Subscribe via RSS Feed

Mittens/Rocker ’12!

[ 52 ] July 31, 2012 |

Not only would John Rocker provide some needed sectional balance to the Republican ticket, he knows just as much about the First Amendment as the previous Republican vice-presidential nominee:

Technically, as our Founding Fathers intended, we are all given the undeniable right to voice our thoughts and opinions freely without fear of scorn and/or ridicule derived from non-agreement.

Technically! Anyway, I think it’s safe to say that the vice presidential search is now over.

Comments (52)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. wengler says:

    I got halfway through that and had to stop reading.

    The First Amendment guarantees you the freedom to write but doesn’t force anyone to slog through prose that would shame a seventh grader.

  2. Pith Helmet says:

    without fear of scorn and/or ridicule derived from non-agreement.

    Wow. Is that like non-attachment? Some sort of zen thing?

  3. Craigo says:

    There are some surprisingly non-crazy comments on that post disagreeing with Rocker.

    Of course, by disparaging his views they proved his point…right?

  4. rea says:

    John Rocker, of course, was briefly famous a decade or two ago for being an idiot.

    Naturally, wingnuts pay him to write opinion columns.

    • “John Rocker, of course, was briefly famous a decade or two ago for being an idiot.”

      That is insulting liberal slander. WND bio:

      “John Rocker, a Major League Baseball pitcher for six years, is the author of “Scars and Strikes.” After retiring from baseball, Rocker embarked upon a successful career in real estate development.”

      See? He’s not just a retired pitcher, he’s also a real estate job creator! Show some respect.

  5. rcobeen says:

    Not surprisingly, Rocker attributes the famous quote at the end to the wrong person. Although I always did figure him for a Voltaire kind of guy.

    • Craigo says:

      You got to the end?

      • Reilly says:

        It was worth it just for this:

        Those who fall into this unfortunate category had better watch their backsides with both eyes when discussing any topic with a script of politically correct verbiage that must be followed.

        Technically, when people are too confused to ridicule you, the First Amendment wins.

        • Warren Terra says:

          I think the only people who are capable of watching their backsides with both eyes have years of training in the art of sticking their head up their ass.

        • somethingblue says:

          Wow. Tom Friedman had better watch his backside. With a muzzle-loading iPad app in all three fists.

    • Anderson says:

      It’s a common error, and it’s very much the kind of thing Voltaire *would* have said. (Tho he tended to skip out of town rather than try out the “defend to the death” part … good thing too, because he did so much good stuff in his old age.)

      … I was trying to explain to someone last week why I was reading a bio of Voltaire, and the best way I could explain it to ‘em was that he was one of the first people to advocate human rights.

  6. Manju says:

    If you ask me, Rocker understands the principle of Freedom from Speech.

  7. What kind of two-bit outfit would run writing that bad? Don’t they have editors?

    • bgn says:

      But it would be a violation of the First Amendment to amend an American’s speech to make it more comprehensible! Don’t you know your Palin?

      • Say what you will about Sarah Palin: they bought her some decent clothes and at least tried to make her presentable.

        World Nut Daily just took John Rocker’s prose and threw it right up there.

        And did you see the ads on that site?

    • rea says:

      They certainly have editors–they modified my comment! (They think saying that Rocker was acting like an “ass” is obscene).

  8. Sev says:

    ” without fear of scorn and/or ridicule derived from non-agreement.”

    Technically, I scorn to change my state with Kings. On second thought no, I think I’d prefer to change my state with a king. I’m allowed to do that. It’s in the Constitution. You could check.

  9. He’s right. It’s all there in the Chastisement Clause!

  10. Jim Lynch says:

    Off topic but it’s interesting. The Huff Post is reporting:

    WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years…

  11. vacuumslayer says:

    Holy lord, I hope that man does some time for murdering the English language.

  12. vacuumslayer says:

    “Undoubtedly, the conservative, heterosexual, white male gets and most likely will continue to get the proverbial short end of the stick”

    ADORABLE!

    • vacuumslayer says:

      Plus everbody knows if you want the proverbial long stick, you gotta be gay.

    • Warren Terra says:

      Might a concern that he might be getting the short end of the stick be what he was referring to when he wrote:

      Those who fall into this unfortunate category had better watch their backsides with both eyes

    • Scott Lemieux says:

      Oh, come on, try to name one straight white guy in a position of power anywhere in the United States.

  13. cpinva says:

    i couldn’t make it past the first couple of paragraphs, my eyes started bleeding. i know baseball players have a reputation for being dumb, but mr. rocker must have set a record low, resulting in an actual drop, across the board, in MLB’s IQ average.

    does anyone actually read WND, except for the ads?

    btw, real estate & insurance are what retired pro atheletes do, when they aren’t bright enough to do anything else after retirement from sport. they’re hired as front persons. professionally, i’ve had occasion to meet a few, in both those businesses. they lived down to my expectations.

  14. vacuumslayer says:

    It “occurs” to me that John Rocker sure does “like” his proverbial “quotation marks.”

  15. You think you’re so smart, Scott, but Rocker’s First Amendment penumbra has been emanated by the Supreme Court of the United States:

    The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner Bush, and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election.

    All the guy wants is his God-given Constitutional right not to have a cloud cast upon him. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

  16. Tracy Lightcap says:

    Hey, he was a good pitcher! Let’s keep our minds on the prize here!

    Let’s face it, who would have cared about Rocker’s political opinions one way or the other when he was pitching lights out for the Braves?

    Not a soul in North and Central America, that’s who!

  17. Spuddie says:

    As a lifelong New Yorker, let me go on the record to state that I still feel insulted about what he had to say about the place. I wish John Rocker only the most painful form of grievous harm imaginable (but not at my hands, that would be illegal). Hopefully to include being hit by a slow moving bus and the remains ground up into catfood.

  18. Kyle Huckins says:

    Rare to see the words John Rocker and balance in the same paragraph without a negation between them.

  19. Randy Paul says:

    As I put in comments there, for a reliever, he must have made a lot of plate appearances as it appears that he’s been beaned in the head quite often.

  20. ironic irony says:

    It always amazes me how many right wingers scream about the Constitution, yet completely fail to understand it.

    Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from critique.

    And I am seriously holding back on Rocker. I’m a Mets fan.

  21. scott says:

    If I recall Rocker correctly, he was a relief pitcher who could throw the ball a million miles an hour, but you had no idea whether he could locate any of them in your zip code. Paraphrasing Bull Durham, I guess he pundits like he pitches – all over the place.

  22. Cody says:

    When he said certain groups who are perceived to be persecuted “are allowed to talk more” by the media, I assumed he was talking about the Tea Party.

    I stopped reading there and am going to assume he’s some kind of crazy liberal.

  23. Bart says:

    Thanks a bunch for answering the unasked question: “what ever happened to John Rocker?”!

  24. Nate says:

    I like the shout out to the dead soldier that begins the article. Apparently, Iraqis, living in Iraq, pose an even greater threat to our free-speech rights than the liberal media and the p.c. police. Thank you, troops, for killing Iraqis, and for getting killed while trying to kill Iraqis–it is only through you sacrificing your humanity, your lives, and the lives of Iraqis that John Rocker can enjoy the freedom to spew such disturbing ignorance.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site