DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Bleacher Bums Forum
*****************************************************
#Post#: 149576--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: September 21, 2013, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=davep link=topic=96.msg149562#msg149562
date=1379738126]
This is silly. You refuse to stick to the original discussion,
while accusing me of that.
[/quote]
This is why things get tedious....
The following, from you, is the first post to reference Wilson
or FDR:
[quote author=davep link=topic=96.msg148747#msg148747
date=1379085219]
Wilson was as much a pacifist as you could find in his campaign
days. Roosevelt was antiwar. Nixon campaigned on ending the
war. Once you actually have the responsibility, you take a more
realistic view of things.
[/quote]
No one previously had mentioned Wilson, FDR or Nixon. Your post
quoted no one, but did immediately follow a comment from Tico
about how Obama's presidency in many regards was a continuation
of the Bush presidency: [quote author=ticohans
link=topic=96.msg148727#msg148727 date=1379046064]
Sorry, but there's not as big a difference between Bush and
Obama as you'd like to pretend. All the major stuff that Obama
campaigned against Bush on... can you tell me what's changed?
[/quote]
Now, let's look again at what you wrote: [quote author=davep
link=topic=96.msg148747#msg148747 date=1379085219] Wilson was
as much a pacifist as you could find in his campaign days.
Roosevelt was antiwar. Nixon campaigned on ending the war.
Once you actually have the responsibility, you take a more
realistic view of things. [/quote]
War was not an issue at all in the 1912 election, nor in the FDR
elections of 1932 or 1936. The only elections for either of
them where they were "anti-war" or "pacifists" was the election
immediately before they asked Congress to declare war. THAT is
what I have focused on in every post. You now contend that I
"refuse to stick to the original discussion." Could you cut and
paste any quote any language from me in this exchange where I
have done that? Now, while I did focus my initial comments
entirely on the elections when each of the presidents you
mentioned did campaign as anti-war (the elections of 1916, 1940
and 1968) and the year or in Nixon's case the years immediately
after that election, YOU came back with your second comment in
the exchange saying you saw "[quote author=davep
link=topic=96.msg148860#msg148860 date=1379135698]
no evidence that either Wilson or FDR wanted to go to war when
they were first elected,[/quote]" and asking if I could cite
any. Knowing that you are prone to typos, but generally think
straight, I continued to focus my response on the elections when
FDR and Wilson actually took campaign positions on war and peace
and not to the utterly irrelevant elections of 1912 and 1932,
and I also made clear what I was doing and why.
While I would still like to see your reference to why I was
straying off topic, the only way YOU were staying ON topic was
if in your original post you actually were referencing the
elections of 1912 and 1932.... in which case you were utterly
wrong about Wilson running as a "pacifist" and FDR as "anti-war"
and your entire comment was nonsense.
I will let you sort out which it was. Forgive me for assuming
you actually knew what you were talking about and were making
sense but had made what amounted to a typo if in fact you did
not know what you were talking about and were not making what
amounted to a typo.
[quote author=davep link=topic=96.msg149562#msg149562
date=1379738126]
It is my opinion that Wilson and FDR changed their minds when
faced with a changing situation. It is your opinion that they
did not. I do not submit evidence to support my position, other
than to say that it seems more reasonable than the alternatives.
You do not submit evidence to support your position, other than
to say that it is more reasonable to you than the alternatives.
[/quote]
Excuse me, but I DID submit evidence that each changed their
positions from the ones they campaigned on in the relevant
elections, the elections less than a year before they asked
Congress to declare war. Their positions in 1912 and 1932 are
both irrelevant and unknown, at neither time was war even an
issue.
[quote author=davep link=topic=96.msg149562#msg149562
date=1379738126]
There does't seem to be much to discuss, so you are probably
right when you say that I am not much interested in your idea of
a discussion. If you refuse to respond to my posts, and instead
ask questions that are irrelevant to the discussion, it is
probably time to give it up.
[/quote]
You want to discuss a change in their positions from 1912 and
1932?
REALLY?
Let's start by offering anything from 1912 or 1932 to establish
their positions in those years.
I have responded to your original post in the only form in which
it offered a modicum of sense, applying your contention to the
elections of 1916 and 1940 when each did make their war and
peace positions central to their campaigns. Actually applying
your contention to the years of 1912 and 1932 makes no sense
whatsoever, though I will be very happy to look at anything you
can find which suggests otherwise, that either of them actually
ran as a "pacifist" or "anti-war" candidate in their initial
campaigns as presidential candidates, the campaigns when they
were elected to office.
#Post#: 162662--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: buff Date: December 30, 2013, 8:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Im rebuilding so if anyone has interest in josh hamilton or jose
bautista make me an offer
#Post#: 162684--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Playtwo Date: December 30, 2013, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I pray this will work out for you.
#Post#: 162686--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: CurtOne Date: December 30, 2013, 9:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Josh is going into politics and Jose is becoming a priest.
#Post#: 162692--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: davep Date: December 30, 2013, 10:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Isn't Jose the current Pope?
#Post#: 162723--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: December 30, 2013, 12:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
According to
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis
the
current pope was born Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
#Post#: 174592--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: JR Date: April 5, 2014, 2:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I haven't done much digging into this, but I just read an
article on Politico on Michael Lewis's new book "Flash Boys"
about high frequency traders manipulating the stock market. I
wonder if that might bring some scrutiny to TD Ameritrade or
not. Some very quick web searches on Michael Lewis and
Ameritrade bring up a couple of articles that doing a very quick
scan of them don't seem to be too flattering to TD Ameritrade.
It might not lead to much, but the Ricketts family might have
some more issues to deal with besides Wrigley expansion and the
rooftop owners.
HTML http://www.ibtimes.com/michael-lewis-flash-boys-exposes-shady-world-dark-pools-some-funds-have-already-pulled-out-1564881
HTML http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/31/speed-reading-michael-lewis-s-flash-boys.html
#Post#: 174836--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: Jes Beard Date: April 7, 2014, 6:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=JR link=topic=96.msg174592#msg174592
date=1396726783]
It might not lead to much, but the Ricketts family might have
some more issues to deal with besides Wrigley expansion and the
rooftop owners.
HTML http://www.ibtimes.com/michael-lewis-flash-boys-exposes-shady-world-dark-pools-some-funds-have-already-pulled-out-1564881
HTML http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/31/speed-reading-michael-lewis-s-flash-boys.html
[/quote]
And that is just one of the reasons owners hire General
Managers... another being that the folks hired as GM's generally
know a heck of a lot more about baseball and running a franchise
than the owners who hire them.
#Post#: 175405--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: davep Date: April 11, 2014, 1:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I must be reading it wrong. What does dark pool trading have to
do with the Ricketts family. Was it mentioned in either
article? I probably missed it, but I am not going to read it
twice.
#Post#: 175409--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc.
By: CUBluejays Date: April 11, 2014, 2:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Ricketts haven't been running the day to day operations of
TD Ameritrade since 1999, well before the high frequency stuff
started. They've been on the board, but I doubt the board would
have been getting briefed on something like this. The only way
it would hurt the Ricketts family is if the stocked dropped.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page