Chad Billingsley and his big butt say hi.

You may be right but I feel like Obama pretty much said all he could say there. He called it silly, phony, a distraction, and a lie. And a couple other things as well. Maybe he should suggest McCain has a black daughter? tee hee hee

Yes, Hawk, but he said it on CNN, from a library or school somewhere. The RNC is running ads that they know are lies -- and do not care. They'll shoot you in the back, then bitch about the knife you brought to the gun fight. It's dirty, but it wins. Until Obama runs commercials calling them liars, he'll lose. And given the polling data and how much of America reacted to Palin, I'm not sure he could ever win.

There are so many reasons why he should lose, not just this. It's not the negative campaigning or the "lying liars." He is a left winger, first and foremost, not even close to moderate (e.g., BAIPA). And the Biden pick was terrible. Etc. I am sure there is a 20,000 word Newsweek piece already being written about how he lost. FWIW, old fish/lipstick pig: it's exactly what he meant when he said. But I also agree it doesn't mean anything in terms of the country. And all of this just proves how completely rattled he's been since the morning after his acceptance speech.

Yeah, the Democrats never lie and they never run a negative campaign. Good one.

Yes, I'm a hater. I'm more than willing to "get in the ring" with you.

You don't do your job well. You make up stuff or steal things and claim they are your own. Trust me, I know.

The lipstick on a pig brouhaha is silly. As is the brouhaha on McCain getting back on how many homes he owns -- they're actually part of his wife's business. And the "rich only if you're worth more than $5 mil" which was an obvious joke.

But we're in the silly season, and this has been going on since George W. was president.

And by George W. I mean George Washington.

Well, Amesiowa, the man just called you out.

Give us your name, coward.

Give us your website, where you have more up to date, accurate injury information than Will.

Show us the places where Will stole stuff and plagiarized.

And, FWIW, what lies has Obama told?

3 'Until Obama runs commercials calling them liars, he'll lose.'

Like the Obama ad titled 'Naked Lies' that is running in swing states?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvyrLOjAP9o

Will, I don't understand your comment about the Yankees of the late 90s "spending and swinging." Well, I understand the spending part, but the Yankees of that era were not a free-swinging team like the Angels of current and recent vintage. They were quite the opposite--a disciplined, patient offense that worked the count, grinding out at-bats against pitchers, tiring out starting pitchers, and drawing good numbers of walks. From the standpoint of offensive style, there is little similarity between the Yankees then and the Angels now.

Bruce -- I looked back and you're right. My memory was incorrect. I think of them as Ice Williams, Derek Jeter, and Mariano Duncan, but they were more of the outliers. The OBP and walk totals were significantly higher than I remembered.

6 how many homes he owns

The comeback should have been, "Fewer than Bill Ayers tried to blow up."

3 True about the presentation.

If the Yanks were playoff-bound, I wouldn't even be posting here about this but it is what it is. I'll just say I used to respect McCain, but with the Palin pick - which turned out to be smart politics but doesn't at all jibe with what he allegedly has stood for in terms of substantiveness - and this BS they've been cynically peddling of late, I'm pretty disillusioned with the guy.

I think part of the reason Obama's taking flack is due to race - the cornball phrase he used is more typically reserved for old dudes or rednecks, more typically white, which at the very least brings attention to it. Also, Obama's rhetoric doesn't usually involve such idioms - he's a better talker than that, so it really seems like a bit of a stretch. There's also the line about wrapping an old fish in paper - although no demands for an apology for implying that McCain is an old guy that doesn't smell good. Either way, Obama needs to fire a speechwriter.

Doesn't quite match George Allen's glorious Macaca gaffe, though. Allen was joking around with someone that he wasn't friends with - generally a mistake. What the two incidents have in common was that one could see the incident coming back to haunt them when it was caught on videotape. Obama's was perhaps sillier because instead of one guys camcorder, it was picked up by TV cameras.

I have only one rule that people have to abide around here by...if you are going to flame someone, you have to use your real name. Any more bullshit from you Ames, and I will remove your posts. I am not going to defend Will, as he has accomplished more than anyone ever has from Ames. Oh and by the way, I hope the Cyclones get their asses kicked this weekend.

Settle down, Will.

Think of the campaign like the baseball season. Players are never as good or as bad as they look.

Obama kept his mouth shut about the silly attacks all summer and much of the electorate worried that he was too scared to fight back, but he came after McCain incredibly hard at the convention--waiting for an international audience to hammer him instead of chasing every petty complaint down.

If Obama hires a Rove he may win an election, but he'll no longer be the man that people are hoping occupies the oval office. He'll be as cynical and self-interested as those he opposes.

Wait for the debates. I suspect he'll hit hard, that the campaign will shine light on the darker shadows of the Republican ticket and that the unwillingness for McCain to touch the economy or health care due to massive unpopularity of his plans will be almost comic--remember, the last big event of the cycle is the debate that solely focuses on domestic policy.

When you campaign negative, you choose your constituency and are handcuffed to their policy for political purposes. Obama's history is consensus building and rather than forcing a liberal agenda through congress, I hope he'll act as the president of the united states--not just the president of the people that agree with him.

And don't forget, Gore and Kerry's failures were NOT their unwillingness to go negative, but their refusal to stand for anything.

They polished every rough edge that might offend a bloc of voters and toned down the rhetoric until they simply stood in opposition. Were Kerry to have presented ideas and vision instead of pointing at Bush and saying "he's wrong", he could have won.

Of course he should have figured a way to turn the swift boat nonsense around--the draft dodger leveling charges of military cowardice?

Of course, the flip side is the possibility that America really does want the village idiots in charge. The number of voters who seem to think Palin's rejection of science is a charming virtue, but a degree from Harvard Law School is a negative is staggering.

I suppose we can always move to Canada. I hear Vancouver's nice and with MLB.tv, my life is portable.

15 international audience

Unfortunately, only Americans vote.

Palin's rejection of science is a charming virtue

Yeah, that's 100% her persona and platform, huh?

See, it's not issues or candidates that lose the Democrats elections, it is the smug elitism that CFK displays (and countless other people in the media, easily cited if anyone disbelieves it).

Face it: no matter who you vote for, half of the country disagrees with you. Go ahead and get ready to trot out the "Jesusland" maps and all and keep telling yourself there is no connection between your behavior and why you lose elections. It's nice to be right all the time, isn't it?

13 I don't know if your attribution of the phrase is really that limited of a population but it's an interesting thought. On the other hand, Obama has publicly used the phrase before that day - more than once. So it's not a case of him mysteriously and suddenly using it in this instance for the first time.

16 "Smug Liberals"? A reasonable definition of smug is : "Irritatingly pleased with oneself; self-satisfied." THAT sounds like GWBush to me or that hypocrite addict Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly or a hundred other Republican apologists out there in the 'liberal' media.

While it's true that only Americans vote, it does matter what non-Americans think about things despite what the neo-cons might believe. We do live in a world where Americans are a small minority of the population and we will (are?) reach (-ing) a point where we won't be able to do anything we want as a nation because our guns are bigger and better. I know cooperation is a foreign concept to the modern GOP, but cooperation can accomplish great things and frequently without loss of life (not that the GOP cares about such things, well at least once you're born.).

Regarding Palin: No one knows what her platform is since she won't, you know, answer questions about it. Her claims that her god cares about freakin' oil pipelines is frankly bat-shit crazy and should alarm anyone with a brain out there. John Adams must be spinning in his grave:

""The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

It's the smug elitism, the exclusionary judgmentalism that infests the left. The snickering about God and guns from a presidential candidate, which the leftists all nod and laugh about. Chris, you can't really be claiming that this doesn't exist on your team, can you?

There are millions of us who love God and find Him in everyday life, wishing to do His will. We hope that our plans are in alignment with that will and seek His guidance through prayer and study. We're not some tiny sub-group, some outliers in American life. This is mainstream America. And the America which elitists wish exists, doesn't...and they'd realize that, if they could stop looking down their noses at us.

Batshit crazy? How about voting for a law that would help a baby that survives an abortion? Nah...better put it in a closet down the hall until it dies. Hope and change, folks.

19 I you can't acknowledge the absurdity of God preferring one pipeline over another, I suppose there is no reason to ever continue this conversation. I don't mock the religious, I mock the religious who claim to have a clue as to what their God wishes in this plane of mortality. This country wasn't founded upon the idea that we are doing God's will as John Adams clearly states.

As far as exclusionary judgmentalism goes the religious right has that covered pretty well, claiming to know what God wants and where he wants the seventh cavalry placed within Fallujah. Does the left mock governing by religious fiat?? Yes, but don't confuse that with mocking religion----some of us might do that (me for example), but there are millions of pious liberals who believe fervently in God, but just don't pretend to know his will on Earth.

Can you name one instance in Illinois where a baby was left to die in a closet because of this law that the right has chosen to distort and lie about?? Again, as always I'd love to see the same sort of intense feelings about the sanctity of life from the GOP about the 'already-born'. FWIW, I'm against abortion, but I'm also consistent in that I'm against the Death Penalty and bullshit, made-up wars that slaughter thousands as well.

I watched the gas pipeline video on youtube after you mentioned it, and it doesn't seem that extraordinary to me. That's the point. It's a shoulder shrug to millions of us. It's more a litmus test for elitist liberals than anything else.

As for BAIPA, ask Jill Stanek.

And the rest, you're proposing a "two wrongs make a right" philosophy? I am against the death penalty, but I hate it when people try to conflate killing the innocent vs killing the guilty. Totally separate things.

Jgpyke,

How is a rejection of evolution or the idea that humans have contributed to global climate shifts smug liberalism?

I didn't mention her fundamentalist religion as I don't think spirituality has any place in the discussion.

Religion helps inform any politician's decision making, but the internal thought process is of no consequence. The policies they arrive at and ways they will represent us are all that matter.

You talk about God and guns, but isn't there something inherently terrifying about a commander in chief who believes the supernatural protagonist of a 3,000 year-old novel is real and constantly watching them?

Having a strong spiritual center is a good thing on a personal level, but allowing things that are irrational and illogical (which by the very definition of any monotheistic belief system, God is) influence decisions effecting the most diverse population in human history is the reason why our country separates church and state.

21 And the rest, you're proposing a "two wrongs make a right" philosophy? I am against the death penalty, but I hate it when people try to conflate killing the innocent vs killing the guilty. Totally separate things.

They aren't two separate things when someone goes on a 'sanctity of life' rant. If all life is sacred, doesn't that mean ALL LIFE, or is this just one of a hundred issues where the religious choose to ignore the inconvenient parts of their faith??

For myself, I do not think that John Wayne Gacy's life is the equal of the baby that one of my employees is due to give birth to in late October. Her baby deserves more from us than he did which is why I support things like WIC programs and Headstart and Universal Healthcare for children and increased funding for public schools and a hundred other things that the GOP in Illinois has been steadfastly against for decades. To me, honoring life includes lending a hand to the born.

honoring life includes lending a hand to the born

Which, presumably, includes confiscating the means to do so from other born folks.

I love how 1 is getting the cold shoulder. You sure nailed that one, Will.

Love,
A Dodger fan

24 I presume that you enjoy such wonders of modern life as electricity, indoor plumbing, roads and such. All provided for by governments confiscating the means to support those marvels directly or indirectly. I hereby request that you renounce this evil fruit of the taxman and move to a windowless shack in the woods----oh, and don't use any roads to get there...paid for by taxes, you know.

To answer your question, yes, I support taxes. I'd prefer that only Republicans pay taxes, but seeing as how that's impractical, I'll pay too ;).

Confiscating? L ... O ... LLLLLLLLLL

Either way, Obama needs to fire a speechwriter.

He should fire them all, and get people who can write. Not because of the pig thing, but because they're not very good at their jobs. I realize he couldn't pull first stringers when the campaign started, and that loyalty is a virtue, but one of the best things about him is being wasted, and it's not like it's going to be easier to restaff after he wins.

Which he will. By a wide margin.

Could someone direct me to the site that Nate from BP works on that has the latest polling information. Time I found out how dismal things look.

New video compiling McCain campaign ads and how they're full of... stuff. And things.

http://tinyurl.com/5862ok

I thought Obama was pretty cool on Letterman the other night (the clip is on the Letterman web site, can't find the link). He seems to do pretty well when he's just one on one and off the cuff.

29- http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

21 Ok, Jill Stanek. Former GOP and pro-life state's attorney Jim Ryan looked into her allegations and found no substance to them.

The following article, www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-zorn_21aug21,0,6556075.column, pretty much covers her accusations pretty well, but I'll highlight the best part:

"...Misremembering? It's possible. The National Right to Life Coalition has been trumpeting the legislative record from that day more than five years ago as "newly released" evidence. This year local "born-alive" activist Jill Stanek, for whom this issue is a consuming passion, wrote in her blog that Obama blocked Winkel's amendment and prevented the committee from voting on the bill.

"A mistake," she told me.

As the article points out, Obama did not do what she has been accusing him of.

Chris, that column only speaks of the veracity of bringing the amendment out of committee in one year. In other full votes, in multiple other years, Obama has always, gladly voted in favor of infanticide. Look at 2002, for example.

If a baby survives an abortion, who cares. Let it die. Hope and change, folks.

Well, that column speaks toward the veracity off the accuser who spun fantastical stories that have yet to be confirmed by a second source. Obama voted against the bill because it contained language in it designed to attack the legality of all abortions within Illinois, not the mythical 'dying on a shelf' variety. The groups supporting the bill have said as much. If there have been examples of born-alive children being left to die, I'd love to know about about it especially since letting them die has been illegal since the 2005 passage of a federal bill identical to the Illinois bill except for the Trojan Horse provision inserted by GOP sponsors.

On a slightly different note, I see Saint Sarah has time for Vogue magazine, but not time to answer questions about her 'policies' or 'positions'. I'm beginning to think she's a CGI creation.

One more thing, snug in your shack yet??
(And don't drive on my roads!!!)

You actually want me to answer that straw man argument about utilities, etc.? I don't know how it works in the Peoples Republic of Illinois, but where I live, we purchase our electricity from a private co. And water can be pumped from a well, or we can pay to be tapped into city water and then pay the city for every drop we use (i.e., purchase per use, not through subsidy via taxes). Roads? Meh.

You are trying to conflate [my word of the day, apparently] a good which benefits all vs. stealing the money I earn to give to someone who has not earned it. There actually is a difference. If anything, they are my roads and your roads, but perhaps we could disallow those who contribute nothing to the public coffers? That would be silly.

Following this logic, then, can I stop paying my taxes, too, to opt out of all the things you mentioned...and more? Social Security, Medicare, you name it. Sounds great, Chris!

Regardless, your arguments are an endless string of fallacies. You mentioned a bunch of bullxit means-tested handouts and tried to compare that with...yawn. I don't even know why I'm writing this response to your trolling. Sorry.

As for BAIPA, fact is, Obama voted against it, time and time again. The transcripts exist. Written voting records exist. Just because a law was passed later does not negate the fact that he was, on the record, pro-infanticide. The IL law said that if a baby survives an abortion then they need to (1) bring in a second doctor to assess the situation and (2) give the baby medical attention. Only a truly sick bastard would oppose this.

I'll keep cashing the checks from the ad impressions

Glad I use Adblock. Best feature of Firefox.

33 "Obama has always, gladly voted in favor of infanticide" ... That's rad. I hope his Muslim, elite, effete, skinny, smug, liberal snob ass gets put in office. Then he can get a constitutional amendment allowing the killing of babies up to 2 years old (I think they're officially "toddlers" then, no?) with all the Supreme Court judges he'll install, you know - the ones that all hate babies also and are in favor of baby-killing.

(What is the deal with this liberal snob/smug elitism tag anyway, in general? Are non-liberals feelings hurt or something? Disagreeing and/or thinking you are ignorant doesn't make someone a snob. You don't like liberals, liberals don't like you. Sounds pretty even-steven to me!)

37- Disagreeing doesn't make someone a snob. Calling people who disagree with you ignorant, though, can. It depends. It's one of those nuance-y situations.

Lefties think being lefty makes them smart. Righties think being righty makes them tough. Republicans don't like getting called morons and Democrats don't like getting called the word that's tricky to reproduce in polite company, but for which there's no sufficiently strong counterpart--neither pansy nor wuss really cover it.

37 The difference is, left leaning folks tend to mock the intelligence of those who believe differently. Whether that is religion or economics. I would love to debate the benefits of a republican (not GWB) economic platform. But we are herded as selfish, greedy, uncaring. Uh, no, we just think that wealth redistribution is not the best way to grow the country and the economy. While I don't like government mandated wealth redistribution, I understand that there are political philosophies that believe in it. It doesn't make them evil, just in my opinion misguided.

But people have varying interests. An economic conservative might be middle of the road on abortion. But when they get insulted by the left, they start leaning the other way. When a caring Christian who may want the folks who have more give more to the folks who have less through government processes, gets called a wacko for believing in a "novel" 22 they get turned off by that wing.

That is the reason I think Obama is going to lose. The McCain camp (which is pretty middle of the road on a lot of issues) will try to paint Obama as a liberal, which he is. And he will try to lump him in with the other liberals who insult the people who have different political philosophies (not all liberals do this, but enough do to use it as a political tool). So he will be painted not as a change agent, but as a "liberal elitist" who doesn't believe what you believe. And if enough people in the middle get insulted by liberals this election cycle (not necessarily Obama), it will work.

As for Palin, of course it was a political choice. And it is turning out to be a brilliant one. The electorate really doesn't care who the VP is. Witness Dan Quayle. But the left starts beating up on her and it looks like they are mean. Then they scoff at her credentials (which are thin) and the Republicans just say, "not much less than your #1 man". And Palin is a sop to the right to make the right wing actually think about voting in November, since they are not big McCain fans (how many conservative talk show hosts had McCain as their first choice?).

35 Are you truly so naive that you do not believe that your private utility has gotten any number of tax supported subsidies, sweetheart land deals or a million other back-door taxpayer funded programs?? Undoubtedly that city water that you could pay 'per use' was subsidized by some government entity that makes that 'per use' cheaper than it should be.

You are trying to conflate [my word of the day, apparently] a good which benefits all vs. stealing the money I earn to give to someone who has not earned it. Are you suggesting that we should scrap Headstart programs and the like because the four year-olds didn't earn the money to pay for them themselves??

That's hard-core.

...and since when the hell did I become a troll?? If enough people think likewise, I should just close up shop.

Straw man fallacies, etc.--sure. Trolling, no. Sorry 'bout that.

38 . 39 You guys seem to have a better understanding of the dynamic than I do. I haven't really seen much in the way of evidence of this elitist tag - to me it always sounds like a code (maybe the opposite of the mysterious "small town values") to rally certain types.

That being said, you two obviously wouldn't be targeted as ignorant, but why argue that there aren't a bunch of ignoramuses out there? For instance, so much rah-rah BS we got around the Iraq War initially was based on ignorance, and ignorance that could just as easily been knowledge with a little reading.

Anyway the bottom line is I think though there are certainly elitists out there, the typical usage is as an all-purpose us against them pejorative. Keep in mind I'm not a Democrat and neither am I an independent who always votes Democrat. Definitely I'm not and never was an "Obamaniac" either.

Yo jgpyke. I have always been very fair with you, as I think you provide a passionate viewpoint from the conservative side. I even had you write a baseball piece, because I respect your intelligence and strong opinions. I did this, despite you not using your real name and listing your profession, as you said you could face recriminations in your job if you revealed these things.

Recently I think you have come across too personal sometimes and your comment about the ad block was bullshit, as we put a lot of work into this site for you to complete dismiss us trying to make a little bit of money. (It is cool if you want to put the blocking feature up, but your gloating comment is crap.) Oh and by the way, I have no idea if we have ever made any money, all I can tell you is that I haven't seen a penny.)

I hope you continue to comment here, but pull back on personal venom, unless you want to change your stance and reveal who you are. Will and I are completely open about who we are and it doesn't help our careers to discuss these topics, but we do it because we are willing to take that chance.

So once again let me offer up the rule. (This goes for everyone, not just jgpyke) If you want to personally slam us or any of the other readers, go ahead, but make sure to tell the readers a little background and show us your ID. If you don't want to give up that personal info, then stick to pushing your agenda without taking personal attacks. I am unlike most here at the Toaster. I enjoy getting in the ring and I'm cool with getting some shots taken at me, but I have to be able to see my opponent if I can hit back. Otherwise it is an unfair fight.

Huh, this used to be kind of a fun site, WTF happened? Is it me or is the narkiness factor on many baseball sites just increasing exponentially.
Hey, I like free stuff, so keep posting...thanks.

Oh and if the American public chooses to elect a man who admits to never using email or a computer and woman who believes the world is only 8000 years old(palin is a creationist right?)....well then thats some really stupid shit.

42- Oh, it's not fair. It's lazy, conventional wisdom. That's why political arguments on the internet (and everywhere else) are so often boring. But without knowing exactly where a specific person is coming from, arguments get interpreted through a ready made prism. Because that way, I get to shout sooner. And shouting is fun.

I think some of the liberal elitism stuff is earned, as an occasional liberal elitist myself -- I wish people from both "sides" or all sides would take the time to listen to other people and try to understand where they are coming from and why they feel the way they do. We don't have to agree, but we can try to see are fellow human beings as having a point of view that comes from a specific life path, without calling people stupid or elitist. I have to say, however, that after watching Gov. Palin's speech at the RNC, I can't believe people from her party can still call Obama an elitist with a straight face. That was one of the most smug, insulting speeches I've ever seen in my entire life. It literally almost made me teary eyed with how patronizing and mean-spirited (and how many well-documented falsehoods there were in it).

If that's "down-home" and Obama is "elitist" then I seriously don't know if I want to live on that planet.

46- Sexist!

47 But she is kinda hot, though.

{duck}

I do recommend people read this from On The Issues regarding Obama's stances on abortion.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

One excerpt:
>>[An abortion protester at a campaign event] handed me a pamphlet. "Mr. Obama, I know you're a Christian, with a family of your own. So how can you support murdering babies?"

I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.

"I will pray for you," the protester said. "I pray that you have a change of heart." Neither my mind nor my heart changed that day, nor did they in the days to come. But that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own-that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that had been extended to me. <<

Sounds like a horrible, babykilling human being to me. {cough}

43 "I haven't seen a penny"
Some partner you got, then, who boasted, "I'll keep cashing the checks from the ad impressions." Just kidding. Mea culpa on the unwarranted adblock snark. Sorry.

Personal venom: I apologized to Chris for suggesting he was trolling, but I do stand by calling out certain lines of reasoning as fallacies. I could look up which types but am too lazy to do so (some argumentum ad hominem on myself, eh?). Apart from that, I don't see the venom coming forth towards a person, per se (unless you mean Obama). But I will keep an eye on it. Thanks for bringing it up.

Finally, this business about names. The name I use here is pretty much my real name. I sign my checks this way, and I have many friends who call me this. So I don't get you calling me out for supposedly not. I've withheld other personal details, because I choose to be guarded for privacy concerns and for work concerns. But I have spoken freely about how much my health insurance costs per month, the type of employer I have, etc., and other background info when its relevant. But can you really call me out? I am one of four people in this whole thread who are using real names (excluding site owners, you and WC).

To say this site doesn't help the career of a journalist or a comedian may be true, in the actual sense of "doesn't help." But I might would draw the line at the sarcastic sense, where you may imply it hurts your careers. Maybe, maybe not.

Bottom line, I didn't think I was giving ad hominem attacks to Chris or anyone else in this thread. But if you think so, then I will be more careful. And if you need further details on who we are, please give some parameters. If Chris and I want to mix it up, we have to exchange addresses of our employers first?

It is always dicey to get into doing any version of censoring the site, especially considering how I hate almost any type of censoring. I like snarky behavior, but I do feel the veil of secrecy is a negative on the net, as it allows people to says things they generally would not because there is no retribution. I know we disagree on this point, but as someone who has been threatened to try to wreck their career by others from what they wrote (another bigger name comic didn't like what I wrote about sept 11 at the time) I know it is real. Will has had his own version of this.

When we give our opinions on these subjects, we potentially lose readers (Will) or audience members (Scott) because they don't like our politics and can't get past that. How many well-known baseball writers do you know who discuss these things? This is why I expect those who come off with personal attacks (Ames, IA) to put your name up there and tell me what you do. It informs your opinion and also puts a little more pressure on the need to be fair.

I'm down with all that, Scott. I am just asking, kidding aside, do you think I am hiding too much of my identity to be able to write what I do?

Sometimes. Others probably disagree, but I believe in a lack of transparency. I realize that is not something you can give, but around here, I believe if you can't reveal who you are, than you need to be more careful in how you attack others. Will and I have taken some real shots. I am cool with it, as long as I know who is giving them out to me. I live in the world where when I'm heckled I can face my attacker and slam back. I have a romantic notion of this site being a duel, not continuous sniper fire.

Once again, if I can't see your face (a metaphor) than I at least ask for you to reconsider your tone. Those of us who have our names and professions out there know there is retribution to be found if we go to far. This is my main point.

OK, I'll start voting Democrat and call myself "jg in america." Will that give me enough transparency to pass muster?

j/k

Point is, seems I've been a bit singled out, compared to such non-transparent luminaries as "The Hawk" or "underdog", etc. (I am at least posting with a very real, legal, and oft-used version of my actual name.)

I agree that you might have been unfairly pointed out. Maybe I expect more out of you, since you are one of the top posters here. I guess you were singled out hoping that others would also take the cue from my rant. Sorry if you felt unfairly singled out.

38 - That totally made me think of this particular clip (rated R).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7JVLipzwbM&feature=related

wow...good stuff all. chris is illinois is still the man.

and those anon-o-mice posters get me too.

fwiw, scott, will, and I always disagreed on this subject, but I suppose that has to do more with what we do outside of blogging than anything else....either that or my risk tolerance is lower (a point they would argue.) nonetheless, good comments come from good posters, regardless of their name. there are plenty of great blogs out there written by anon-o-mice people. i would just argue jgpyke isn't really relevant or right, so regardless of whether or not that's his real name, his opinions are worth skipping. going old school, i always found the guy who wrote 'bambino's curse' (ed cossette) to be the most articulate right-wing/randian poster out there. he was frankly smarter than most, even though he was almost always wrong.

anyway, trust all's well w/everyone out there. good to read you all going at it again.

o/u,

TFD

TFD,

Again, you flatter me. I rarely agree with jgpyke on non-baseball matters (have we ever sparred on a baseball matter?), but he has kept me honest in the past and I do post with him in mind. I may not ever agree with him, but I at least think that he is sincere in his beliefs---unlike so many GOP politicians and supporters---and while I think he's wrong most of the time, I respect his opinions and certainly support his right to them.

On a final note, I have my copy of Gilead all ready to go for my flight into purplish-Florida in 10 days or so...I assume that you have her newest work...I'll report back to you in a few weeks.

One last note, I'm not sure where I stand on the whole 'transparency' issue...Scott knows a bit about me, I've met Will in Indy at a Pizza Feed 6-7 years back (although I doubt he remembers---he might remember my buddy former A's farmhand, Jay Crawford) and anyone who's read this for a while could piece together lots of information about me...for the record, my last name's Feld, I live in Chatham Illinois, I'm married, I've got four kids (the oldest of which is four), I'm 39 and my income should make me a Republican, but I love paying taxes so I'm a Democrat :).

chris....i don't have robinson's new one. shortly though. still getting over 'gilead'. And of course, I nearly cried last night hearing about DFW. unbelievable. certainly a troubled soul, but a genius of epic proportions. its less of a world without him. talk to you soon.

btw...i'll look for that report. I want to hear about it!