New ☆ Tweet from @davidortiz

Honored 2 be in the @RedSox #FranchiseFour w/ these legend @45PedroMartinez ted williams and yaz! Thx #RedSoxNation!! http://pic.twitter.com/lxFmgqCUOo

— David Ortiz (@davidortiz) July 15, 2015

Blogged with IFTTT

Papi knows where the pitch is going, doesn't need to wait around for it.

Chicago Cubs at Boston Red Sox - July 1, 2014 | MLB.com Video

You and I both know that pitch not going anywhere near the plate ...

Is it a problem for his base if, as CEO and President of Bain, Romney was responsible for aborted fetus disposal investment?

US Politics | AMERICAblog News: As CEO and President of Bain, Romney was responsible for aborted-fetus-disposal investment: 

What's an entitled, elitist, capitalist wanker got
to do to catch a break around here?

Interestingly, Romney claims to have "left" Bain in February of 1999, and the aborted-fetus deal happened in November of 1999, so Romney et. al. are claiming that he had nothing to do with the deal, even though Romney remained President, CEO and stole shareholder. Interesting timing on Romney's claim to have left. 

We're to believe that no one told Romney that they were going into the aborted fetus business. Uh huh.

I'd say, again, "he's your guy Republicans, own it," but, honestly, I don't see this being a problem for him outside of the most lunatic fringe of the broader lunatic fringe that is the Republican Party.

Seriously, these guys are so pro-business, I don't think they'd care if Romney raped the fetuses and disposed of them by eating them, as long as he proved his capitalist bona fides by paying out a healthy dividend on Bain stock from his raping-and-eating fetuses business. The corporate wing of the Republican is concerned about two things: reduced regulation so they can do whatever they want, and lower taxes so they can snort cocaine off their rent boys' asses with $100 bills like it's their God-given right as rich people.

Via:

I thought I had a bad week, but then I remembered I wasn’t profiting from fetal disposal while taking money from the pro-life lobby.
— Mike Monteiro (@Mike_FTW) July 15, 2012

To be replayed for every idiot Republican that makes a teleprompter dig about Obama.

Romney is such a tool. He's your man, Republicans, own it:

Nice. Romney read aloud the teleprompter note "[end of quote]," invalidating one of his side's favorite digs at Obama. bit.ly/OxNwah
— James Urbaniak (@JamesUrbaniak) July 11, 2012

You've got to click the link to see the video. It's priceless.

Will you hypocrites stop now? Forever?

Not that the Snowbilly Grifter's notes on her hand hadn't made this an untenable criticism long ago ...

Also, the fact that THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH USING A TELEPROMPTER TO BEGIN WITH, JUST LIKE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING WRONG WITH USING PREPARED NOTES FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING SINCE THE INVENTION OF PUBLIC SPEAKING.

Tim McCarver is what he is.

Ford C. Frick Award-Winner Tim McCarver Mocked A Cancer Charity During Tonight's Broadcast: 

Injury

Insult

During a discussion of the previously-dreadlocked Darnell McDonald's new home on the Yankees, McCarver became stupefied by the idea a charity might actually want someone's hair, later asking "How much business does Locks of Love do?"

Watching the Sox lose, lose, and lose to the Yankees makes me irritable. Add Buck & McCarver to the equation drives me to drink.

(While this was sitting in my draft tray McCarver must've got word what a jerk he'd made himself look like and apologized profusely. Also, just now, the Red Sox took the lead, so my mood is improving.)

Ortiz hits his 400th HR

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | BOS@OAK: Ortiz hits his 400th career home run - Video | redsox.com: Multimedia: 

David Ortiz cranks his 400th career home run to deep right field off A.J. Griffin to tie the game at 1-1 in the top of the fourth.

There are fireworks, and then there are fireworks. There's not a lot to love about the Sox this year, but Big Papi just delivered one of the season highlights.

David Ortiz, most beloved sports figure in Boston, isn't feeling it at work.

David Ortiz: Boston Is "Becoming The Shithole It Used To Be": 

"It's becoming to be the shithole it used to be. Look around, bro. Look around. Playing here used to be so much fun. Now, every day is something new, not related to baseball. People need to leave us alone, play ball and do what we know how to do."

Romney croons, "We could use a man like Herbert Hoover again ..."

The Myth of the Businessman-President - NYTimes.com: 

Romney croons, "We could use a man like Herbert Hoover again ..."

Romney has made business experience the main reason to elect him. Without his business past or his projections of business future, there is no there there. But history shows that time in the money trade is more often than not a prelude to a disastrous presidency. The less experience in business, the better the president.

Romney would disqualify Clinton, TR, Ike, and FDR for not having sufficient business experience to run for the presidency. Thinks his qualifications, like those of Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush before him, are a better predictor of successful administration.

It seems business experience is a fairly reliable indicator of what sort of president we'll get: a disaster.

Romney Campaign Chomping At The Bit To Make (Un)Constitutional Marriage Ban An Issue

Romney Adviser Campaign Constitutional Marriage Ban | ThinkProgress: 

Ed Gillespie, senior adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, told Chuck Todd on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown that the campaign would make President Obama’s support for marriage equality an issue this November and that Romney will actively push for a constitutional amendment to take away the right of states to voluntarily extend marriage equality to same-sex couples.

I think it's coming to the point we're going to have completely divorce, as it were, secular and religious marriage since the religionists are demanding the privileges of marriage, which include certain legal protections and rights which most (though not all) churches are unwilling to grant to every citizen fairly. Christians in particular, but I think people of faith in general, with the exception of liberal minority, want to define marriage as one man and one woman. The rest of us want marriage to be a legally recognized domestic union of one consenting adult to another that doesn't discriminate.

So let's let everybody have it there way. Christian marriage (or Jewish marriage, or whatever faith marriage) should be its own institution, completely free from any sort of state sanctioning, or recognition. Civil marriage would be the only state-sanctioned domestic union. Want a religious marriage? Fine, get one; however, if you want it recognized outside of your church or the community of faith, then you need the civil marriage as well. The government would recognize religious marriages that meet the same criteria as the civil marriage if they apply for it. Government wouldn't tell churches to recognize their marriages, churches couldn't tell government to recognize their marriages. I'm not sure what the benefits of church marriage would be except maybe it could be some requirement before getting your child baptized or whatever the church decides it's good for.

Some religious marriages, might not meet the criteria of what we probably agree civil marriage should look like. To enter into civil marriage, both parties should have attained the age of majority -- you should be old enough to vote and enter the military before you are old enough to decide if you are ready for marriage, in my opinion -- and have entered into the arrangement of their own free will. So those religions that approve of the marriage of girls that just got their first period to much older men, first cousins, and men being allowed to marry many women and girls (FLDS, we're looking at you) could not qualify for civil marriage.

It's really starting to piss me off that almost no reporter seems to be willing to point out that the proposed constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage are blatantly unconstitutional. In addition to the First Amendment, we have the Supreme Court's ruling on this already. Eric Shepherd did a great job pointing this out the other day when he wrote:

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), The Supreme Court's decision stated that the government's action must have a secular legislative purpose.


As voters in NC will be deciding the fate of Amendment One, let's take a look at the ten most compelling secular legislative reasons to vote in favor of the amendment:


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Those blanks are no accident. Not only were there no secular reasons to vote for Amendment One, no secular reasons for even proposing it were offered -- as far as I'm aware. If there were, I'd fascinated to hear them. If there's no secular reason, there are only religious reasons -- and basing law on religion in this country is impermissible. It's a violation of the Establishment Clause. We are not Iran. We should not be modelling our government on failed or failing Muslim states.

Race, religion collide in presidential campaign ... and then there's Romney.

Race, religion collide in presidential campaign :: WRAL.com: 

Which has the more "controversial" religion?

How unthinkable it was, not so long ago, that a presidential election would pit a candidate fathered by an African against another condemned as un-Christian.

It seems almost willfully obtuse write an article about this campaign wherein only one of the candidates is described as being  "condemned as un-Christian," when I suspect most of us have seen more attacks on President Obama's faith than on Governor Romney's. Still, OK, it is a little surprising we have and African-American running for a second term running against a member of what many consider to be a rather strange, cultish version of mainstream Christianity.

How unthinkable is it we might one day have a viable major party candidate who is openly atheist? Still far too unthinkable.

Rude calls 'em like he sees 'em and Romney looks like a sociopath.

The Rude Pundit: 

Romney ᔥ Salon

The thing that President Obama needs to keep in mind about Mitt Romney is that he is a ruthless, amoral son of a bitch. Like Bain Capital, he makes promises that are lies when they get in the way of his greater good or his bottom line. With his polished smile and primped hair, Romney is one of the most outright depraved and evil sociopaths ever to run for office, and that's including Richard Nixon and Pat Robertson. 

Beware the man who presents himself as honorable when his actions have demonstrated nothing but disgrace.

I pulled the final assessment, the examples of Romney behavior that formed the basis of that assessment are in Rude's post for the reading.

The #SCLM Strikes Again

Pew: Liberal Media Not So Hot On Obama in 2012 | Mother Jones:

via flickr

The Liberal Media has consistently given more positive coverage to likely Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney compared to President Barack Obama, according to a new survey of media coverage from the Pew Research Center's Excellence in Journalism Project.

ᔥ

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Those pesky shareholders.

Vikram Pandit Raise - Obscene Pay and the Masters of the Universe - Esquire:

Vikram Pandit
via Zimbio

About 55 percent of the shareholders voting were against the plan, which laid out compensation for the bank's five top executives, including Mr. Pandit. "C.E.O.'s deserve good pay but there's good pay and there's obscene pay," said Brian Wenzinger, a principal at Aronson Johnson Ortiz, a Philadelphia money management company that voted against the pay package. Mr. Wenzinger's firm owns more than 5 million shares of Citigroup.

Oh noes! However will Citigroup retain and attract "job creators" without obscene pay?!

When Google's split was announced, I was a little surprised shareholder reaction seemed to be universally positive, as if they didn't give a crap about being able to vote their shares. Mr. Pandit must be pretty jealous his shareholders proved less docile in this instance.

What's wrong with this picture? (Hint: That's Big Papi partially obscured by the umpire attempting to steal second.)

Screencap via MLB.com

Answer behind the Riddle Answer/Spoiler Barrier ...

DAVID ORTIZ SHOULD NOT BE TRYING TO STEAL SECOND BASE NO MATTER HOW GOOD A JUMP HE THINKS HE HAS OMG WTF WE NEEDED BASERUNNERS!!!!
Deep breath. We got some runs in the 9th. If the bullpen gives this up, it won't be *all* his fault.

#FollowEaster @the_ironsheik Who met @DavidOrtiz and I wish I had been there to see that.

i meet the david ortiz. he respect the legend. he know i am not like that jabroni ultimate warrior. if i wanted i break the ortiz neck
— The Iron Sheik (@the_ironsheik) March 29, 2012

This account has the blue verified check, but it sure reads like a 'bot. Don't get me wrong, it's like a genius horse e-books 'bot, not a filthy sex spambot. Well, a little like both, I guess.

IT'S PEOPLE! vs. Romney_ Corporations Are People, My Friend. by VJ cdogzilla

IT'S PEOPLE! vs. Romney_ Corporations Are People, My Friend. by VJ cdogzilla | YouTube Doubler | Mashup Helper

Couldn't find where anyone had spliced the two videos together to a seamless "Soylent Green is ... people, my friend." But, I liked the effect of running the two clips side-by-side.

Hey Mitt! Dogs Don't Go There!

Hey Mitt! Dogs Don't Go There!:

Mitt Romney once drove for twelve hours with his dog on the roof of his car. In this children's book Mitt's dog Seamus walks you through the many things you shouldn't do as a dog owner.

President Obama's 2012 Campaign Prepares Full-Fledged Attack on Mitt Romney

President Obama's 2012 Campaign Prepares Full-Fledged Attack on Mitt Romney:

Obamney, via Newser

If Politico has it right, team Obama not only expects Mitt Romney to be the GOP nominee, it is ready to unleash a 'ferocious personal assault' against him. The go-negative approach would have two fronts: portray Romney as a 'weird' guy out of touch with ordinary people and as a greedy CEO willing to sacrifice jobs. For guidance, it will model its strategy in part on the one George W. Bush used in depicting John Kerry as an aloof rich guy.

Is it really an attack if it's ... uh ... accurate? I'm not a fan of negative campaigns; I am a fan of speaking your mind and telling the truth. There's a substantive difference between Negative Campaign A calling Candidate B an anti-American, secret Muslim, non-citizen, terrorist's pal and Negative Campaign B calling Candidate A a greedy, job-killing CEO for being a greedy, job-killing CEO, and pointing out that, if his idea of a joke is telling a bunch of down-on-their-luck folks that he's "unemployed too," then he is an out of touch, weird, plutocrat. Just don't make fun of his magic underwear, that's out of bounds.

Ideally, Obama's 2012 campaign would be irrelevant because he ought to lose in a primary to a progressive Democrat. Or, Bernie Sanders.

You can be a GOP debate winner simply by not appearing as "crazy or out-of-control" as expected

GOP Debate Winners Were Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Pundits Say: 

Bachmann and Gingrich via Newser

Bachmann, who announced her candidacy during the debate, was 'at ease and forceful without looking at all crazy or out-of-control,' writes EJ Dionne Jr. at the Washington Post. Romney, meanwhile, 'did not lose anything,' he notes, 'which means that, since he leads in the polls in New Hampshire, he is a kind of winner.'

The bar is so low it's hard to imagine anyone being too fringe to be a credible GOP Presidential candidate.

Mitt Romney to Birthers: Chill, idiots. (He'll never get the nomination now.)

Mitt Romney: President Obama Was Born in the US: 

Romney is well placed to comment on issues relating to citizenship and the presidency, notes Daniel Freedman at Forbes. The Romney family lawyers probed the issue in the '60s when his father, George Romney, was seeking the Republican nomination. The Michigan governor was born to American parents in a Mormon colony in Chihuahua, Mexico. Romney's opponents labeled him 'Chihuahua George' but his eligibility for the presidency was never seriously challenged, Freedman notes.

He's right, there are real reasons to defeat Obama in 2012; however, I don't think Romney has any real clue what they are, because a President that's (even more) of a Screw-The-Poor-Welfare-For-The-Rich-Lots-Of-Wars-Including-A-War-On-Women-Civil-Rights-Denying-Republican is not what we need.

If Obama's speech later today doesn't flip Ryan's proposal on its ear and lay out a plan that addresses the inequality crisis that is destroying our economy, and our future, and talk about restoring tax rates on the wealthy to pre-George W. Bush levels, and address the unsustainable growth in defense spending, then he is going to be paving the way for whichever nutjob the GOP puts up in 2012 to win, because working people are going to walk away from him, and there's nobody on the left to rally around.