DEATHS COMPARISONS IN LATEST WARS.

[GburgNatsFan]

What "ground" are we talking about here? This is classic - Call everyone a "Klinton" lover and bail on the conversation when someone tries to point out the fallacies of a something he sites as fact. Someone doesn't agree with him, so they get called names.

I am a firm supporter of the troops. I believe we cannot leave Iraq until we have accomplished our objective. I would never have gone in the first place (into Iraq), but now that we are there, we can't leave until we have helped put that country back together. We broke it. We fix it. I'm not a Klinton lover. I'm a Republican. Of course, I remember back to when the Republican party wasn't a bunch of right wing activists with technique masquerading as principle...

Stand your ground nospin.

[2IPAs]

I think nospin has a strategy to posting stuff he hasn't vetted.  He can count on all of us to analyze and test his stuff, and in the end the truth is revealed.  So why not just throw stuff out here and see what sticks?

Yes, it's like beta testing. What a great thread!

[spidernat]

What "ground" are we talking about here?

OK let's pretend that post was addressed to you. I was not insinuating that nospin was correct in what he was saying. I don't have a dog in the political battle field. If anything this discussion further proved that stats can be manipulated to make a point (and as baseball fans we should already know that fact). I was jut telling him not to be so quick to wave a white flag of defeat and that he should stand up for what he believes and not allow people to so easily pound him into submission (and I happen to disagree with the way nospin goes about certain things but I have to respect his right even to be wrong).

And I do have one question, is being called a "Clinton lover" that offensive? There is no question that a lot of people love Clinton so if that is true about a certain person how can that be offensive? And if you aren't a "Clinton lover" then it doesn't apply to you so how is that offensive? I'm not being combative here I just want to know what you meant.

[ronnynat]

^ I wasn't a Clinton lover, but I liked him just fine. Not sure about the wife, though.

[spidernat]

^ I wasn't a Clinton lover, but I liked him just fine. Not sure about the wife, though.

Your wife probably loves him too. Ask her. 

[blue911]

^ I wasn't a Clinton lover, but I liked him just fine. Not sure about the wife, though.

I can't stand his wife. It has nothing to do with politics. I don't like her because she grew up a Cubs fan then switched to the Yankees. It's bad enough to be born a Yankee fan but to make that choice as an adult shows a lack of moral fiber.

[spidernat]

I can't stand his wife. It has nothing to do with politics. I don't like her because she grew up a Cubs fan then switched to the Yankees. It's bad enough to be born a Yankee fan but to make that choice as an adult shows a lack of moral fiber.

  I have a friend who was a huge Yankee fan but he says that one day he decided he could no longer reconcile being a Yankee fan with his political views. He's a liberal who is not very fond of capitalism

[blue911]

  I have a friend who was a huge Yankee fan but he says that one day he decided he could no longer reconcile being a Yankee fan with his political views. He's a liberal who is not very fond of capitalism

He probably should be a football fan. If there ever was a socialized sport it's the NFL.

[spidernat]

He probably should be a football fan. If there ever was a socialized sport it's the NFL.

True. He actually loves football but he's an odd character to say the least. He says he can't justify watching TV either (he actually has a TV but only uses it for video games and DVD's) so he finds reasons to come over to watch football games at my house from time to time. He's very liberal

[natsfan1a]

Good point.

It's bad enough to be born a Yankee fan but to make that choice as an adult shows a lack of moral fiber.

[GburgNatsFan]

Well, it's not "Clinton lover", it's "Klinton lover" which, while maybe passive-aggressive, is clearly an insult - it connotes that you, if you liked Clinton at all, are a communist.

And that statistics can be made to lie was exactly my and others point. One can believe what one wants, but it's more valuable - virtuous even - to have an informed opinion.

OK let's pretend that post was addressed to you. I was not insinuating that nospin was correct in what he was saying. I don't have a dog in the political battle field. If anything this discussion further proved that stats can be manipulated to make a point (and as baseball fans we should already know that fact). I was jut telling him not to be so quick to wave a white flag of defeat and that he should stand up for what he believes and not allow people to so easily pound him into submission (and I happen to disagree with the way nospin goes about certain things but I have to respect his right even to be wrong).

And I do have one question, is being called a "Clinton lover" that offensive? There is no question that a lot of people love Clinton so if that is true about a certain person how can that be offensive? And if you aren't a "Clinton lover" then it doesn't apply to you so how is that offensive? I'm not being combative here I just want to know what you meant.

[NatsAddict]

And that statistics can be made to lie was exactly my and others point. One can believe what one wants, but it's more valuable - virtuous even - to have an informed opinion.

I don't consider this a case of stats telling a lie.  This is a case of a writer telling a lie. 

A case of stats lying is looking solely at Uggla's 31 HR and considering him a good hitting 2B, ignoring the other stats the he Ks frequently, is very poor at moving baserunners, is incredibly impatient, etc.

A case of writer lying is saying look at Uggla's 31 HR, 118 RBI and .318 BA (.440 with RISP).  Those aren't stats - those are blatant lies.

Many on the right perceive a liberal bias in the media, where they believe media sometimes may slant a topic by not telling the full story, or perhaps covering only certain stories and ignoring others.  Increasing, though, many on the right are resorting to these type of fabrications in an attempt to make their point.  They seem too whacked out to realize that they are much more destructive to their own credibility.  I'd rather put up with a bias than a complete fabrication.

[spidernat]

Well, it's not "Clinton lover", it's "Klinton lover" which, while maybe passive-aggressive, is clearly an insult - it connotes that you, if you liked Clinton at all, are a communist.

I thought that was just a nospin typo   I have a friend that is a bleeding liberal and loves Clinton but I don't wussyfoot around the issue. I prefer to directly call him a Bolshevik. 

Anyway, so you're saying the intent is what offends you? 

[GburgNatsFan]

Yes.

I thought that was just a nospin typo   I have a friend that is a bleeding liberal and loves Clinton but I don't wussyfoot around the issue. I prefer to directly call him a Bolshevik. 

Anyway, so you're saying the intent is what offends you? 

[nospinzone1]

I DONT MEAN TO OFFEND EVERY DEMOCRAT....JUST SOME RABID KLINTON FANS THAT IGNORE HIS HISTORY OF SLEAZE.

[spidernat]

Yes.

Just checking. I guess I know what you mean though. Someone accused me of channeling Howard Stern and the Greaseman yesterday (I don't like either one of those personalities) which I thought was ridiculous but the intent was just the same.


Having said that, I have heard people say stuff with intent to insult that wasn't insulting at all which made the effort rather funny.

If someone called me a Nats lover I wouldn't object 

[Dave B]

Well, it's not "Clinton lover", it's "Klinton lover" which, while maybe passive-aggressive, is clearly an insult - it connotes that you, if you liked Clinton at all, are a communist.

Some people put two and two together to draw conclusions, nospin calculates pi to the 112th decimal place then finds the cubed root and displays it in roman numerals

[nospinzone1]

HERE IS AN EXAMPLE. THERE IS A PICTURE IN A CUBAN CHAT ROOM THAT SHOWS SUPPOSEDLY HILLARY KLINTON AS A MEMBER OF A BRIGADE OF AMERICANS HELPING IN THE FIELDS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE KASTRO ROBOILUSION. I CANT VOUCH FOR THE TRUTH OF WHETHER THE PICTURE IS TRUE OR FALSE BUT IF IT IS TRUE.....WELLL......LIKE REAGAN SAID.....TRUST BUT VERIFY.

[NatsAddict]

HERE IS AN EXAMPLE. THERE IS A PICTURE IN A CUBAN CHAT ROOM THAT SHOWS SUPPOSEDLY HILLARY KLINTON AS A MEMBER OF A BRIGADE OF AMERICANS HELPING IN THE FIELDS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE KASTRO ROBOILUSION. I CANT VOUCH FOR THE TRUTH OF WHETHER THE PICTURE IS TRUE OR FALSE BUT IF IT IS TRUE.....WELLL......LIKE REAGAN SAID.....TRUST BUT VERIFY.

Hillary was born, or as some believe, hatched, in October, 1947.  Castro returned and started the revolution in December, 1956.  She was one progressive little third-grader.  I think we can write that one off as a fake.

[spidernat]

Hillary was born, or as some believe, hatched, in October, 1947.  Castro returned and started the revolution in December, 1956.  She was one progressive little third-grader.  I think we can write that one off as a fake.

What if she's a vampire?

[NatsAddict]

What if she's a vampire?

If?

Hmm.  Good point.

[blue911]

What if she's a vampire?

Vlad the Impaler just rolled over in his grave.

[spidernat]

Vlad the Impaler just rolled over in his grave.

[tomterp]

HERE IS AN EXAMPLE. THERE IS A PICTURE IN A CUBAN CHAT ROOM THAT SHOWS SUPPOSEDLY HILLARY KLINTON AS A MEMBER OF A BRIGADE OF AMERICANS HELPING IN THE FIELDS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE KASTRO ROBOILUSION. I CANT VOUCH FOR THE TRUTH OF WHETHER THE PICTURE IS TRUE OR FALSE BUT IF IT IS TRUE.....WELLL......LIKE REAGAN SAID.....TRUST BUT VERIFY.

Nospin, you're being brainwashed!  Don't you see that you keep swallowing this stuff and it always proves to be false?  If these people you think you like keep lying to you, how long are you going to just bend over and take it? 

WARNING - you're leading in the polls for most gullible poster.

[nospinzone1]

Hillary was born, or as some believe, hatched, in October, 1947.  Castro returned and started the revolution in December, 1956.  She was one progressive little third-grader.  I think we can write that one off as a fake.

THE PICTURE DOES NOT GIVE A DATE WHEN SHE ALLEGEDLY WENT. IT COULD HAVE BEEN IN HER LATE TEENS OR EARLY 20S. HOWEVER, I AM ALSO SKEPTICAL.