last, oh, forty years or so?? {since 1968 ..}
.. seems that that "odd-fish" Party had the majority in Congress for about the last 12 years {1994-2006} .. and were it not for an unpopular war might still have such ..
So again, the "odd fish" depends on which "tank" we are viewing from ..
{Grin} .. I am just kidding, folks. I really could care less what your political or religious leanings are ..
.. the one unforgivable transgression is if you speak against my Green & Gold .. THAT will get you a trip to "Rehab" quicker than you can say "traitor" {g} ..
by Randy Bell on
Feb 17, 2007 11:00 AM PST
up
0 recs
Flawed (and inaccurate) use of statistics ...
IIRC, in 2000, if elections were run in a truly democratic (vs. electoral) fashion, Gore would've been president (he did receive more votes - and debatably, depending on where you stand regarding Florida, he probably should've won the electoral vote also).
In 2004, Ohio had its own shenanigans (we'll never know for sure, since Kerry didn't have the backbone to contest it) regarding voting (im)propriety. Bush won the popular vote in any case.
Point being, in the last two presidential elections, the electorate has been virtually split down the middle (give or take a couple percentage points).
And ...
Elections since '68
Nixon
Nixon
Carter
Reagan
Reagan
Bush, Sr.
Clinton
Clinton
W
W
Given the track record/consequences of the last 4 Republican presidents, I'm not exactly confident in the "odd" red fish, or the legacies of their choices (Watergate, crazy national debt, 'recession', more debt and unpopular war)But that's just my personal opinion.
by Rickeyfan on
Feb 17, 2007 3:51 PM PST
up
0 recs
But Even Your Objection ..
The point I was trying to make was, even if Republicans might be in a tiny minority here on AN {and I don't know that, haven't seen any polls, heh} -- they are certainly not so in the electorate at large ..
.. We can quibble about who, in the Electorate-at-Large, has been in the majority, or who has had a plurality, or whatever, for the past 40 or 50 years but ..
.. the fact is we have a two-party system in the USA, and I am from one of those two MAJOR parties, hehehe .. I'm not really an "odd fish" if one looks through the Big Tank ..
Both Republicans and Democrats {and Independents} should feel welcome to post, and hopefully do feel that way ..
.. Heck we are all A's fans here .. {g} ..
by Randy Bell on
Feb 17, 2007 4:45 PM PST
up
0 recs
Republicans as a tiny minority
I don't have a problem necessarily with Republicans. I have a problem with people that deny being close-minded (if you're close-minded and honest about it, hey that's your perogative), who are intolerant, who refuse to look at both sides of a situation rationally. If a Democrat were like that, I'd call him/her out on that, too.
In any case, yes most of us here share the common bond of being A's fans.
by Rickeyfan on
Feb 17, 2007 5:04 PM PST
up
0 recs
Hmmm, Just Because Someone Differs ..
I could argue {although I won't}, that the Left is in some ways a greater threat to Free Speech than the Right. The whole notion of Political Correctness is associated with speech that offends the Left ..
Honestly my fellow A's fan, I could care less whether you think I am close-minded or not. It is a free country, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc., that is what makes our system great, and YES it IS basically a Two-Party System ..
Take Care,
Warmly, Ran
by Randy Bell on
Feb 17, 2007 5:24 PM PST
up
0 recs
Just b/c someone differs
what makes them close-minded is the determination to legislate what the opposite sex does with their body.
what made them worrisome as the party in power was their unwillingness to provide a check to whatever the administration wanted. Instead, they turned a blind eye to gradual infringements on Constitutional rights all under the guise of 'security'.
And yes, that would make me guilty of stereotyping an entire party to subscribing to thaosepoint of view. Last I checked, I think there were all of two high-profile people in that party with the integrity to publicly think otherwise (the Governator and probably Guilani).
At the same time, don't get me wrong, I don't think the Democrats are without fault either (my biggest beef is the perceived lack of spine as well as not having a clearcut direction themselves). However, as obvious, I do agree with the spirit of the party (and I'm much more vocal in what I believe in). I am holding out the hope that with the results of the recent election, the country can move forward again, with support for the middle and lower classes, women, minorities, and education. Time will tell.
by Rickeyfan on
Feb 17, 2007 10:20 PM PST
up
0 recs
Same Suspicion from the Other Side ..
As I said in personal apology a few posts below:
I do care about others' opinions, in the sense I don't want to offend anyone, especially of my "A's Brethren", due to rudeness or impoliteness etc. Maybe I stated my view too strongly.
What I don't think is wise, though, is to automatically interpret difference in political philosophy as closed-mindedness per se.
The Right also views the Left with the same suspicion as you expressed here. Conservatives feel that unelected left-leaning judges, activist judges, tend to usurp the legislative branch of government to impose their social agenda on the people against their will.
For example, polls show that the majority of people still oppose Gay Marriage. Even Giuliani, whom you mentioned, favored Civil Unions but he did not go so far as to support radically changing the traditional understanding of the institution of marriage. And the Governator {Schwarzenegger} also opposes Gay Marriage.
I do not think that makes Conservatives automatically closed-minded on social issues. It just makes them "different" from you. Not everyone accepts that homosexuality is genetically based. People differ from you on social issues, it does not make them bigoted or closed, just different.
One thing that I have felt is intolerant or "closed" on the Left is their hostility to religion and to its free expression. I think it is dangerous. One pastor in Sweden was arrested simply for quoting the bible from his pulpit concerning the moral stance that his scriptures take concerning homosexuality.
That I find downright dangerous. I hope we never reach the point in this country where the Left has so taken over the debate of social issues to the point where we have no religious freedom to express differing points of view on moral and social issues.
You may not like what a pastor preaches from his pulpit, say, if he thinks certain behavior is sinful, but he darn well has every right to say it and God help us in this country if we ever reach a point where religious leaders can be arrested simply for preaching their convictions ..
You might call it bigotry, closed-mindedness, intolerance -- I call it freedom, protected speech. The whole point of free speech is that someone can say things that you may strongly dislike but they still have the right to say them. The whole point of religious freedom is that someone can believe things that you may deeply, profoundly differ with -- but that is their right.
I am not talking about proclamation or practice of violence as in the case of the extreme {distorted} form of radical Islam. I am talking about, for example, the redemptive message of the Christian Gospel. A pastor's goal in preaching such gospel is to proclaim what he intends as a redemptive message. So long as he is not advocating violence, but rather redemption, he has the right to call homosexuality "sin" even if you profoundly differ with him and think it is wrong.
The so-called "religious right", and conservatives in general, don't want the Left imposing their values on them. That is what bothers me about Political Correctness, and yes it mainly deals with speech that offends the Left. Honestly those on the Right view the extreme Left with the same suspicion and fear that you are expressing here. It works both ways .. Conservatives fear impingement upon freedom {of religion/speech} from the radical Left just as much, or more, as the fear of the Right that you express here ..
Not just Christians, I could have as well said Orthodox Jews, or anyone who takes their scriptures seriously -- have problems with the Left and the tendencies to label them, say, Homophobic Bigots, just because they have moral and religious convictions that may differ .. To label anyone who may have personal moral or religious convictions on these issues, for example, as Homophobic Bigots -- well it is your freedom to do so but it is also dangerous and I dare say, just as closed-minded as the opposite extreme ..
Take Care, and I do hope we can soon return to talking about the A's and baseball and lighthearted things we all agree on my friend ..
My Brother in Green & Gold,
Warmly, Ran
by Randy Bell on
Feb 17, 2007 11:31 PM PST
up
0 recs
meh, give it time ...
What I also find disturbing is the right's intent to claim sole whatever over the teachings of the Bible. As a churchgoer (Catholic at that), I don't find following 'Christian' ideals and homosexuality to be mutually exclusive (yes, that's an opinion. Likewise, belief that it's a sin is also an opinion).
In any case, I am with you on the impinging of the freedom of speech. Only through open, rational dialog will people become more enlightened. And I'm one of the last people to judge people right off the bat without listening to the rationale first. But if their rationale proves to be short-sighted or ignorant, well, that at least makes them short-sighted and ignorant. After all, there are people out there who think small-ball is the best way to win a game, but as ANer's we know better, right?
Nutshell
A) PC has gone a bit far. Open dialog can be best way to get at the underlying reasons for disagreement.
B) If imposing the left's 'values' means equal treatment of everyone regardless of sex, race, age, and sexual orientation, then count me in. Last I checked, 'do unto others' was a primary teaching of many of the major religions.
C) Pursuing a strategy of stealing bases and bunting runners along as a primary means to 'manufacture' runs is win-ophobic.
by Rickeyfan on
Feb 18, 2007 1:11 AM PST
up
0 recs
Hehe We're Gettin Closer but, ..
.. There is a new movie out now entitled "Amazing Grace" that I want to go see and it is highly commended from all I've heard about it ..
.. it is about the life of William Wilberforce in England, the leader of the Anti-Slavery movement. Christians were at the forefront of abolishing the Slave Trade. In Civil War times, most of the Abolitionists were Christians. I'm not sure but {I think} many of those in the Women's Suffrage movement were Christians. Martin Luther King himself was a protestant pastor, many in Civil Rights Movement were Christians ..
So far as what is referred to as the "religious right", there are devout Catholics of that perspective. There are Orthodox Jews as well. I would hazard to guess that your Pope, the Holy Father, and your Church's official teachings, do not agree with you concerning whether a certain lifestyle is sinful .. but I won't go there .. I mean, your beliefs are between you and your God, what is holy to you, etc. That actually is part of my point about giving folks "space" to believe as they please .. I am not into any sort of Thought Control and agree with you that the PC Movement went way too far in that direction .
We can end in peace by "agreeing to disagree", I just wanted to offer some "loyal opposition" here on AN to help folks see that people on the Right aren't necessarily stupid or blatantly {intentionally, wrongheadedly} bigoted, that they have good reasons and arguments for their perspectives .. they can "hold their own" with the Left ..
Regarding that one comment by CutTheMullet suggesting the Left had the market on intellectual power, I don't know if he was being playfully facetious {yanking my chain} or not, but in my opinion right now the Right and the New Media {Blogosphere, Conservative Talk Radio, etc} may actually have the Upper Hand -- time will tell -- but there is certainly no lack of Intellectual Power and "Big Guns" {brain power} on the Right ..
I personally think, suspect the Democratic victories in Congressional races were due to the unpopularity of the war, also the fact that midterm elections usually go against the party in power {the incumbent president}, same thing happened with Clinton's 2nd-term and the republican revolution led by Newt Gingrich. LBJ felt driven out of office by Vietnam, it is never a good thing for incumbents when wars get drug out and tax the patience of the people ..
Also if you look at who won in many of the races there were democrats who were running on pretty conservative platforms. Nancy Pelosi has her hands full trying to hold that Coalition together, IMHO .. time will tell, we'll see, I'm suggesting that the democratic majoriy might last or it might be relatively shortlived. We'll see, they did not really gain a clear majority in the Senate, not enough to dominate, since the Senate requires 60 votes out of 100 to pass anything ..
ANYWAY .. -- it is the Dialectic, the Discussion, and the Mix which makes our system great. In the midst of disagreements we have to remember to honor the Consitution and not violate protected speech, religious freedom, etc just because we dislike Opinions of the Other Side .. And that certainly works both ways, I realize there are Extremist on both Right and Left who go too far ..
Finally, I am all for Win-O-Phobic Athletics! Any fans of the Halos, Yankees, etc who have a problem with that just have to take it up with their local ACLU Chapter, hehe ..
Take Care,
Warmly, Ran
by Randy Bell on
Feb 18, 2007 6:21 AM PST
up
0 recs
You lost me.
Totally understand that.
Add to the fact that AN'ers typically tend to be very logical / rational / numbers-oriented instead of relying on gut-instinct (unless the gut is based on numbers).
How does that have anything to do with political orientation?
by salb918 on
Feb 17, 2007 5:39 PM PST
up
0 recs
Can we at least all agree
by Nico on
Feb 17, 2007 5:46 PM PST
up
0 recs
Well Hmmm, I Guess that Means ..
by Randy Bell on
Feb 17, 2007 5:54 PM PST
up
0 recs
Thank You, salb ..
I wondered about that too, since if it refers to those who vote moderate to right-of-center, we are speaking of roughly HALF THE DA*N COUNTRY {g} ..
I don't competely concede the point about Bay Area either:
(1) Seems not everyone who posts here is located in the Bay Area.
(2) Even in the Bay Area, although it is majority democratic, I would think ..
Well let's just say when I think of Tiny Minority, it conjurs up images of the Libertarians etc - I mean parties that get less than 1 or 2 percent of the national vote ..
And on the State level, we have a Republican Governor; one of the most famous Conservatives {Ronnie Reagan} was Governor of this State; etc.
I meant no offense, just suggesting it is the height of presumption to start speaking of Republicans as if they are some Tiny Minority Party ..
I would feel the same if people spoke of Democrats that way .. we are a Two-Party System ..
Thanks and I hope haven't offended any fellow A's fans; let's bring on the season so we can talk baseball baby !! {g}
by Randy Bell on
Feb 17, 2007 5:48 PM PST
up
0 recs
Not to prolong this even more, but...
by ramon on
Feb 17, 2007 6:50 PM PST
up
0 recs
Mainly Because of ..
.. same thing happened to LBJ the democratic president ..
I think this is a great nation but I also do not think Americans have much of a stomach for prolonged and bloody conflict .. anywhere, whatever the cause ..
.. the Gulf War was more acceptable because it was quick, decisive, victorious, and with minimum casualties ..
But anyways, neither Democrats nor Republicans represent any "Tiny Minority", hehe .. whether we like each other or not, whether we coexist peacefully or not .... we are the two major parts of a Two-Party political system ..
I also want to apologize to "Rickeyfan" if my reply sounded too harsh. I do care about others' opinions, and don't want to offend due to rudeness or impoliteness etc. --
My point was, if simply differing politically with someone causes that person to think I am closed-minded, there is nothing I can do about that, -- nor should I, in a free country, necessarily concern myself about it.
{I think} that is what our Founding Fathers had in mind with the conept of Free Speech ?? It means we may unintentionally offend, we may disagree, we may even cause others to think we are closed-minded ..
I would have problems with the notion that any thinking on the Right has to be:
- Closed-Minded
- Bigoted & Prejudicial
- Intolerant, Irrational
The truth is, there are some very thoughtful informed Conservatives; there are some very thoughtful informed Liberals ..
The Mix and the Dialectic, and the Free Exchange of Ideas .. is what makes ours the greatest system ..
Warmly, Ran
by Randy Bell on
Feb 17, 2007 7:47 PM PST
up
0 recs
Somehow,
If that doesn't make any sense or seem relevant to anything, please consider how inebriated I must be having drunk continuously since Friday afternoon. (Actually, Friday morning, but please don't tell the students.)
by Nico on
Feb 17, 2007 7:53 PM PST
up
0 recs
Shhhh ...
Hey, did you guys realize that last year's San Jose A's station, KNTS, is a Conservative Talk Radio station?
.. hehehe .. {g}
by Randy Bell on
Feb 17, 2007 7:56 PM PST
up
0 recs
I don't associate left or right....
by Cutthemullet on
Feb 17, 2007 8:12 PM PST
up
0 recs
there is, of course...
by Cutthemullet on
Feb 17, 2007 8:15 PM PST
up
0 recs
Hehe .. {g} ..
Yep - Condoleeza Rice {former Stanford provost} and folks like William Bennett, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewett, George Will, Bill Buckley, Rush Limbaugh etc etc -- all a bunch of dummies !! {
