- 05:59 AM
- 11/17/24
| Name: | Chris Eisenberg |
|---|---|
| Location: | Born and raised in New York. Resident of Sherman Oaks, CA |
| Gender: | Male |
| Member since: | February 17, 2006 |
| Last visit: | June 03, 2011 |
cjets has posted 23 links and 1,144 comments to SportsFilter and 0 links and 51 comments to the Locker Room.
The home run that launched the myth of Mickey Mantle: Sixty years ago in an exhibition game against USC, a young Mickey Mantle hit a home run that became baseball legend and spawned a mystery: Just how far did it go?
posted by cjets to baseball at 07:04 PM on March 25, 2011 - 1 comment
High School Wrestler Refuses to Face Female: A high school wrestler in Iowa forfeited a state tournament match Thursday because he refuses to compete against a female opponent. Joel Northrup would not wrestle Cassy Herkelman and released a statement: "As a matter of conscience and my faith, I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner," he said in a written statement.
posted by cjets to other at 07:26 AM on February 18, 2011 - 52 comments
Carmelo to the Lakers for Bynum?: The L.A. Times on why they should. And why they shouldn't.
posted by cjets to basketball at 10:39 AM on February 09, 2011 - 5 comments
UConn Women own the longest streak: With a 93-62 defeat of Florida State at sold-out XL Center, UConn won its 89th consecutive game, a Division I record surpassing the 88 won by the U.C.L.A. men, coached by John Wooden, from 1971 to 1974.
posted by cjets to basketball at 10:14 PM on December 21, 2010 - 5 comments
A Gift From the Game: Part of the beauty of sport is that it can be transformative on any scale, large or small. It can draw a nation of millions closer together—how many of us high-fived a stranger after the U.S. World Cup win over Algeria last week?—and it can change one boy's life in a small Canadian town.
posted by cjets to golf at 09:38 PM on June 30, 2010 - 4 comments
Seats at Cowboys and Yankees games are ridiculously expensive. Why do they think we'll pay those prices *and* pay jacked-up costs for anything else we buy while we're there?
Because if you're the top 1% that owns 40% of the nation's wealth, what do you care about a $15.00 beer.
And if you're not the top 1%, chances are you are going on the corporate dime and/or will expense all money spent on the game as "meals and entertainment" expenses. Which really means that even if we, the U.S. taxpayer do not get the benefit of the tickets or the meals, we're still paying for it, be it through bailouts, corporate tax breaks or personal tax deductions of those wealthy enough to attend.
They have priced the middle class family out of attending these games.
These days when I go to a sporting event, I buy almost nothing.
I couldn't agree more. Except to say that I extend that rule to everywhere I go. Six dollar popcorn at the movie theater? Much cheaper to microwave a bag before I go. And I bring bottled water everywhere.
posted by cjets at 02:43 PM on May 18, 2011
For one day he couldn't have been a Robert Parish fan?
posted by cjets at 12:35 PM on May 17, 2011
posted by cjets at 04:30 PM on May 16, 2011
I think the expressing of an opinion is alright as long as it is done in a tasteful manner
I didn't think the expression of the opinion was particularly harsh. It was the opinion itself.
You can make the language as polite as possible, it's still bigoted.
posted by cjets at 11:53 AM on May 10, 2011
It would be weird if the Mavericks became the only thing standing in the way of the Heat winning a title.
It would be fitting. They were on the verge of going 3-0 on the Heat in the 2006 finals before collapsing and losing the series 4-2 to the Heat. Wouldn't the ultimate redemption be for Dirk and the Mavs to beat the Heat in the finals?
I'm a Lakers fan, but credit to the Mavericks. They led the Lakers wire to wire in Game 2 and simply played better down the stretch in games 1 & 3.
posted by cjets at 03:52 PM on May 07, 2011
but the bulk of the fighting (and dying) was done by the big three
But I would agree with you that the landing at Juno was as difficult as any landing during D-Day.
posted by cjets at 06:04 PM on May 04, 2011
So what your saying is that my link proves my point and disproves your ludicrous assertion?
Speaking of ludicrous assertions, I'm reminded of your earlier one:
the US has at a single stroke probably radicalised more fundamentalists than Bin Laden could have hoped to have influenced in a lifetime.
Nice chatting with you.
posted by cjets at 02:57 PM on May 04, 2011
Are you on crack, cjets? Seriously?
You want to refute what I've said, feel free. I'd appreciate it if you left out the ad hominem insults.
posted by cjets at 02:42 PM on May 04, 2011
From your link JJ:
My mistake for saying "any" instead of "sustained."
posted by cjets at 02:33 PM on May 04, 2011
So Soviet liberation doesn't count and fighting in a war doesn't count as fighting in a war.
No, what I meant was that if the Soviets had liberated western europe, all of Western Europe might have come under Soviet influence, rather than just Eastern Europe.
posted by cjets at 02:28 PM on May 04, 2011
Something I learned from Band of brothers
I guess I forgot the *Sarcasm* tag.
posted by cjets at 02:08 PM on May 04, 2011
"Go to the beaches at Normandy some time. All of the difficult landings were done by U.S. soldiers" as though that were some proof of moral righteousness
It was not meant as proof of moral righteousness. It's just more evidence that during World War II some countries did more than others as well as more evidence that D-Day would have been impossible without U.S. involvement.
I've actually spent most of this post praising Great Britain, not the U.S.
posted by cjets at 02:07 PM on May 04, 2011
cjets: Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, India. A mere scratch of the surface via Wikipedia will reveal that not only did most of them have troops on the ground in Europe in early 1940, but that they also contributed the majority of their pilots to the RAF.
First of all, your own links disagree with your statement. Australia and New Zealand did not have troops on the ground until 1941 and that was in North Africa and Greece. There were Canadian troops in France who were evacuated to Britain from Dunkirk, but - per your own link - did not see any fighting until mid-1943.
Second, I said that other countries contributed soldiers and material to the war in an earlier post.
But I think we may be talking past each other about Great Britain's role.. In June 1940, once Hitler had established fortress Europe, his primary goal was to force Great Britain to surrender or invade Great Britain. The Luftwaffe went out on nightly raids, first to destroy the RAF, then to terror bomb Great Britain into surrender. They bombed Great Britain for 9 months, at one point for 57 straight days. Estimates of the dead range from 40,000 to 60,000 British citizens killed during the Blitz.
Yes, Australia, New Zealand and Poland contributed about 100 pilots each to the RAF to help Great Britain. But given the nine months that Britain had to ward off a possible invasion and then terror bombing, all while dealing with extreme austerity and rationing, the island nation of Great Britain stood alone against the Nazi menace (notwithstanding battles in North Africa and Egypt that did little to help Grat Britain fight off the Nazi menace at home).
Your claim that Europe would not have been liberated without the US is as unprovable as the original claim that it would have been.
Sure, they could have been liberated by the Soviets, but I'm not sure that's the type of liberation you're thinking of.
The key to Western Europe's liberation was D-Day. There is no way D-day would have even been attempted without massive U.S. involvement.
Also, given your logic, with which you somehow conflate winning with fighting, the US did not fight a war in Vietnam either.
No, I conflate effectiveness with fighting. France and the low countries were completely ineffective in defending their nations against Germany. Worse than ineffective, certain countries (France, Denmark, Belguim) simply gave up. France fired the head of its military on the day German invaded (Something I learned from Band of brothers). It's this ineffectiveness which leads me to discount the part they played in fighting back against Germany.
On edit: "Something I learned from Band of Brothers" was a joke.
posted by cjets at 02:01 PM on May 04, 2011
Blimey, cjets, that news will come as a relief to the families of all the French, Dutch, Belgian, Polish, Czech, Danish, Norwegian, and Luxembourgish troops who were killed during the German occupation of their countries, not to mention the Finns who were killed by the Soviets in 1939.
Here's the original statement I responded to:
The U.S.A. had a part (a significant one) in liberating Europe. It would have been far more difficult without U.S.A. involvment, and taken a lot longer, but it would have happened. Of course, a lot of countries had been fighting that war since September 1939, not December 1941.
First of all, Europe would not have been liberated without the U.S. That was Churchill's belief anyway. But maybe you know better than him.
And as far as fighting that war since 1939? Well, you got me on Poland.
Apart from that, Hitler invaded the France and the low countries on May 10th 1940. By June 14th, 1940, Hitler was in Paris and the low countries were his. I don't consider losing a war in 35 days"fighting that war." I consider it losing a war. Tommy's point seemed to be that these other countries were helping. I'm not sure how they helped fight the war when they were conquered in a month.
If the argument you want to make every nation in Europe (and beyond) suffered at the hands of Hitler and Germany, I'd certainly agree. But as far as fighting the war against the Nazis? That was the U.S., Great Britain and the Soviet Union.
Yes, other nations contributed soldiers and materials, but the bulk of the fighting (and dying) was done by the big three. Go to the beaches at Normandy some time. All of the difficult landings were done by U.S. soldiers (including Rangers who climbed up a sheer rock face, under fire, to take a German position.)
Britain may have been alone in withstanding the Nazi menace (as long as you don't include any of the Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians, Indians or South Africans who were helping),
I said Britain stood alone against the Nazi menace from June 1940 to May of 1941. You want to show me a cite or link that shows how Canadians, New Zealanders, etc. helped Britain in that time period?
posted by cjets at 11:58 AM on May 04, 2011
SportsFilter: The Wednesday Huddle
For those of you who remember this post, the parents are now suing staples center.