User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets. |
Ticket Nest sells Braves, Cubs, Padres, Indians, Marlins, Nuts, Pirates, Rangers, Patriots, Royals, Stars, Tides, Tigers, Twins, Phillies, Wings, Mets, Yankees, Angels, Dodgers tickets, and Dragons tickets. |
Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers |
Page rendered in 1.4844 seconds
80 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I know you know how insipid this argument is. "Methods open to fraud" are obviously on a scale and we can find methods still more impervious to fraud than picture IDs are, and yet none of us would advocate those unless we were shown evidence that picture IDs were failing to prevent fraud, and one would think libertarians typically would be sympathetic of efforts that require gov't to justify what they require of the citizen. As there's no evidence that the current system allowed rampant fraud, one can't help but think this isn't about fraud, right?
Instead, news stories and an op-ed with lots of qualified statements that, if Bush intended to wage two wars simultaneously and fulfill all our other commitments while maintaining military readiness, the only way to address the manpower needs in the end would be via a draft. A qualified statement which remains true to this day, if you've paid any attention to the damage done over the last four years to our armed forces.
Apparently Kerry's and Harkins' and the others' mistake was that they just weren't willing to believe that Bush would be such an incompetent CiC that, in order to keep his Iraq folly alive without taking any actual responsibility for it, he would go to such extreme lengths to destroy the Regular Army and Marines, and the National Guard, and military readiness, and drastically lower recruitment standards, etc.
I can't help think that. If there were complaints of fraud, wouldn't a state first try to prosecute and punish that fraud under its existing laws, and then if that seemed to be ineffective, move to some more drastic measures? And if there was widespread and well-organized fraud, wouldn't these mighty defrauders just organize a bunch of fake voter IDs along with all the diabolical things they are already doing?
As for the "scary looking black people" thing, it's a reasonable concern, but keep in mind something Democrats always want people to forget when they charge manipulation of elections: elections are run locally. Most blacks (at least in the northern states) live in places which are heavily (a) Democratic, and (b) black. There's no reason to think poll workers in these areas would have any incentive to make it hard for blacks to vote.
As for the the link to the AJC on the Shirley Franklin "ad" or whatever -- "It’s not clear where the ad is being broadcast, or how frequently if at all."
Under the rules of English grammar you need* to make those two sentences, separated by a period.
Definitely not. It is a compound sentence separated by the co-ordinating conjunction "but," which is certainly permissible, if a bit awkward because of length.
Your suggested correction starts a sentence with a conjunction, which is one of those questionable rules (like splitting infinitives). I personally avoid starting sentences with conjunctions in any sort of formal writing.
That was deliberate, by the way. I think correcting split infinitives is a stupid rule. I also wouldn't correct anyone's sentences except in a discussion about correcting sentences.
EDIT: It isn't a good example because it isn't an infinitive, of course. There must be a rule that all grammar corrections are grammatically incorrect.
Hey, is that a homophone or a homonym error?
It's neither random or arbitrary. It's determining whether someone has the proper credentials for voting.
The reason I mentioned it was because I heard the damn thing, so obviously it was broadcast.
Wasn't it Al Gore in the 1988 primaries who first attacked Dukakis over Willie Horton?
If Dukakis didn't want people pointing out his blunders when he was Governor, he shouldn't have let so many murderers free to commit more crimes. This is Obama's advantage over Dukakis, of course - he has no record and no experience, so his mistakes are all in front of him.
Holy ####. What I don't get is the sheer spinelessness of the Democrats. Once the Republicans started playing this way, why the #### didn't they pound it in, over and over, that 9/11 happened on the Republican watch.
You know that had the reverse been true, the Republican mantra would have been, over 3000 innocent people died because the Democratic Congress and President were too busy playing politics to keep you safe.
OK, save this statement. Andy just officially described the NAACP as a handful of nuts.
Having just read the transcripts of those ads as quoted above, that's not exactly what they said. But perhaps you can point out where they did.
Furthermore, these were spoken by the child of the murdered man. I would give that a bit of leeway. They weren't run as campaign ads, at least it's not apparent from what I'm reading here. And unless I'm missing something, they didn't also include a Hortonized image of Gov. Bush.
Now IF the NAACP HAD run an ad claiming that "Bush killed James Byrd," THEN I would agree with you that that would be totally out of line.
The problem is, that from what I'm seeing here, they didn't do any such thing. These were ads REQUESTING him to sign a particular bill into law.
A further question would be this: Do you seriously think that I make it a habit of defending indefensible acts, just because they're committed by those on "my" side? Do you have any evidence of such behavior on my part for that? Do you really need these sort of rhetorical tactics to get your argument across?
So, let me get this straight.
Speech Simply Given in Philadelphia, MS: Secret Code to Racists.
Ad Showing Images of James Byrd and saying that Bush's actions were like Byrd being lynched all over again: Nothing to See Here, Move Along.
By this stunning bit of logic, I take it that you'd have no complaint with this ad perhaps being aired? After all, it doesn't explicitly connect those things to Obama, it just encourages him to vote on possible legislation.
Do you seriously think that I make it a habit of defending indefensible acts, just because they're committed by those on "my" side? Do you have any evidence of such behavior on my part for that? Do you really need these sort of rhetorical tactics to get your argument across?
There's pretty good evidence of you defending an indefensible act. See post 3315 of this thread.
"Ad which criticizes Max Cleland for not supporting the law creating the Department of Homeland Security": Evil Negative Karl Rove Politics.
The ads may have overstated their case, but as was said above, it was someone whose dad was tortured to death for being black. And given the amount of positive things that his family has done in response to their father's brutal murder, I would be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
EDIT: I wrote Hillary's name for NC when I meant Obama. Fixed.
Yeah--you almost killed me.
Ouch, if it holds.
It won't. It doesn't include the Gary area, the Bloomington area nor the INdy area - which are Barack strongholds.
I thought they called him too cowardly to defend the country because he wanted a different employment structure for the DHS. He looks like a genius now, and it was pretty lame for a bunch of draft dodgers to call somebody who lost that many limbs defending freedom or whatever the #### a coward.
-- MWE
Haven't seen that. What's your source, Mike?
CNN, but Hillary still has a 10-11% lead, but no Gary votes yet.
The three areas Chris mentioned aren't in yet, as far as I can tell.
My source is WSJ Online, which has the CBS call reported but notes that no one else has followed suit.
WSJ also notes that about 10% of the voters in the Democratic primary were Republicans; Indiana allows crossover voting.
-- MWE
Agreed--very interesting link, and it does look like the delegate apportionment in IN will be very close to even. Does seem like that after the primaries on May 20 Obama will have a majority of electable delegates, which could cause a lot of the supers to fall off the fence.
-- MWE
But isn't the problem that nobody wants to pay for this?
I don't understand the fuss about the Cleland ad. They didn't call him unpatriotic or a coward - they called him "misleading." Which in the lexicon of politics is a pretty mild term. He says he "supports President Bush at every opportunity" then votes against Bush's homeland security bill... he can hardly complain when the discrepancy between words and deeds is pointed out.
More generally I don't understand the fuss about "negative campaigning." The purpose of election campaigns is not "Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind," it's choosing the best (or least bad) candidate for the position. And, more importantly, removing the corrupt/incompetent/malign from their positions. If candidates are not held to account on their record at the next election, then they will do whatever they please while in office. And you will get government full of earmarks and pork paid for on the never-never, totally in thrall to lobbyists. Oh, wait.
Let the negative campaigning stop when the politicians behave themselves. For now, America needs more negative campaigning, not less.
Sounds like someone's whistling in the graveyard. Michigan and Florida are about as likely to rescue Hillary as Transylvania and Timbuktu.
They will have to do something, but seating the Michigan delegation as is when Edwards and Obama weren't on the ballot strikes me as a huge mistake.
There won't be another primary or caucus in those states, so I don't think the issue is paying for it.
Good point. I don't mind negative campaigning, I mind the lies, smears, and distortions.
Good speech Obama's giving right now.
I guess the Dems are upset that the ad used the word "courage." I suppose the Republicans could have used a different word (*), but their point seems to have been that he didn't have the "courage" to stand up to ("lead") his party and vote with Bush on these things; the ad specifically tied his "courage" to his voting record, and then went on to actually show his voting record.
(*) Maybe if they said he didn't "know" how to lead in this area (and that his voting record showed that he did not support Bush in this area despite his claims to the contrary), it would have saved the bickering. But it would have also changed the point of their ad, which was that he wasn't standing up to his party on this issue.
I really don't see the big deal. In their paranoia the Democrats appear to have taken the ad out of context by over-reacting to the word "courage."
(At least the "courage" complaint is not wholly absurd, because one needs to pay attention to the ad to understand the reason for the word; the "unpatriotic" complaint that we often hear, however, is completely delusional.)
CNN is showing no returns at all from Lake County - Gary, Hammond, East Chicago, right on the Chicago border - so far with most of the rest of the outstanding precincts looking to be around Indianapolis. Whoever called IN for Hillary already may have been premature.
I'm no Democrat, though I do despise the Repuglican slime machine. I did hear the hoopla before ever seeing the ad. The complaints seemed to me to bear little relation to the actual ad which, while typically brainless and whiny, was really pretty mild.
I think the ad is completely disgusting and misleading, but certainly in not the ways it was depicted.
It wasn't really unfair as much as "stupid", and what do I know, as it clearly worked.
Lake County is holding onto all results until they finish all precincts, including 11000 absentee ballots. The projection is that Obama has to win that county 57-43 to overtake Hillary and win IN. We probably won't hear until midnight or so.
Wouldn't that make people suspicious?
One of the CNN commentators was saying something to that effect. It would be humorous to see it swing by just a few votes.
Linking the war hero to Osama Bin Laden because he doesn't agree with the specific policy in terms of how the DHS is constituted seems pretty nasty to me.
edit: those Obama votes came from Gary
The delta is 20,985 votes.
Haven't heard anything.
Certainly out of character for the Clinton camp to turn a blind eye to mathematical reality.
Lake County has reported 28% of their vote with Obama leading there by 18,521. Obviously, the remaining 72% may not be as good to Obama, but, just as obviously, they might be or close enough to wipe away a 21,000-vote lead.
Oh, how I would love for Hillary to lose Indiana after claiming victory.
Right. They'll end up seating the MI and FL delegates (thus assuaging concerns about "disenfranchisement"), because doing so won't change the outcome of the nomination race anyway.
Ditto, though of course Obama's already won the "perceptions" game (which is the only one Clinton knows how to play at this point, since the math disfavors her) in Indiana. Not that that should matter; whoever wins Indiana, the state's delegates are likely to be split evenly. Hillary winning the state by 2,000 votes or something isn't going to change that one iota. In practical terms, her "win" in Indiana plus $ .50 buys her a copy of the Chicago Tribune.
I think everyone of those $.50 will be needed to pay off her campaign debt.
It may finally put Ray's vote out of reach.
I'll buy a round for the entire country.
True, though if she loses by one or more popular votes, it has to help knock her out of the race.
Well, yes. It might cause reality to dawn on even the denser folks on the subject (i.e., the Clinton campaign).
Assuming 10% of the voters in the Dem primary are Republicans, and that they broke for Clinton 53/47 (which, frankly, strikes me as an unrealistically low percentage, but whatever), then a 50/50 split among Dems and Independents results in Clinton getting 50.3% of the vote. Currently, she's at 50.7% with Union (I think, I don't see their #s yet) and half of Lake remaining.
They effectively said he didn't have the "courage to lead." But you're right, they didn't call him unpatriotic.
I don't see that they "linked" him to OBL; I just see that they said that as America faces terrorists like OBL, Cleland is making the wrong decisions (i.e. votes) on homeland security.
For what it's worth, the Chambliss campaign removed the images of Bin Laden and Hussein from the beginning of the ad after the Democrats complained about it. So I'm inclined to think they realized it was a little over-the-top.
I'd be curious to see the ad this one was responding to - the one where Cleland supposedly claims to have supported Bush at every opportunity.
Anyway, based on what I know, I don't have a huge problem with that ad (assuming it's truthful). But I think it's unfortunate that we live in a political/media climate where ads like can affect the outcome of elections. And personally, I don't think I'd vote for someone who impugned the courage of a guy like Cleland over votes about the hiring practices of the DHS.
Likewise, I think the Byrd TV ad was a bit over-the-top (saying it was like her dad had been killed all over again), although based on what I know, it wasn't dishonest and I don't think it accuses Bush of lynching Byrd, as Szym claims. And I think it's unfortunate that things like this actually sway people's votes.
EDIT: CNN's called it, like, a minute after I wrote the above.
Of course it doesn't, but you can't argue with paranoia.
You mean the one in which Andy thinks Wright will announce he's gay?
Will H drop out... Yes, but she'll extract maximum concessions first: to ensure one of her gang is on the ticket, to get her campaign debt paid off, to get speakers at the convention, and so on. Laurence O'Donnell thinks Obama will go with Gen. Wesley Clark. He's been a Clinton supporter, and can offset McCain's military background.
4-star army general, Rhodes scholar, valedictorian of his West Point class, Supreme Allied Commander of Europe for Nato, funneled a lot of PAC money to Democratic candidates in 2006, white... There were some issues with his handling of Kosovo, but I'm no military historian, so I couldn't tell you what the real problems might have been, and there was some talk of his calling Jews "New York money people"...
I'm thinking Ed Rendell all but guarantees Obama Pennsylvania. As long as we're talking strategy rather than values I think Obama needs someone who brings him a big, swing state.
Yeah, but once you rule out war criminals, who is there?
As for McCain, I could see someone like Bobby Jindal, although it may be too soon for him.
Again, a no-brainer.
I just realized this- there are no Hillary supporters posting in this thread, are there? If you're here, speak up!
(note- not asking b/c I like her, just think it's odd that it's universally Obama supporters among the Dems/libs posting)
My wife voted for HC, but I don't think she's anti-Obama.
Obama/Webb vs. McCain/Watts, anyone?
They can only come out when the Sun goes down in their Transylvanian homeland, google boy. You should know that by now.
That a guy my age is being seriously considered for a slot on a presidential ticket makes me feel very, very old. In fairness, Jindal and I are barely old enough to be on a ticket, constitutionally. McCain/Jindal would certainly be an interesting ticket, though I'll confess to not knowing much about Jindal other than his age, ethnicity, where he's from and what office he holds, and his party affiliation.
My personal fave for the Dem VP slot is Mark Warner (popular ex-governor of an important purplish/increasingly blue swing state), but nobody else seems to agree with me (and he's running for the senate, right?).
Webb would be OK, though strategically Obama might be better served with a governor/ex-governor (and by someone whose selection wouldn't eat into the Dems' senate majority). I've heard Bayh's name bounced around.
We could create a DNA database for everyone in the country, and then we could prick everyone's fingers when they go to vote to make sure they're who they say they are. That's safer than photo IDs, which can be faked. Would you support that?
Voter ID laws are being passed in legislatures on party-line votes, and it's not because Republicans care more about voter fraud than Democrats do. Everyone understands perfectly well which party's potential voters will be more significantly affected.
There's plenty of reason to think that if you've actually been to the precincts you're talking about. I worked as a poll monitor in Detroit in the 2004 elections. The vast majority of voters were black, but fewer than half of the poll workers were black. And 100% of the Republican lawyers there to intimidate and challenge voters were white.
I supported Clinton when she still had a chance.
I think Richardson and Clark would be better choices. Mark Warner would be great, but he's going for the Senate.
He did use the phrase "state's rights" in that speech. Maybe he didn't mean it that way, but that phrase has a history to it, and it's perfectly reasonable to think it was a continuation of the southern strategy.
I think James Watt would be a terrible choice. :)
FWIW, Watts would be interesting. I haven't kept up with what he did after leaving the house, but, other than being a Sooner, I was always impressed with him. Of course, OK is solidly in McCain's column and isn't terribly important, anyway. It would probably be seen as clearly pandering to the black vote and I'm not sure making Oprah the VP nominee would pull much black vote away from Obama at this point. If you're voting purely on race, why vote for your race as VP when you can vote for your race as POTUS? Not to mention that on the issues, the black vote would likely be with the donkey rather than the elephant regardless of who runs.
My guess is that both Obama and McCain nominate someone safe and uninteresting.
Jim Webb is a great Senator from Virginia - the Dems aren't going to get someone who agrees with me on everything to win an election in VA. But as a nominee, his record on women's issues is really terrible, his domestic policy votes have been uninspiring, and he hasn't been as strong an anti-war voice as I'd hoped. On top of that, nominating Webb would run a large risk of losing a Senate seat when the Democrats need every vote to get as close to 60 as possible.
I am pretty strongly in favor of Obama/Clinton at this point. Amazing as it may seem, Clinton actually did mobilize and turn out a group of working class voters that the Democrats will need in the general. Putting her on the ticket is, to me, the best way to bring disaffected Clinton voters into the party. A Clintonian like Ed Rendell would also be a good pick. If Ted Strickland were pro-choice, he'd be perfect, but he isn't.
Wesley Clark has proven time and again that he's just bad at campaigning. He was the Fred Thompson of 2004 - the party was ready to unite behind him, but he ran such a lackluster campaign that no amount of political force lined up behind him could push him over the top. He'd be a bad pick for the same reasons Thompson would be.
My wife voted for Hillary, also. She is anti-Obama, largely because (as I said upthread) the militant pro-Obama attitude of her African-American co-workers has pushed her in the other direction.
I did something that I have never done in my life - I cast a "no preference" vote in the Republican primary (the choices in NC were McCain, Huckabee, Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, and NP). I thought about Paul, but I really don't think he has the intellectual capacity to be President. McCain's making me nervous; I'm concerned that age is catching up to him. Too many little slips in recent days. I will almost certainly vote for Hillary in the general should she get the nomination (much as it pains me to say that); I'm not sure what I'll do if Obama gets it.
-- MWE
You always make this bizarre defense of Bush when the Horton ad comes up. No one claimed the Bush campaign ran it--only that Republicans ran it. I don't think anyone cares whether it was from the Bush campaign or Americans for Bush.
You clearly don't think anything can be correctly termed racist unless it's spelled out on the screen. But racial stereotyping is often far less overt than that. There's a reason they changed his name from William to Willie in the ad and on the stump, for example.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main