Kerry Blows Red Sox Stats, Again, and Again 180
This week John Kerry twice messed up the Red Sox playoff scores, in one game proclaiming them to be ahead 10-9, in another 7-1. The Sox never had 10 runs in the first game (they went from 9 to 11 on Mark Bellhorn's two-run homer off the right field foul pole), and scored six in the second (see footballfansfortruth.us for more info). For those of you who are not Boston-area natives, you might not understand that Red Sox loyalty is far greater than political loyalty, and while this might not cause anyone to vote for Bush, it might make Kerry voters stay home. Worse, many Red Sox fans have vowed to see the Sox win a World Series before they die, so tens of thousands of Kerry voters could die before November 2. Of course, this won't affect Massachusetts, Vermont, or Rhode Island, and probably not Maine, but New Hampshire is a possibility.
This is lame. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is lame. (Score:2)
This is brain dead. (Score:2)
Ah, but what if the winner starts allowing Canadian drugs to be imported?
Re:This is brain dead. (Score:5, Insightful)
Where do most of those Canadian drugs come from? The United States.
The Canadian government meets with US pharmaceutical companies and negotiates price breaks for bulk purchases. The US pharmaceutical companies go along with this because if they don't, then they will sell almost zero quantities to Canada.
You really think that the US pharmaceutical companies are going to willingly double, triple or even quadruple the amount of pills shipped to Canada in order to meet the needs of US citizens who want to re-import the drugs back to the US?
If you're allowing the idea of re-imported drugs from Canada to influence your voting choice, you really need to re-think your decision.
Re:This is brain dead. (Score:2)
Re:This is brain dead. (Score:2)
Re:This is lame. (Score:2)
Actually, Bush and his clique were very much into this for about 40 years- I say it's how they got the way they are today.
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Where is the free world headed if we elect a man who can't keep track of baseball scores while trying to win an election?
Re:Finally (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Finally (Score:2)
Re:Finally (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Finally (Score:2)
Re:Finally (Score:3, Funny)
We know that Kerry is getting all his sports wrong because we are informed about sports. How much do you think Kerry gets wrong [nationalreview.com] about subjects you are not well informed about?
just a reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
As for Kerry's goose-hunting, it's a shallow photo-op. He has time for it because he think it'll get him votes, whereas he's probably calculated that following the world series won't give him as much benefit. Don't tell me Bush has never engaged in a shallow photo-op when he should've been running the country.
Re:Finally (Score:2)
Bush for prez!
Re:Finally (Score:2)
There are worse things... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There are worse things... (Score:2)
Of course, both sides tell plenty of lies in their ads [theomega.org].
Re:There are worse things... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There are worse things... (Score:2)
Date of invasion: March 20
From BBC news: "AEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei passed on the letter from Iraqi authorities informing the agency of the theft to the Security Council. He told the council that the high explosives had been lost after 9 April 2003, during 'the theft and looting of governmental installations'."
It's also been reported that the stuff was already gone by the time that the troops got there, on the 10th. However, troops actuall
Sad for democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sad for democracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Folks wouldn't be changing their vote because he can't keep the score straight. They'd be changing it because he fervently claims to be such a huge fan and supporter of the team while seemingly demonstrating a complete lack of same.
It's the petty misrepresentation that may swing a few votes (I stress MAY).
Re:Sad for democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason for this is simple, most american's don't have time to read massive amounts of political stuff, so they try to pick a good person who they are confident is generally in line with their way of thinking about things.
For Kerry if voters are stuck on the perception that he's "faking", it's going to be damn near impossible to win the election. (I'd like to remind you that all of the people on TV and here on slashdot who are deeply concerned about every single issue are the exception instead of the rule).
Re:Sad for democracy (Score:2)
Whether or not he gets the right scores, seeing as he likely was working on his campaign instead of watching the game and got the info from an aide, is the least important thing he can possibly be wrong about.
Re:Sad for democracy (Score:2)
No candidate is ever going to agree with you on every issue; choosing who to vote for is a matter of priorities and trade-offs. Furthermore, today's issues may not nessessarily be tomorrow's problems. Many people see it as a waste to be fully informed about every candidate and every issue (after all that's why we have representatives inst
Re:Sad for democracy (Score:2)
Asside: I've use
Re:Sad for democracy (Score:2)
Based on that- no wonder I'm running in 2008- I'm the only guy that I can picture sitting in my living room or being married into my family.
Re:Sad for democracy (Score:2)
Obligatory vulgar reference... (Score:3, Funny)
Next story: Linus misspells 'kernel' in comment (Score:5, Insightful)
Mispeling (Score:2)
Most Slashdot regulars might not know how important spelling is, either.
STOP THE PRESSES! (Score:5, Funny)
What? John Kerry can't keep his Red Sox scores straight? Well, fuck me gently with a chainsaw! I've clearly been supporting the wrong man all along! How can we possibly expect strong leadership from a man who doesn't watch enough SportsCenter?
Please. Did it ever occur to anyone that John Kerry might be a little bit busy, considering that there's one week to go before Election Day? Naw, that couldn't be it.
Here's an idea: After the election, Malda deletes the entire Politics section from production, and burns any backup tape from a date that the Politics section was active. His editorial staff has already proven that they're juvenile half-wits. We didn't need a two-party pissing contest to reinforce it.
Re:STOP THE PRESSES! (Score:2)
The general theme drawn by this website isn't that he makes alot of mistakes, it is that he makes alot of little lies and deceptions concerning Kerry's being down to earth. Kerry is not in touch with the average guy who watches sports, and this is what this website attempts to say, and it seems to provide quite a bit of evidence. John Kerry couldn't care less about
Re:STOP THE PRESSES! (Score:2)
Look at the NYT 'article' on the missing explosives.
NBC debunked it last night; Kerry keeps repeating it (ding ding ding...MORON).
Even on the little things he lies. Earth day, he said he didn't own an SVU. When confronted with the fact the he did indeed own an SVU, he said "his family" owned the SVU.
The guy's an idiot.
Re:STOP THE PRESSES! (Score:2)
'nuff said.
Comparison (Score:5, Informative)
One candidate has messed up the score of the Bosox series a couple of times, keeping in mind that the series is also taking place during the busiest most demanding time of his life.
The other candidate traded Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines and Fred Manrique, and as a sidenote also rushed us into a terrible protracted destablizing and unnecessary war in the middle east while running up record deficits and presiding over a massive job loss.
Make your choice, America.
Re:Comparison (Score:2)
Thank you (Score:2)
Re:Comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is that one of those countries was harboring and supporting folks who were directly responsible for 9-11 and other attacks on America, and one was run by a guy with a moustache.
Hell, I even give Bush a 20-20 hindsight pass on failing to get OBL at Tora Bora. What I won't forgive him for is diverting troops, resources and attention away from the area before the job was complete and for buddying up with the #1 global nuclear proliferator (Pakistan) in the process.
Re:Comparison (Score:2)
Re:Comparison (Score:2)
Huh? Bush didn't "pull out" of Afghanistan, and I don't think Kerry would have either.
I do think that Kerry would have taken the same attitude towards Pakistan that Bush (and previous presidents) did. Heck, if Saddam's Iraq was as cooperative as Musharaff's Pakistan, we wouldn't have invaded!
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:2)
True, but this was the ONLY reason presented by our government for unilateral action against the will of the UN and most of our allies. It is hard to argue that the removal of Saddam was a bad thing, but pissing of the rest of the world (except Britain and Poland -- ok, well Poland is pissed now too) and ignoring the UN security council is going to make it infinitely more difficult to deal with much bigger and pressing problems (Iran, and North Korea).
Th
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:3, Interesting)
You're quite wrong, if for no other reason that there were two reasons given in the congressional authorization for war, and one of them was merely to enforce UN resolutions. Also, enforcing UN resolutions was presented by the Bush administration many times during the buildup to war, and even a significant part of Powell's presentation to the UN in Feb 2
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:2)
"That is a lie."
The President has been asked directly (3 times, IIRC) to name any mistakes he's made. He couldn't come up with one, large OR small.
Therefore he thinks he's done everything perfectly. Perfection is the absence of mistakes.
I don't understand how you can support someone so obviously incapable of critical self-analysis. Do you think Bush has made zero mistakes?
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:3, Informative)
Therefore he thinks he's done everything perfectly. Perfection is the absence of mistakes.
You are incorrect. Bush said specifically he had made mistakes, he just didn't say what any of them were. That is inconsistent with the view that he said, or thinks, that he has made no mistakes. Check yourself.
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:2)
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:2)
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:2)
"A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:3, Informative)
And he never insisted that, nor even implied it.
They only time the president has every critically admitted a flaw about the unilateral invasion of Iraq, was when he stated we were too successful in taking Iraq, and we weren't prepared for that success. In every other case, he has defended his decisions and stated that he would make them again.
There
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:3, Informative)
No, but he leads people to infer it.
There was no no unilateral invasion of Iraq. [ed] ?
Ok, then where was the support of the UN, and the resolution that we were enforcing? The US and the UK invaded Iraq, no UN troops were involved. A majority of the permanent UN security council (France, Russia, China) condemned the action. During the first five months of the war, the only casualties were US and UK. Yes, two nations were involved, but both were
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:2)
No, this is just appropriate debate about nuances of fine points, and nuisance of differing opinions.
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:2)
Sorry, but the fact that you infer something by misquoting and misremembering what he says does not reflect on him, but on you.
Re:Uni = one (Score:2)
Many of the nations in the coalition formed for the 2003 invasion of Iraq stand to receive substantial aid packages and trade benefits from the United States in return for their support. The administration is providing billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer dollars in "aid packages" to garner support for the war for countries like Turkey [arabicnews.com]. Of the 30+ original coalition "members', 19 countries offering only political and/or moral support, and
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:3, Insightful)
in an April press conference: (paraphrasing, not quoting) Can't think of anything off the top of my head. You should have given me that question written in advance.
In the NYT article: (paraphrasing) We miscalculated how fast and efficently that we would win.
during the second debate: (again, paraphrasing) Some appointments, but don't want to name them.
These are not lies or misrepresentations. You claim I misquote
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:2)
You said he "insists that he did everything perfectly." That is false.
You said he "has inferred it numerous times." That is false, even if you meant "implied."
You have provided no example of him insisting or implying he did everything perfectly. To say you have is a lie.
When I hear/read these words, I infer that he is claiming that he has not made mistakes in Iraq
So? That you hear things that are never said is YOUR fault.
Inf
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:2)
I never have. I never believed that Hussein had WMD. I am against Bush's education and Medicare bills. I am against his tariffs. I am against his increased discretionary spending. I am against his amnesty for illegal aliens. In my journal, I said back in March or so that his ad saying Kerry voted to "raise taxes" 350 times was a
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:2, Informative)
What? In your journal you state "We know Iraq had some WMD agents and delivery systems. What is in question is whether they had *significant* programs for *NBC* weaponry (that is, nuclear, biological, chemical): and the answer to that question, by all indications, is No. But that doesn't mean there were no WMD: in fact, there were."
Lie seems to be your favorite word. no wonder.
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:2)
No, I've said he has led others to infer it, after which you ridiculed me for such inferences. To me, the questions he has been asked and the answers he has given, leave no room for doubt about what he admits to: bad appointments, not getting questions before hand, and miscalculating how fast we would overtake the Iraqi army. He deciding to invade Iraq because of exaggerated claims of WMDs, without the UN's blessing but with it's resolutions to justify the a
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:2)
Lie seems to be your favorite word. no wonder.
Hey, don't get pissy with me just because you keep saying things, over and over again, which are patently false, even after being corrected.
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:2)
UN resolution 1441 was drafted because of "Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction". You are quite correct, and you make my point quite nicely. The justification given to congress implied the backing of the UN, and the enforcement of a UN resolution. We unilaterally invaded Iraq for not following a UN resolution about WMD and
Re:Sanctions were not working (Score:3, Informative)
That is absolutely false. You are just making things up. It was well understood at the time that specific authorization or backing of the UN would not be required. No words to that effect appear in the bill itself, and, in fact, amendments requiring additional action by the UN were defeated. Further, our government officials said at the time that we reserved the right to act, under the passed law, without UN approval.
This was well-under
Re:What is your excuse? (Score:2)
I left the W reality distortion field about a year ago.
I'm an avid sports fan (Score:2)
Shrug. I never liked Kerry anyway.
Anybody can make a mistake. Kerry never said he watched the games, did he? His people should get the facts straight
Re:I'm an avid sports fan (Score:2)
AHAHAHAHAHAHA (Score:2)
Reminds me of that "Audible.com is biased" thing. Boy, did that have me laughing.
You are so witty and good at baiting us liberals who can never tell.
What a waste (Score:2)
It's stupid to think that any real issues are solved in a presidential election anyway. If you really care about politics, join/form a PAC. I joined iPac [ipaction.org] which I think is a good start.
Kerry doesn't care. (Score:2, Funny)
Jesus f***ing Christ (Score:2, Insightful)
There are a good number of political issues that do matter to Slashdoters. Perhaps we could discuss those?
P.S.: Pudge - Just because michael posts Stupid Crap [slashdot.org], doesn't mean you have counter by posting more of the opposite type.
Re:Jesus f***ing Christ (Score:2)
I'm not saying you're overreacting; I agree that this is a stupid story. It's just that even slashdot readers are idiots about some things.
Re:Jesus f***ing Christ (Score:2)
Re:Jesus f***ing Christ (Score:2)
It never ceases to amaze me... (Score:2)
I'm also pretty sure that this kind of campaign is doing less damage to the Kerry campaign than the campaigning of the Socialist party.
Lots of Red Sox Fans Don't Like Kerry (Score:2)
Re:Lots of Red Sox Fans Don't Like Kerry (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lots of Red Sox Fans Don't Like Kerry (Score:2)
Umm.... ok. Here are some other selections: (not hyperlinks because I don't have all day)
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/26/loc_ lo c1akerrypit.html
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/ar ticle.asp?ARTICLE_ ID=39633
http://jskelly.squarespace.com/display/S howJournal Entry?moduleId=15843&entryId=35883
http://www.wee klystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/004/378dethg.asp
http://www.drudge.co m/web
Re:Lots of Red Sox Fans Don't Like Kerry (Score:2)
The John Kerry blog response is just from some poster JT2254, not anyone associated with the Kerry campaign. I couldn't see anything in the Boston Globe piece posted by someone else.
Washington Post is the re
Re:Lots of Red Sox Fans Don't Like Kerry (Score:2)
Also, the Washington Post and NYTimes have endorsed Kerry. Doesn't that make those "left-wing hack jobs?"
But I don't get what you are questioning here. Are you saying it didn't happen?
One run at a time please... (Score:2)
a baseball team can only score runs one at a time. Before scoring 11 runs, a team must score 10. In the case of the game in question, there was a runner on base when a home run was hit... but the runner on base must score before the batter does.
So, for a few seconds, there were exactly 10 runs. If, for whatever reason the batter didn't cross home plate, the score would have remained 10. That would never happen, right? Ask Robin Ventura about his NLCS Game 5 grand slam bac
Re:One run at a time please... (Score:2)
I can only fit so much in the story. Explaining all that would have added about 50% to the article and made no difference in the meaning of the story.
P.S. Bellhorn hit the home run to right field (not left) and it hit the right field foul pole, AKA the Pesky Pole. See how easy it is to mis-remember?
To be pedantic, that's not misremembering, it's me confusing my right and my left, which happens far too often. I know very well which pole it hit (BTW, did you notice how whe
Re:One run at a time please... (Score:2, Insightful)
But when you make a simple mistake -- one which, I note, remains uncorrected in the article text as I write this (I can't decide if that's integrity or not) -- it's okay, but when Kerry makes one, he's somehow hopelessly out of touch?
What's
Re:One run at a time please... (Score:2)
Re:One run at a time please... (Score:2)
The fact that the 1B Ump didn't signal Bellhorn safe doesn't imply that he didn't touch first base -- umpires only signal a ruling when it is questionable... watch the 1B umpire the next time a player hits a single to the outfield or hits an extra base hit. He won't singal safe. Umpires do not signal "base touches" as safe, and if a player misses a base the umpire will not rule him out until a player/manager from the ot
Re:One run at a time please... (Score:2)
I understand that this is supposed to be funny... (Score:3, Insightful)
Rob
Re:I understand that this is supposed to be funny. (Score:2)
Not really. Everything that Bush says is humorous.
"Fool me once, shame... shame on... shame on you."
Re:I understand that this is supposed to be funny. (Score:2)
Rob
neither news for nerds or stuff that matters (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it a 'most of our political posts bash bush, so let's try and keep it balanced' kind of a story? WTF? Is this a goddamn political blog? There are hundreds of those out there, why did we have to drag it in here, and worse still, couldn't we try to stick to relevant issues, or barring that, actual fucking news?
Are we all supposed to spin off of some technological analysis of this gaffe? (Kerry must have been getting his 'updates' from Windows XP. he he.)
I mean, can someone step up and tell me what possible reason someone would think that should be posted. And for that matter, why would an editor accept it?
I had this sinking feeling that having a politics section would somehow cloud the otherwise mostly worthwhile content on slashdot, but I never could have predicted the results would be this dismal.
Re:neither news for nerds or stuff that matters (Score:3, Interesting)
This is also probably as legitimate a story you can find that "maligns" John Kerry without being loaded with lies and distortions. So the closest we come is something that really nobody could care about that redefines the concept of triviality.
Congrats right-wingers. Does this make you happy? Will you finally stop whining? I doubt it.
Why is this on slashdot? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm hard pressed to think of anything that matters LESS to me than if Kerry correctly remembered baseball game scores.
Yeah. Ok, Pudge. Sure thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
"...for Pudge."
This is a really bizarre blanket statement with little basis in reality.
Yay blanket assertions!
Come on -- on one hand you have baseball, on the other you have the absolutely worst president in recent memory. What's worse -- a simple gaffe about sports statistics (big surprise: not everyone gives a damn about such minutae), vs another four years of this nightmare? Somehow I think Pudge is resoundingly incorrect on this one.
But still, it's nice to see that he feels comfortable enough in his position as one of the "official" voices of Slashdot to use the site as a soapbox for his cranky politics... :-)
Or not. You never can tell!
???
This article seems to be some new application of the phrase "news for nerds, stuff that matters" that flouts just about every term in the phrase. Impressive.
Re:Lighten up (Score:3, Insightful)
In the third debate, Kerry was asked if homosexuality was a choice (the unspoken bit there was "and therefore okay to discriminate against"). Taking what Kerry said in response to this question as some sort of attack exposes a latent homophobia -- it assumes that being gay or having a gay family member is something to be ashamed of.
Mary Cheney wasn't in the closet. She isn't a private figure. Kerry didn't out her o
Re:Lighten up (Score:2, Informative)
And you might not agree with that, but most people -- especially parents -- do.
Re:Lighten up (Score:2)
And Mary's parents, don't get me started--those two are scum who never stick up for their daughter. Name me one instance where they expressed outrage against people in their own party for insulting their daughter. Santorum, a sitting senator, equated homosexuality with incest, bigamy, adultery, and beastiality [cnn.com](ok, that l
Re:Lighten up (Score:2)
Yes.
You're forgetting two things. First, Santorum and Keyes were not trying to score points AGAINST Cheney. Yes, it matters. And I am quite sure that Dick and Lynne were pissed off at Alan; so what if they didn't express it publicly?
Second, you don't get to make the rules, only the parents do. Deal with it. If you were a parent, you would agree.
Re:Lighten up (Score:2)
What you're saying with regards to Keyes and Santorum is that it's ok to insult a politici
Re:Lighten up (Score:3, Informative)
I didn't say "parents" in general. I said, when you are talking about THEIR children, THEY get to make the rules.
I'm certain she wasn't wounded for having been acknowledged as a gay woman by the opposition
I never said she was. I said it is wrong to use your opponent's child to score points for yourself.
What you're saying with regards to Keyes and Santorum is
Re:Lighten up (Score:2)
What you're saying with regards to Keyes and Santorum is that it's ok to insult a politician's kid if, through doing so, you're not trying to attack the politician's ideas.
You said:
I said no such thing. I didn't excuse it. I said it was different.
No, actually, you said "First, Santorum and Keyes were not trying to score points AGAINST Cheney. Yes, it matters." So you did say that if you're not attacking a political idea of the parent that it makes a big difference as to the level of acceptab
Re:Lighten up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:as opposed to what? (Score:2)