Monday, September 12, 2011

Justine Henin's One-Handed Backhand

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what, in your opinion, is the most beautiful shot in the history of modern tennis?"

42 comments:

w-dervish said...

Is there any sport you don't watch? I don't know who this "Justine Henin" person is. Never heard of her.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Hockey, baseball (although I tend to follow it somewhat), golf, lacrosse, NASCAR, bowling, billiards, wrestling (real and phony), swimming, track and field, figure skating, skiing, speed skating, soccer, rugby, squash, weight lifting, body building, cycling, diving, motorcross, and many, many, others.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Its obvious WD has never walked through a casino sports book where millions of dollars are bet each day on just about every sport you mentioned Will.Millions are made and lost each sporting season...its the thrill of the action.
Action for WD seems to be MSNBC and liberal radio....what an exciting life.

w-dervish said...

Rusty: ...millions of dollars are bet each day on just about every sport... Millions are made and lost each sporting season... its the thrill of the action.

No, it's a way to separate fools from their money. This does not sound like meaningful or productive work to me. It sounds like Rusty is involved in a scam where fools are separated from their hard-earned money. This is not a real job, IMO. It is a con. And it's no surprise to me that Rusty makes his living this way.

Rusty categorizes Liberals as "sucking off the public teat", insisting that he (Rusty) foots the bill (through his tax dollars) for Liberal freeloaders. But in fact it is Rusty who is the parasite, as he makes his living conning suckers out of their hard earned money, and does no real work.

A PHD writing for Psychology Today asks, Is Political Conservatism a Mild Form of Insanity? At least in Rusty's case, I think the answer is yes.

One of the symptoms displayed by Rusty on this blog is psychological_projection. According to Wikipedia, "Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings".

I believe this describes Rusty to a "T". Whenever he attacks Liberals (and attributing negative traits to them), he's really talking about himself.

I have never walked through a casino, nor do I ever intend to. I'm not dumb enough to give away my money and get nothing in return for it. Also, I don't want my cash going to hucksters like Rusty. These leeches should get real jobs and stop sucking off the public teat.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I think that hard-core pretty much anything is a form of insanity, wd.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Well now,looks like Rusty struck a nerve with WD.Poor WD has never set foot in a casino yet seems to have uncovered an ongoing elaborate con thats been seperating unsuspecting fools from their money for all these years.WD should immediately call for a complete investigation as to why the government allows these hucksters to continue to openly operate without being held accountable for their crimes.While at it,WD should also demand the gaming industry stop their practice of physically forcing citizens into these casinos to eat,drink,enjoy entertainment and yes even gamble.Its a travesty the federal government allows this criminal activity to continue.
Speaking of criminal activity...it seems WD has taken to practicing psychology without either an education or license,perhaps the last stop on WD's ride on the disorient express.

w-dervish said...

It appears as though Rusty is also suffering from delusions of grandeur. I never said the con was "elaborate". It is, in fact, quite simplistic. Then he says I've accused him of being a criminal mastermind.

I never said anything about criminality. I said those involved in the gaming "industry" are leaches and hucksters... and it looks like it was wd who struck a nerve with Rusty... because instead of addressing the allegations I actually made... he makes up a bunch of new ones and refutes those (the charges I never levied).

Strangely enough, it also appears Rusty is a con man who doesn't know what the definition of "con" is... When you con someone you convince them to do something that is not in their self interest... using words. There is no "forcing".

This is how Con-servatives think... it's OK to steal from someone as long as no force is involved. Tricking people into believing they can "win" money when, in reality, the house always wins, is a "job" and makes them "productive" members of society.

It appears as though Rusty is quite ill (mentally).

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

We have 2 HUGE casinos in CT, both of them run by people claiming to be Native-American. I've never been to either one of them and probably never will. But I do realize that a lot of people like it and, hey, who am I to judge 'em? To each his own, wd, to each his own.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Actually Will,Foxwoods is the biggest casino in the country,bigger then anything in either Las Vegas or Atlantic City.Foxwoods also contributes around 500 million dollars per year to the state of Connecticut.
Poor delusional WD obviously has an issue with an industry that employs millions of people nation wide.Would WD rather all these folks from the valet parkers to the service workers instead sell out dated movie score CD's on Amazon or actually go out and earn an honest living that contribute to society?
Who pray tell is really the "huckster," is it the maid cleaning a hotel room,the line cook preparing someones dinner,the waiter serving the meal,the valet parking attendent,the bellhop,the dealer,the pit boss....are they really con men and hucksters or our american neighbors working each day to support their familys by doing an honest days work? Should these people be denigrated by a delusional know nothing throwing around the term huckster and con man? I think not.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd sees everything as black and white, Russ. You know that.

w-dervish said...

Will: wd sees everything as black and white, Russ. You know that.

Actually I don't see EVERYTHING as black and white. Rusty's argument was that his industry has created jobs... do you think, Will, that we should legalize prostitution and drug use? I'm sure doing so would create a lot of jobs.

And with those two you actually get something for your money.

Will: We have 2 HUGE casinos in CT, both of them run by people claiming to be Native-American.

They are "claiming" to be Native American? Is there some doubt about it?

I'm OK with casinos run by Native Americans, so long as it's for the good of the entire Native American community and doesn't enrich a small group of people (the operators). It's a gray area I'm willing to live with.

But why are others able to operate gambling establishments, when in most of the US gambling is illegal? Who chose these fortunate few? I think its bullshit.

Will: But I do realize that a lot of people like it and, hey, who am I to judge 'em? To each his own...

Some people like to engage in what is know as sexual tourism. Men take trips to places like Thailand to have sex with children. To each his own? You won't judge them? I'm sure it creates jobs.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, you're comparing pedophilia to competent and consenting adults putting their own money into a slot machine? Seriously?..........As for drugs and prostitution, I'm definitely in favor of legalizing pot. The fact that a grown person can't smoke a joint in his own home is ludicrous. Other drugs, though, probably no. Prostitution? Well, it's legal in Nevada. I don't know, that's a tough one. Maybe the women would in fact be safer if it was legal and regulated.

okjimm said...

frankly I prefer a shot of Patron Reposado.... with just a little lime

w-dervish said...

Will: you're comparing pedophilia to competent and consenting adults putting their own money into a slot machine? Seriously?

No, I only gave an example of another industry that could be legalized and said legalization would create jobs. Just like with gambling, which is legal for a select few.

Sounds like the government picking winners to me... which I'd have thought you'd be opposed to.

As for these "competent" adults who put their money into slot machines... I question their competence the same as I'd question the competence of an adult who willingly tossed his or her money in a trash can and expected they might get something in return.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

wd, I'm sure that if these same competent adults (most of whom gamble just for fun and do it only occasionally) heard some of the stuff that comes out of your mouth, the assessment would be very similar. You gotta let people live and let live, dude.......And, yes, I think that the government is well within its bounds to say to its citizens that child sex is a "loser".

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Yes, Okjimm, a shot Tequila would definitely hit the spot. Lime - gotta have the lime!

w-dervish said...

Will: yes, I think that the government is well within its bounds to say to its citizens that child sex is a "loser".

I was referring to the fact that in most of the United States gambling is illegal. Yet in a few select areas the government selects winners... and allows them to open gambling establishments and bring in the sheep to shear.

Why is the government selecting those winners OK with you? (assuming that it is) And, if it isn't, what would you do to correct the "problem"?

Will: ...heard some of the stuff that comes out of your mouth, the assessment would be very similar.

I don't give away my money for nothing. When I spend money I expect something in return. Allowing their sheep to "live and let live" is exactly what the leaches like Rusty in the gambling industry want...

I don't think we should outlaw all gambling (simply because such a feat would be near impossible, and probably drive it underground), but I do think we should restrict it highly, regulate it tightly, and tax it at a high rate.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I'm just guessing here but I think that state law probably outlaws it in some states. Maybe if somebody challenged a certain state law, a higher court could possibly strike it down.............And I'm getting a little confused here. Are the states WITH gambling the winners, or are the states WITHOUT gambling the winners (being that gambling is such a wretched thing and all)?

w-dervish said...

I think the states that allow gambling end up losing... but that isn't what I was talking about. I was referring to the owners of the gambling establishments. They're the winners. Their "product" (an illusion that the customer might win more than he is betting) costs absolutely nothing.

If someone is against the government picking winners, then they should support gambling being either totally legal or totally illegal. I'm asking which option you think we should go with...

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I have no problem with casinos being legal. Do I think that there should be a national law to make them legal? Probably not. The Federal government sticks its nose into too many things already.

Rusty Shackelford said...

46 states have some form of legalized gambling (not including state lotteries,)there are 1,500 casinos nation wide.Casino hotels employee 253,000 people.In 2010 casino employees earned 13.3 billion dollars (a pretty good tax base.)The casino work force increased 70% from 1990 to 2010.

Once again WD pontificates on a subject he knows absolutly nothing about.WD "refers to the fact that in most of the United States gambling is illegal," whoops....wrong again sparky.WD,"I think the states that allow gambling end up losing." Whoops....also wrong.Unless you think increased employment is "losing."

Does WD ever tire of making an ass out of himself? Obviously not.WD should stick to the subject of boring,outdated movie scores.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

"but I do think we should restrict it highly, regulate it tightly, and tax it at a high rate." wd, you kinda remind me of this Casper the Ghost doll that I had when I was a kid. You pulled this string on it and it would say the same two or three things over and over again.

w-dervish said...

According to Casino Watch, "The economic and social costs of gambling result in a NET LOSS for states, communities, and families".

Casino watch says, "60% of those addicted to gambling will commit crimes, 20% of gambling addicts commit or attempt suicide, 63% of gambling addicts are alcoholics, 20% of addicted gamblers have filed for bankruptcy, 50% will abuse spouses and children, 20% of the homeless are gambling addicts, and 50% of gambling addicts will divorce".

Furthermore, Casino Watch says, "addicted gamblers cost the United States between $32.4 billion and $53.8 billion a year, and 30-50% of gambling revenues derive from problem and pathological gamblers".

Rusty can spin all he likes, but he can't make custard out of that mustard. Gambling costs FAR MORE than it brings in (in wages for employees and tax revenue).

Will: wd, you ... say the same two or three things over and over again.

Sorry Will, but I simply refuse to buy into your corporatist agenda. The policies I advocate for are the policies that have been proven to work.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Yeah, me, Robert Reich, and firedog lake - corporatists of America. You're a piece of work, you know that?

Rusty Shackelford said...

Ahhh Casino Watch...very similar to the American Temperance Society of the past.But they want to out law legal gambling not booze.Notice they use the word "addicted" in all the statistics they put forth...kind of like saying crack addicts are very likely to steal and use drugs.WD,you really dont make much sense and just about all you say is asinine.You must be a real treasure to your family.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Question WD....what exactly are the policies you advocate for....errr,the ones that worked?

w-dervish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
w-dervish said...

Rusty: you really don't make much sense and just about all you say is asinine. You must be a real treasure to your family.

You don't make much sense to me Rusty. Everything you say I find quite asinine. Everyone in my immediate family (my brothers and my parents) is a Democrat, and we all are concerned about the Republicans gaining control and further ruining our economy.

The policies I advocate for (the ones that have been proven to work) are progressive taxes with a high marginal rate, protectionist tariffs, government regulation of industry, and government spending to help the less fortunate and the middle class.

Those are the policies that made the US a manufacturing powerhouse and built the middle class during the 50s through the 70s. Then Reagan was elected and he began dismantling everything the previous generations had built. America began its decline with the election of Ronald Reagan.

dmarks said...

"{protectionist tariffs"

No thanks. These decisions are best left to the people, not the State. I'll be damned if I am going to pay a tax for wanting to buy a superior product.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Humor us WD....these policies of yours...when was it they worked.Did they work for a couple days,a couple years,perhaps a couple decades.But,when was it.

w-dervish said...

Rusty: ...when was it.

That information is contained within my previous comment.

dmarks: I'll be damned if I am going to pay a tax for wanting to buy a superior product.

You'll be damned if you don't. Because buying everything from overseas is destroying our manufacturing base and making America poorer. Apparently dmarks wants to live in a country where there is widespread poverty, but I do not.

dmarks said...

"You'll be damned if you don't. Because buying everything from overseas is destroying our manufacturing base and making America poorer. Apparently dmarks wants to live in a country where there is widespread poverty, but I do not."

We don't buy everything from overseas. You can't deal with actual situations, so you make up one that does not exist. In fact, if we look at Mexico, the US exported $300 billion dollars worth of goods in 2010. This is long after NAFTA, which made trade more free and fair. Also, the US is still a major manufacturing power, with growth in this sector in recent years.

Sorry, WD, I have more faith in the American manufacturing worker than you do. Many of them are better at making products here, just as some in foreign countries are better at making other products. It's really something we need to keep fascism (unwarranted government intrusion) out of. It's not the business of the ruling elites.

Forcing people to buy inferior overpriced products also contributes to poverty. In a big way. I know from experience having owned awful domestic cars, which had thousands of $$$ in repair bills each year. Then I bought a superior foreign product, and the problem went away.

And face it, if your product is such overpriced crap that it can't compete without extreme government intervetion, then this is not a sustainable situation. And the solution is to become better at things, not 'protectionism' to protect those who do a lousy job.

Let each person choose instead. Feel free to make your own choices of which products to buy and from where, but you have no business getting the government to force uninformed "one size fits few" preferences on everyone.

So yes, having taxes punishing people for making informed economic decisions is a real bad idea. And no, we won't be damned if we let the people choose to make these decisions.

w-dervish said...

NAFTA was an extremely bad agreement. I'm for withdrawing from NAFTA as well as the WTO. Other countries protect their manufacturing, so why don't we? It's really quite stupid.

The chart that accompanies the article you linked to gives stats for 6 other countries... all of which (excluding China) have significantly smaller populations than the United States, so it stands to reason that the outputs of their manufacturing sectors are smaller.

Also, China is set to overtake us in manufacturing shortly, as the article you linked to points out. The important number here isn't our manufacturing output, but the trade deficit.

An article on About.com says, "In 2010, the total U.S. trade deficit was $497.9 billion. This was $1.8 trillion in exports minus $2.3 trillion in imports".

The problem is that, "an ongoing trade deficit is detrimental to the nation' economy over the long term because it is financed with debt. In other words, the U.S. can buy more than it makes because the countries that it buys from are lending it the money".

The US used to loan the rest of the world money, now we're a debtor nation. This isn't sustainable. I don't understand why dmarks thinks that it is.

btw, fascism isn't "unwarranted government intrusion"... fascism is intrusion by the corporations into our government and political process. An example of this would be the Citizens United SCOTUS decision. That was an extremely fascistic ruling.

dmarks said...

WD said: "NAFTA was an extremely bad agreement."

The only thing bad about NAFTA was that it did not lift restrictions enough."

"Other countries protect their manufacturing, so why don't we?"

Just because other countries engage in a horrible practice of limiting their people's choices in good and forcing them to get inferior overpriced products doesn't mean we have to.

"It's really quite stupid."

Protectionism is.

"The chart...."

It all disproves the idea that pople in the US aren't good at manufacturing anything.
Also, China is set to overtake us in manufacturing shortly, as the article you linked to points out. The important number here isn't our manufacturing output, but the trade deficit.

"...the total U.S. trade deficit was $497.9 billion...."

A completely meaningless figure. Next...
"The US used to loan the rest of the world money, now we're a debtor nation."

That is a GREAT reason why we need to reduce government spending.

"This isn't sustainable. I don't understand why dmarks thinks that it is."

I don't. We need to cut spending. Now, a lot.

"btw, fascism isn't "unwarranted government intrusion"... fascism is intrusion by the corporations..."

Wrong. Fascism is by definition too much government power.

"An example of this would be the Citizens United SCOTUS decision. That was an extremely fascistic ruling."


Actually, it overturned a far more fascistic law: the existing one by which government censored individuals for criticizing those in power. The censorship law was very fascist. THAT was overturned by the Citizens United decision.

Now, WD, feel free to rescind NAFTA in your personal life. But don't force destructive fascistic trade-limiting decisions on the rest of us.

w-dervish said...

The trade deficit and the national debt have nothing to do with one another. That dmarks suggests cutting government spending will reduce the trade deficit proves beyond any doubt that he hasn't a clue about which he speaks.

And he also has no idea what fascism is.

So why, pray tell, is the trade deficit a "meaningless number"? This should be good for a laugh...

dmarks said...

WD: You were referring to the US being a "debtor nation" Actual debt. Which federal overspending has a lot to do with.

I was not responding to any comment about the trade deficit, but to your comment about the US being a debtor nation.

Perhaps you are the one confusing the trade deficit with debt. If you are doing so you have no idea what you speak about.

And I proved to you long ago that you are the one who is incorrect about fascism. That's kind of problematic since you consistently advocate for more power and privilege of the ruling elites, at the expense of the ruled. You are being intentionally misleading when you arbitrarily rule out left-wing versions of fascism from the definition.

And when you forget that government censoring the critics of government is a hallmark of fascism, and that the Citizens United decision overturned this very bad situation.

And your notion (which you have passionately argued for) that free speech is only reserved for government-approved "press" organs and not the people is a radical destruction of a basic civil liberty, and one that fascist leaders strongly agree with.

The anti-censorship part of the Citizens United decision is a victory for free speech and for civil liberties.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

WD said "I said those involved in the gaming "industry" are leaches and hucksters..."

You strike a nerve with me too, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

"This is how Con-servatives think... it's OK to steal from someone as long as no force is involved. "

Actually, conservatives tend to be more law-and-order than liberals.

"Tricking people into believing they can "win" money when, in reality, the house always wins, is a "job" and makes them "productive" members of society."

You really really have no idea what you are talking about. Conservatives tend to oppose the gaming industry a lot more than liberals do. Liberals tend to defend it.

Any problems with the gaming industry (which misleads no-one are solved by this very effective idea: if you don't like it, you don't have to gamble.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: You really really have no idea what you are talking about. Conservatives tend to oppose the gaming industry a lot more than liberals do. Liberals tend to defend it.

Rusty is defending it. Rusty is a conservative. You're defending it... you're certainly more conservative than you are Liberal. I don't know what I'm talking about???

I think the facts show dmarks really, really, REALLY doesn't know what he's talking about.

As for your idea that if you don't like it you shouldn't do it... I very much disagree. Should people who suffer from the disease of addiction simply conquer their addiction through will power? dmarks must think this would be quite easy and these losers have no excuse if they can't do it.

Or perhaps gambling addiction is just a myth? Maybe gamblers who ruin their lives are really sadomasochists who enjoy being miserable? Whatever the case may be, the government has no obligation to try to do anything about it, no matter what the negative costs to society are?

dmarks said...

"Rusty is defending it. Rusty is a conservative. You're defending it... you're certainly more conservative than you are Liberal."

Yes, but we are the acceptions. Typically, it is right-wingers who moralize and oppose gambling, drinking, prostitution.

"I don't know what I'm talking about???"

Yes, when you blame the gaming industry for no reason at all.

If you don't like casinos, don't go to them. Problem solved.

"Should people who suffer from the disease of addiction simply conquer their addiction through will power?"

We aren't talking addiction. We are talking poor choices. People make poor choices, to spend money on gambling, comic books, etc. The sellers of comic books and the casinos are blameless for this. It's not an actual disease, it is a character flaw in those few who have it.

Then we can get into the Native American issue. Most of the casinos are on Indian land. It's the Indians' choice to run them. And the money coming in from this industry has done a lot for Native communities and their critical government missions.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I just spent the last 2 days in New Hampshire. Wow, did you fellows ever have a donnybrook!

dmarks said...

WD: I checked the Gallup poll here. As I suspected, liberals are definitely more "pro-gambling" as a group than conservatives are. But the difference was less than I expected.