chasfh

Since Trump looks up to those who are wealthier than he, it’s a good bet Musk will get free rein to set whatever policy he likes.

This is what I was alluding to in the other thread yesterday. A lot of people who call themselves “Christian” lately are doing so as a virtue signal of their cultural beliefs, rather than as a reflection of their spiritual beliefs.

We can’t account for what’s going on in your head, but that’s not what’s going on out here in the world.

Hypocrite or not, I can hardly blame Biden for not unilaterally disarming while people who explicitly refer to him as the enemy trample over all the norms they criticize him for ignoring.

I wasn’t telling anyone how to do anything. I was just commenting on what can be obviously seen.

I’m coming round to wondering whether that the only thing that could stop the abject dismantling and destruction of the government would be court cases that tie up everything they want to accomplish. I’m not sure how that would work out because Trump’s appointees can probably just throw out cases without comment, or else the administration would just refuse to follow rulings and then dare anyone to do anything to stop them. I guess we’ll see …

Don’t much know either way, but it did strike me when Harris was quoted at the Winter Meetings as basically laying down the gauntlet when he said, basically, the performance has to get better and it’s not just offensive performance, it’s defensive performance, too. That reads to me as though they checked in with Tork before the winter meetings and were not satisfied by what they saw. I think if he were hitting all their check boxes along the way, they would have said something more like, Tork is making some improvements, there’s a long way to go, but we like what we see. Something more like that. Unless he did say that and I missed it, but I don’t believe so. But what was reported comes off as a public calling out. To me, this is the most interesting storyline of the winter. I’l be interested to see whether any more is said and, just as importantly, how it’s said.

Now that I’m looking at her face for what might be the first time ever, she looks not unlike Victoria Jackson.

You tell me …

I wanted to understand what kind of deal you thought would be reasonable. I wasn't doing any kind of gotcha here—although that does go on here a lot, so I can see why you demur.

See, now that's the thing that's gonna make you wanna watch, right? Media meltdown live and nationwide? 😉

This is not political, really, but, in what certainly must be one of the more unusual twists in MTF history, I am booked to go live on Fox News Channel tomorrow morning at about 10:50 AM Eastern, 9:50 AM Central. I will be appearing on some show called America's Newsroom, during which I am going to be interviewed about the overdue library book story by Dana Perino, who was George Bush Junior's White House press secretary.

What's an example of a reasonable deal you think they are being presented with, that they should jumped on? Or, if not exactly being presented with, what would be a good example of a reasonable deal they should do, in your view?

It’s the time of the season to declare that “Trading Places” is far superior as a Christmas movie to “Die Hard”.

That’s because “Christian” doesn’t really reflect piety, charity, or even religiosity anymore, at least not in today’s America. It’s a virtue signal for a selfish, ruthless, fascist political movement.

Well, at least if he gets us in a war with them, we have a good chance of winning it.

I nodded and laughed at this until I read the whole post and saw that this tweeter is a douchey Gen Z cryptobug who wants to teach this boomer some kind of lesson, probably something along the lines of, “this is our planet now, get the **** off!”

The guy holding it up just needs to get his beak wet to the right degree. Then it will all go through.

It’s all fun and games before she gets out there and shouts “!الله أكبر“, and then ka-blammo.

I have probably something between a dozen and two dozen minor league ballparks, but I should see whether I can talk my wife into doing more parks we haven’t seen before. These three would be on the list.

No amount of Akil Baddoos could equal even one Juan Soto.

It might be less a matter of whether the owner will open up the wallet and cheap out, as it is a matter of we are not yet in a position to commit five-plus years to fringey-All-Star-level players. That said, if they had to give five years to anyone, Flaherty is probably the best bet of anyone not named Burnes. Even with his years wandering in the desert, he has an early track record of great success, and he did really well under this coaching regime. If the price for Flaherty is five years, I’m guessing this is going to be one of the tougher decision Harris and Ilitch are going to have to make.

Well, there is this, too, although it is from five days ago. Maybe this is where "afternoon radio guy" got it.

Did anyone suggest getting rid of the designated hitter, still not batting the pitcher, and reducing the batting order to eight hitters? That's one of Lee's favorites.

It's one thing to trade players when a team have little to no chance of making the playoffs. It's a whole other thing to have a terrific chance of making the playoffs, then trade their best player because they're afraid they'll end up not having the team to make help them the playoffs in 2028 or '29. I'd be shocked if any GM did that, let alone Scott Harris. In fact—is there any record of a team well into the playoff hunt trading their very best player at the deadline? Or even a team who was a playoff team, was expected to take a big step the following year, then traded their best player in the offseason to avoid having him walk for nothing in two years? If so, I'm curious how that worked out for them.