Does anyone else hate Ramirez's dreadlocks?

On Aug 10, 11:56 am, "Triple" <rhag....TakeThisOut@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > No, you don't.  Or at least, the odds are well against it.  There isn't
> > one liberal in 100,000 who believes in freedom for non-liberals.  There
> > isn't one liberal in 100,000 who perceives a "need" for non-liberals.
>
> Well then, there is one moderate who does. My entire spiritual life is about
> balance and equilibrium. We seek the third thing that joins the extremes. In
> my view, conservatives keep us from changing too fast. Technology is an
> example of what happens when conservatives are not there. Change has
> outpaced our laws and ethical thought. Liberals on the other hand keep us
> from stagnation and clinging to laws and ideas that no longer function well
> for society.



No, that's conservatism also.



> Remember, the conservative view was staying with England.



That was NOT the conservative view.


> It was the liberal
> viewpoint (of the time) that sought a new form of government away from a
> monarchy.



That was NOT the liberal view.



> It was the liberal point of view that was against slavery.



False.


> The
> conservatives would maintain the status quo. Just as my life was beginning
> we had conservative politicians arguing for segregation.



Never happened.


> The liberal point of view would have us devoid of personal responsibility
> and relying on government for everything. YUCK to both!

> Conservatives slow down the pace of change. Liberals allow us to change. To
> me the balance is a good thing.

> My political stance on one issue is this. Republicans want to jail
> criminals. Democrats want a program to rehab them.



Also false. I work in the criminal justice system. Republican judges
also believe in rehabilitation for offenders -- especially drug
offenders -- whose records are non-violent and not too repetitive.



> My view is that I want
> preventative programs that divert potential criminal activity from happening
> at all but once it does, lock up them up for a very long time. See? Right
> down the middle.


Get a haircut.
 >> Stay informed about: Does anyone else hate Ramirez's dreadlocks? 

"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote
> "Triple" <rhager4 RemoveThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> I don't like long hair on men, period.
> >
> > You have the right not to like it. The same as I have the right to grow
> > it.
>
> You shouldn't have the right to grow it.

Are you a republican?
 >> Stay informed about: Does anyone else hate Ramirez's dreadlocks? 

On Aug 10, 11:48 am, "Triple" <rhag... RemoveThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:mnGnk.9890$L_.3287@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Triple" <rhag... RemoveThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >news:ujGnk.9887$L_.95@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> >> "Jamal Bernhard" <no... RemoveThis @nowhere.net> wrote in message
> >>news:%dGnk.4026$zv7.61@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
> >>> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>
> >>>>>> I don't like long hair on men, period.
> >>>>> You have the right not to like it. The same as I have the right to
> >>>>> grow it.
>
> >>>> You shouldn't have the right to grow it.
>
> >>> You don't have to live in the Bay Area to realize what a sad and
> >>> disturbing view that is.
>
> >> It is if that is how he feels. He may just be trying to get a rise out of
> >> me. I hope so even though it didn't work.
>
> > I didn't know you had long hair.  Why would I think that it would get a
> > rise out of you, and why would I want to?  My life isn't centered around
> > how you respond to me.
>
> No, I was referring to your argument that I don't have the right to grow it.
> It is hard to tell without knowing someone if that is argument bait or what
> someone really feels. I was hoping it was argument bait.




Sorry to disappoint you.




> > On the other hand, my point of view is genuine, and it seems to have
> > become a much more important part of your life than your views are to
> > mine.
>
> I think my hair and everyone else's is very important to you.



To some extent.



> After all, you
> started the thread.



Just about Manny Ramirez.



> My hair would bother you if we met and therefore it is important to you. If
> you didn't care, it wouldn't bother you.



The most logical alternative is that we never meet. Then I have no
personal stake in it, other than a purely ideological one.




> On the other hand, if you'd really
> take away my right to a hair style, I need to be very concerned about you..




I would take it away. Your reaction doesn't concern me.



> First of all, it shows a blatant disrespect for the rights we enjoy in this
> country.



Not interested. If there is a "right" to long hair for men, there
shouldn't be.



> Secondly, if hair concerns you that much, the rest of my lifestyle
> would bother you much more.



Hoo boy, I'll bet!



> Since you have said you'd take away my right to
> my hair, you'd likely take away my rights to other things I enjoy too.




Maybe. What are they?



> Funny thing, on paper, I am the perfect old-style Republican. I don't do
> drugs. I drink rarely and when I do it is single malt scotch and just a
> little. I don't break laws, with the exception of minor traffic violations.
> I am very much the fiscal conservative. I distrust big government. Heck, I
> distrust little government too because I work for them. They aren't evil,
> just very short-sighted. I even help my elderly neighbors with their trash
> and computer.



Why do you think that I would object to this lifestyle? I suspect
that there's something that you're not telling me.

And I wouldn't let you into my home for help with the trash or
computer if you had long hair. At least, not on a regular basis.

I wouldn't want stray hairs dirtying it up, and I'd have to worry
about your stealing something to fund a drug habit.



> If you looked at me, you'd label me a radical liberal.



I'm sure that I would. It's inconceivable to me that you would have
long hair and not be enamored of left-wing politics. It's
inconceivable to me that you would have long hair and not be up to
more criminal activity than you've described here. I can't believe
that you're not a drug addict, for example. You have long hair, after
all.



> Looks
> can be decieving. In truth, I am a fence sitter. I vote Democratic only
> because they don't care what I do in the bedroom, doctor's office or church



Yes they do.



> and the new Republicans want to invade those areas. If it weren't for them,
> I'd vote Republican.



Then obviously you are not being truthful when you say that you are a
"fence sitter".

None of what you just said about Democrats and Republicans is true
anyway. You ARE a radical liberal. That whole "I'd be a Republican
if only..." facade is something that they train you in at radical
liberal activist school.




> Now, I have to worry about a new politcal contingent
> that believes they can legislate my hair length. What would we call them,
> Hairycans? Hairycuts? Haircarians? And getting back to baseball, the Harry
> Carrians. <grin>
>
> <Triple toddles off wondering why anyone would care about the length of
> anyone else's hair....>


Long hair on men is inappropriate and is symptomatic of other evils.
 >> Stay informed about: Does anyone else hate Ramirez's dreadlocks? 

On Aug 10, 11:38 am, Jamal Bernhard <no....DeleteThis@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
> >> Of course, your views on how things are supposed to be are mired in
> >> the 1950s.
>
> > That's no accident.
>
> Yes...hundreds of generations, each with their own social norms about what is
> "proper" appearance, and it's just coincidence that the social norms that were
> in place while you were so impressionable just happen to be the "correct" ones
> that we should all stick with going forward. You must be very special.


Yes, I am.
 >> Stay informed about: Does anyone else hate Ramirez's dreadlocks? 

On Aug 10, 12:35 pm, "Awesome Lincecum" <Lince... RemoveThis @sf.giants> wrote:
> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > "Triple" <rhag... RemoveThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> > > "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> I don't like long hair on men, period.
>
> > > You have the right not to like it. The same as I have the right to grow
> > > it.
>
> > You shouldn't have the right to grow it.
>
> Are you a republican?



I don't like either of the major parties or, for that matter, any of
the minor ones.
 >> Stay informed about: Does anyone else hate Ramirez's dreadlocks? 

"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb3bc952-061c-42b7-9efa-7f541a60af78@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 10, 12:35 pm, "Awesome Lincecum" <Lince... DeleteThis @sf.giants> wrote:
> "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> > > You shouldn't have the right to grow it.
> >
> > Are you a republican?
>
> I don't like either of the major parties or, for that matter, any of
> the minor ones.

Sounds like communism would be perfect for you.
 >> Stay informed about: Does anyone else hate Ramirez's dreadlocks? 

Triple wrote:

>> No, you don't. Or at least, the odds are well against it. There isn't
>> one liberal in 100,000 who believes in freedom for non-liberals. There
>> isn't one liberal in 100,000 who perceives a "need" for non-liberals.
>
> Well then, there is one moderate who does. My entire spiritual life is about
> balance and equilibrium. We seek the third thing that joins the extremes. In
> my view, conservatives keep us from changing too fast. Technology is an
> example of what happens when conservatives are not there. Change has
> outpaced our laws and ethical thought. Liberals on the other hand keep us
> from stagnation and clinging to laws and ideas that no longer function well
> for society.
>
> Remember, the conservative view was staying with England. It was the liberal
> viewpoint (of the time) that sought a new form of government away from a
> monarchy. It was the liberal point of view that was against slavery. The
> conservatives would maintain the status quo. Just as my life was beginning
> we had conservative politicians arguing for segregation.
>
> The liberal point of view would have us devoid of personal responsibility
> and relying on government for everything. YUCK to both!
>
> Conservatives slow down the pace of change. Liberals allow us to change. To
> me the balance is a good thing.
>
> My political stance on one issue is this. Republicans want to jail
> criminals. Democrats want a program to rehab them. My view is that I want
> preventative programs that divert potential criminal activity from happening
> at all but once it does, lock up them up for a very long time. See? Right
> down the middle.

In general I agree. Both sides can be very hypocritical, so it's important to
root out these hypocrisies and come to a morality that makes consistent sense.
For example, conservatives always bitch about liberal spending and bloating of
government (which can be true), but they can also be the worst government
spenders when it suits their own morality (the prison system is a good example),
and they also want to use the government to legislate other's behavior to match
their own morality.

On the other hand, while conservatives hold onto and try to legislate outdated
ideals, liberals at the other end preach cultural relativism. The hypocrisy
there of course is that saying, "No one set of morals is better than any other,"
has by definition placed one set of morals above all the others (namely, the set
of morals that doesn't judge anyone else's morals). They want to deny the fact
that judgment of morals should exist, and it prevents them from entering into
meaningful discourse about which morals we should universally value and enforce.

So another way to say what you state above is that conservatives hold onto
antiquated morals (which typically fight change) while liberals preach for too
much moral relativism (which typically encourages change). The trick then, is to
figure out which sets of morals are universal and should be legislated (i.e.,
basic human rights, treatment and/or incarceration of criminals), and which sets
of morals are relative and should be left to the individual (i.e., whether a man
braids his hair or chooses to date another man).

Of course, this is an over-simplification of the terms "liberal" and
"conservative". In reality there are many different shades.
 >> Stay informed about: Does anyone else hate Ramirez's dreadlocks? 

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 23:16:15 -0700 "Grizzlie Antagonist"
<lloydsofhanford RemoveThis @yahoo.com> carved the following into the hard stone
of alt.sports.baseball.sf-giants

>I hated them before he ever became a Dodger.

Dreads look good on some people, but on Manny it just looks like a
mess.
--

Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

"Where is the prince who can afford so to cover
his country with troops for its defense, as that
ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might
not,in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief
before a force could be brought together to repel
them?" - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN-1784
 >> Stay informed about: Does anyone else hate Ramirez's dreadlocks? 

In article <B7Fnk.33073$co7.13487@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Triple" <rhager4.TakeThisOut@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:ytDnk.16741$xZ.12110@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >
> > "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:fJvnk.16346$cW3.4571@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >>I hated them before he ever became a Dodger.
> >
> > I don't like Manny the human as far as I can tell but I fail to see what
> > the length of someone's hair has to do with anything any more than the
> > color of car you drive or where you like to spend your free time. If what
> > Selig is alleging is true, he should retire and spend the rest of his life
> > in the house cleaning industry.
>
>
>
> I don't like long hair on men, period. I think that men should be masculine
> and have short hair and that women should be feminine and have long and
> luxurious hair. These would be unusual sentiments for San Francisco, but I
> don't live in The City myself.

And, of course, this is nonsense, since men have had long hair through
almost every era in history. And, when they didn't necessarily have long
hair, they wore wigs with long hair.

That said, I prefer long hair and have never forgiven all the rockers
who cut off their hair; my 2 close friends who were in bands still never
hear the end of it.

> Even setting all that aside, dreadlocks might not seem all that
> inappropriate for a rap artist or for a reggae musician, but they don't seem
> at all appropriate for an athlete. They seem completely at odds with what
> an athlete is supposed to look like and how he is supposed to behave.

All of which is also nonsense. An athlete is supposed to play his sport;
what he looks like is completely and totally irrelevant. I really
despise teams that impose hair codes.

> They can't possibly HELP his performance on the field, and they could only
> be a distraction. If you want to argue that this makes his performance as
> an athlete all the more remarkable, you're at liberty to do so.

Anything that makes someone feel more comfortable and more himself can
do nothing more than make him a better player.

--
JD

"...if you think the 'Star Wars' prequels are a disease, then
'Serenity' is the cure."
 >> Stay informed about: Does anyone else hate Ramirez's dreadlocks? 

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:59:07 -0700 "Grizzlie Antagonist"
<lloydsofhanford.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> carved the following into the hard stone
of alt.sports.baseball.sf-giants

>I don't like long hair on men, period. I think that men should be masculine
>and have short hair and that women should be feminine and have long and
>luxurious hair. These would be unusual sentiments for San Francisco, but I
>don't live in The City myself.

Are you claiming that the 1970s Oakland Raiders weren't masculine?
Long hair everywhere, and some of the bloodiest, mud-splattered
football in the game.

>Even setting all that aside, dreadlocks might not seem all that
>inappropriate for a rap artist or for a reggae musician, but they don't seem
>at all appropriate for an athlete. They seem completely at odds with what
>an athlete is supposed to look like and how he is supposed to behave.

Of course, your views on how things are supposed to be are mired in
the 1950s.

>They can't possibly HELP his performance on the field, and they could only
>be a distraction. If you want to argue that this makes his performance as
>an athlete all the more remarkable, you're at liberty to do so.

They neither help nor hinder. If he likes his hair that way, he's
going to keep it.
--

Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail

"Where is the prince who can afford so to cover
his country with troops for its defense, as that
ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might
not,in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief
before a force could be brought together to repel
them?" - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN-1784
 >> Stay informed about: Does anyone else hate Ramirez's dreadlocks? 

"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy DeleteThis @mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:lsbu945qhjhgcr130p3a3r4ruah3ntamb3@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 09:59:07 -0700 "Grizzlie Antagonist"
> <lloydsofhanford DeleteThis @yahoo.com> carved the following into the hard stone
> of alt.sports.baseball.sf-giants
>
>>I don't like long hair on men, period. I think that men should be
>>masculine
>>and have short hair and that women should be feminine and have long and
>>luxurious hair. These would be unusual sentiments for San Francisco, but
>>I
>>don't live in The City myself.
>
> Are you claiming that the 1970s Oakland Raiders weren't masculine?
> Long hair everywhere, and some of the bloodiest, mud-splattered
> football in the game.



NOTHING like Manny's dreadlocks.



>>Even setting all that aside, dreadlocks might not seem all that
>>inappropriate for a rap artist or for a reggae musician, but they don't
>>seem
>>at all appropriate for an athlete. They seem completely at odds with what
>>an athlete is supposed to look like and how he is supposed to behave.
>
> Of course, your views on how things are supposed to be are mired in
> the 1950s.



That's no accident.



>>They can't possibly HELP his performance on the field, and they could only
>>be a distraction. If you want to argue that this makes his performance as
>>an athlete all the more remarkable, you're at liberty to do so.
>
> They neither help nor hinder. If he likes his hair that way, he's
> going to keep it.



And if he wants to chew food with his mouth open, he's going to do that too.
It doesn't make it right.
 >> Stay informed about: Does anyone else hate Ramirez's dreadlocks? 

Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:

>> Of course, your views on how things are supposed to be are mired in
>> the 1950s.
>
> That's no accident.

Yes...hundreds of generations, each with their own social norms about what is
"proper" appearance, and it's just coincidence that the social norms that were
in place while you were so impressionable just happen to be the "correct" ones
that we should all stick with going forward. You must be very special.
 >> Stay informed about: Does anyone else hate Ramirez's dreadlocks? 

In article <LkGnk.9888$L_.2370@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com>,
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy.DeleteThis@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
> news:lsbu945qhjhgcr130p3a3r4ruah3ntamb3@4ax.com...

> > They neither help nor hinder. If he likes his hair that way, he's
> > going to keep it.
>
>
>
> And if he wants to chew food with his mouth open, he's going to do that too.
> It doesn't make it right.

Since he's not eating out on the field what the hell does that have to
do with anything.

--
JD

"...if you think the 'Star Wars' prequels are a disease, then
'Serenity' is the cure."
 >> Stay informed about: Does anyone else hate Ramirez's dreadlocks?