Sorry, the government did behave responsibly. It attempted to conduct service of process. Exactly what is beyond the pale in attempting to do that. What racheting things up was not government behavior--it was the behavior of the BDs. At any time they could have submitted and surrender. At every juncture, they refused, and made it clear that they would back up that refusal with force.

I think you're placing ridiculous principles like "duty to government" and "respect for legitimate authority" over the responsibility for authority to behave properly and with a sense of reasonable priority.

It has to be said, because apparently it's an elemental something that you just can't grok.

I struggle to think of what possibly could have been more harmful about the Branch Davidians being able to temporarily escape a search warrant than what ended up happening. In a purely practical sense, with no ideological concerns, the cure was much, much worse than the disease.

When? When does authority grant the subject of process, which entails a search, to dictate when and where they will be served and the search conducted? Your view of the relationship between government and armed factions is naive, even childish.

The state is not an alien virus. It is the manifestation of people's will--people, human beings, just like you or I. Your view of the relationship makes the relationship impossible.

5550:

See my 5521. Please clarify. Which do you mean when you refer to "SSI"? SS or SSI? SSI is the public assistance benefits that are paid from general revenues (not through payroll taxes) to the aged and disabled whose income and resources do not exceed a certain level. Social Security benefits are paid based on those FICA/SE earmarked revenues. Few of us will ever be entitled to SSI (knock on wood), although many of us will need Medicaid, which is based on SSI type criteria, so as to pay nursing homes or extraordinary medical costs. All of us probably will be entitled to Social Security benefits funded by payroll taxes. As we should be.

It was a search warrant. Postponing execution would have done what? Allowed Koresh and Co. to prepare a more effective armed resistance? Get more children in there? What?

5552, SS. I misspoke.

5552, SS. I misspoke.

Was that a parable, or a very subtle joke?

Neither?

Every time Joe started yakking about the "biased" polls and ridiculing Nate Silvers's projections, I pointed out that on Intrade he could cash in on his superior understanding and get odds ranging from 5 to 3 to 3 to 1, depending on the time period. And every time I did that, he quickly backed down with one Earl the Pearl spin move or another. He's the original BTF 3-card monte man.

Good grief, Andy. This again?

I didn't bet on Intrade for the same reason I disagreed with Nate's alleged ability to predict the presidential election to a four-decimal-point degree of certainty several months in advance: I believe there's such a thing as a game-changer in elections. (And re: 2012 specifically, I further believed that any such game-changer was highly likely to be detrimental to Romney — e.g., the leaking of his tax returns, etc.)

But you were still trying to have it both ways. First you spent page after page parroting that "unskewed poll" wingnut, as if his laughably partisan "unskewing" had anything serious to contribute to the conversation. But then when I challenged you to put your money where your mouth was, at a point where you could have gotten 3 to 1 odds on your hero, you then started talking about "game-changers" which somehow could only favor Obama, as if God somehow had an interest in the election's outcome.**

What about the first debate, which was supposed to be a "game changer" in Romney's favor? And what poll ever showed that Romney's refusal to release his taxes ever changed any significant number of votes? In any case, all that was known well before November, and was already reflected in the polls.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe that Nate can predict elections to a four-decimal-point degree of certainty several months in advance, and yet it appears you didn't mortgage the house so you could make easy money off Nate's numbers.

I was fairly confident about Obama's chances for all but that one brief flash immediately following the first debate, but unlike you, I would have had to put up those lopsided odds, whereas you would have been receiving them. It was the combination of your repeated assertions that the economy was likely to bring down Obama, along with the long Intrade odds that you could have gotten for that position, that made your entire posting history during the campaign so comical.

**Actually I could possibly be convinced that He did put His Thumb on the scale, given Romney's near-Pagan worship of wealth, but that might be taking my own bias a bit too far.

Neither?

Gawd! Work with me here, people!

5557, easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, my friend.

I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND!

I give up!

Is Joe mocking Nate Silver for getting his prediction right?

The other Joe, I hope you mean.

Morty has a very good point. You can't respond to a service of warrant by starting a shootout that kills four federal agents and then complain that the federal apparatus didn't let you off with a pouty face emoticon.

I do find it odd that this little precursor to the whole affair is basically brushed aside by GF and CB.


Also, as a really off-topic topic, I did manage to have lunch with formerly dp today. Our plans for the child socialist indoctrination camps needed some firming up.

I believe there's such a thing as a game-changer in elections.

You do realize that Nate Silver agrees with you to some extent and has the probability of a game changer implicitly built into his model, right? That's part of the reason his model started strongly increasing the probability of Obama winning near the end of the campaign: every single day that passed without a potential game changer favored Obama at that point.

If the election had taken place on November 10th (the day after the Petraeus resignation), I'm certain Nate would have pointed out that such an event could mess up his model. If the election took place on November 17th, the effect of the Petraeus resignation would have been factored into the model via changing poll results.

But you were still trying to have it both ways. First you spent page after page parroting that "unskewed poll" wingnut, as if his laughably partisan "unskewing" had anything serious to contribute to the conversation.

I went to UnskewedPolls.com precisely one time for about 30 seconds and can't even name the guy who ran it. I'm quite sure I didn't "spend page after page parroting that 'unskewed poll' wingnut."

But then when I challenged you to put your money where your mouth was, at a point where you could have gotten 3 to 1 odds on your hero, you then started talking about "game-changers" which somehow could only favor Obama, as if God somehow had an interest in the election's outcome.**

Here you go again with your Pool-Hall Andy routine. Also, Romney is my "hero" about as much as Andrew Cuomo is my hero — i.e., not at all.

I was fairly confident about Obama's chances for all but that one brief flash immediately following the first debate, but unlike you, I would have had to put up those lopsided odds, whereas you would have been receiving them. It was the combination of your repeated assertions that the economy was likely to bring down Obama, along with the long Intrade odds that you could have gotten for that position, that made your entire posting history during the campaign so comical.

Nice try. I would have been getting "lopsided odds" in a projection system whose accuracy I doubted (and still doubt). You, on the other hand, claim to believe in that system 100 percent, yet didn't "put your money where your mouth was." If you want to see someone with an inconsistent position, go look in the mirror.

Dance, monkey!

Gawd! Work with me here, people!

The Crash Test Dummies are no Dishwalla.


Here you go again with your Pool-Hall Andy routine.

Andy's been in pool halls longer than you've been alive. If he says betting $75 to make $25 is a sucker's bet, I'm listening.

You do realize that Nate Silver agrees with you to some extent and has the probability of a game changer implicitly built into his model, right? That's part of the reason his model started strongly increasing the probability of Obama winning near the end of the campaign: every single day that passed without a potential game changer favored Obama at that point.

If the election had taken place on November 10th (the day after the Petraeus resignation), I'm certain Nate would have pointed out that such an event could mess up his model. If the election took place on November 17th, the effect of the Petraeus resignation would have been factored into the model via changing poll results.

No, the probability of an Obama win increased at the end of the campaign because (1) there was no movement toward Romney in the polls and (2) Nate's model is largely built on the idea that elections are stable. I've seen nothing to suggest that Nate's model somehow tries to assess the chances of a game-changer such as the Petraeus scandal or the Bush DWI or something like that. How could it? It's a data-based model.

Also, as a really off-topic topic, I did manage to have lunch with formerly dp today. Our plans for the child socialist indoctrination camps needed some firming up.

Groovy. I'm totally on the death panels thing. I've blocked off early February, possibly into March, for hunting down Wallbanger.

Andy's been in pool halls longer than you've been alive. If he says betting $75 to make $25 is a sucker's bet, I'm listening.

This goes directly against the idea that Nate's numbers are valid for betting purposes. If Andy was sure that Nate was right, this not only wasn't a "sucker's bet," it was easy money.

How could it? It's a data-based model.

By looking at game changers from previous years and using that to determine how stable an election should be. If elections were really as unstable as you think they are, then the poll numbers in June should be mostly worthless at predicting the eventual election result.

Basically, the game changer is part of what's going into "If the polls claim Obama leads Romney 53%-47% with two weeks remaining, what are the odds that Obama will win?" If game changers are more common, then then Obama's odds get lower, even if the polls are saying the exact same thing.

Those trying to shift all the culpability from the Branch-Davidians to the government want to reduce it to a game of "Mother, May I"? That's not only has no authority in law, it's ridiculously childish as an intellectual stance. It amounts to a Groucho Marx singing "Whatever it is, I'm against it--unless I'm not--guess which?"

We have a warrant to search this place? It's no good. Object to it in a court proceeding; you have your legal remedy. No, no, it's against God's law. Who says so? God. How do I know that? I'm telling you. I don't believe you, and all I know is the government says for me to do this.

Why didn't you serve it on him in X spot? Serve it sometime later. What difference would that make? Besides, it's to search a place? Usually, when you have such a warrant, you go to the place itself?

You'll be shot. Ooooo, that's bad form. Is there a way we can come to terms? We'll let you know when it's okay to come. Hmmmm, you decide if and when and where? Yeah,... What's the point of legal proceedings? We're talking big ideas here--don't come with your petty-#### legalisms.

Besides, there are kids there? What difference does it make? We're not after them? When won't they be there? Are you after seeing them hurt for some ideological point? Nooo,... But you'll them hostage and use them as a shield? When won't they be--when won't that apply? Maybe, that's why we should conduct that search right now, before you prepare an armed resistance?

What if it doesn't work? What do you suggest? Well, you could forget the whole thing. Just until we voluntarily let you search? Hmmm, when will that be? We'll have to think and pray and think and pray--could take a while. Thanks, but it kind of defeats the point of a the surprise of a search warrant (which expires), doesn't it? We would like to catch you with the goods, you know.

But think of the children! Well, that's takes a lot of nerve--to place the burden on us for whatever happens to the children when you have complete custody and control over them.

But, again, you don't have good reason to search? And, again, object to the warrant in a judicial proceeding, is my reply. But, that might go against us--no, we're just right and you're just wrong. It's axiomatic that the individual is always right and the government is always wrong. That's a held of a way to run a railroad--or a country. Our dictates supersede yours. Anybody but a fascist pig understands that.

Oink, oink. Ready or not, we're coming in. Justice delayed is justice denied.

what poll ever showed that Romney's refusal to release his taxes ever changed any significant number of votes?

It was the biggest nothing in the history of nothingness, but that didn't keep every diehard Dem on my FB feed (my main election-news source) from posting about it every damn day. Sweet Jesus, that was tiresome.

No, it wasn't. It was wonderful to see that no one who supported Mitt, or was against Obama, rather, had an answer for that. You could just picture them mentally strumming their lips. Then, when Mitt did release what he did, and other stuff came out, too, it was beautiful. Solidified the faithful, and left the paynim with their dick in their hands. You can't ever tell how much, but it had to have some effect. And, of course, in presidential elections, every little bit counts.

I rather think it was one more thing that kept it from ever becoming a race - it would darn sure help keep it from changing how you felt about Mitt.

Homer seeing Romney's tax returns: "He's got six wives, all named Ann. He got a deduction for a personality implant."

Every Single Game Changer of the 2012 Election

There were 68 of them.

Andy's been in pool halls longer than you've been alive. If he says betting $75 to make $25 is a sucker's bet, I'm listening.

This goes directly against the idea that Nate's numbers are valid for betting purposes. If Andy was sure that Nate was right, this not only wasn't a "sucker's bet," it was easy money.

Add gambling odds to the list of things Joe doesn't understand.

By the way, at no point did Nate Silver claim four decimal-point accuracy. He published error bars explicitly for the purpose of quantifying our uncertainty.

And 5572 nails the question of "game-changers."

By looking at game changers from previous years and using that to determine how stable an election should be. If elections were really as unstable as you think they are, then the poll numbers in June should be mostly worthless at predicting the eventual election result.

"By looking at game changers from previous years"? There could have been zero game-changers in previous years and that wouldn't remove or lessen the possibility of one occurring in 2012.

Also, I never said elections were very "unstable"; I said I didn't think they could be predicted to four-decimal-point certainty many months in advance.

What were the odds of Obama's 2004 U.S. Senate opponent's divorce records being leaked and driving him from the race? There weren't any, because it couldn't be quantified. (Well, the odds might have been 100 percent in sleazy Chicago, but the point still stands generally.)

Basically, the game changer is part of what's going into "If the polls claim Obama leads Romney 53%-47% with two weeks remaining, what are the odds that Obama will win?" If game changers are more common, then then Obama's odds get lower, even if the polls are saying the exact same thing.

Perhaps, but there's no evidence that Nate was adjusting his numbers accordingly. I never saw Nate saying that based on the poll numbers, Obama was an 82 percent favorite to win, but the odds of a game-changer reduced his chances to 80 percent or 78 percent.

***

Add gambling odds to the list of things Joe doesn't understand.

Nonsense. Gambling odds are meant to attract equal action to both sides of a bet. Andy's claiming I should have been betting on Romney based on numbers I didn't believe, despite his own refusal to bet on numbers he proclaims to have trusted 100 percent.

Nonsense. Gambling odds are meant to attract equal action to both sides of a bet. Andy's claiming I should have been betting on Romney based on numbers I didn't believe, despite his own refusal to bet on numbers he proclaims to have trusted 100 percent.

Precisely. You didn't believe Obama was a 3-1 favorite. You thought Romney was even or ahead. You could have gotten a 3-1 payoff on your (perceived) even money bet. For Andy to bet on Obama, it would have been break even at best.

But you were still trying to have it both ways. First you spent page after page parroting that "unskewed poll" wingnut, as if his laughably partisan "unskewing" had anything serious to contribute to the conversation.

I went to UnskewedPolls.com precisely one time for about 30 seconds and can't even name the guy who ran it. I'm quite sure I didn't "spend page after page parroting that 'unskewed poll' wingnut."

Joe, here's another pool hall sucker bet I'll offer you.

True or false? Joe Kehoskie spent many pages on previous political threads trying to convince us that the polls were skewed towards sampling too many Democrats and not enough Republicans.

True or false? Joe Kehoskie spent many other pages trying to say that the party split in the turnout in 2012 was going to be closer to 2010 than to 2008, and that one of the big problems with the non-Rasmussen polls was that their sample size percentages didn't reflect that reality.

Romney is my "hero" about as much as Andrew Cuomo is my hero — i.e., not at all.

You may not have framed copies of his Upper Bain rookie card on your wall, but you seemed to echo nearly every single talking point he made in his campaign, including his "47%" speech. A pure coincidence, I'm sure.

I was fairly confident about Obama's chances for all but that one brief flash immediately following the first debate, but unlike you, I would have had to put up those lopsided odds, whereas you would have been receiving them. It was the combination of your repeated assertions that the economy was likely to bring down Obama, along with the long Intrade odds that you could have gotten for that position, that made your entire posting history during the campaign so comical.

Nice try. I would have been getting "lopsided odds" in a projection system whose accuracy I doubted (and still doubt).

Joe, it wasn't Nate Silver who was offering those 3 to 1 odds. It was Intrade. And to the extent that those odds reflected Nate's projections, they offered you an opportunity to cash in on your skepticism about Nate. It's like he was handing you free money----unless that disbelief in his projections on your part was nothing but an act, undertaken for the sole purpose of convincing yourself that Romney's chances were being unfairly "skewed" by Nate.

Perhaps, but there's no evidence that Nate was adjusting his numbers accordingly.

Of course there is. He called the election about as perfectly as one could (even in the face of a monster storm "game changer"), and had been spot on for months.

You didn't believe Obama was a 3-1 favorite. You thought Romney was even or ahead. You could have gotten a 3-1 payoff on your (perceived) even money bet. For Andy to bet on Obama, it would have been break even at best.

Discounting the vig, at the time I made my challenge Joe would have had to post $100 on Intrade to win $300, while I would have had to post $300 to win $100. Or, if we'd each posted $300, I would have won $100 while Joe would have won $900. For someone who was unskewing right and left and ridiculing Nate's projections at every opportunity, Joe sure seemed to have a rather weak set of convictions.

Precisely. You didn't believe Obama was a 3-1 favorite. You thought Romney was even or ahead. You could have gotten a 3-1 payoff on your (perceived) even money bet. For Andy to bet on Obama, it would have been break even at best.

I guess you just missed the entire discussion about game-changers rendering odds moot.

Of course there is. He called the election about as perfectly as one could (even in the face of a monster storm "game changer"), and had been spot on for months.

Huh? Show me where Nate was adjusting his numbers based on the threat/possibility of a game-changer. The fact that Nate was right doesn't mean that his model had accounted for every possibility. Such a claim is absurd on its face. (Hell, the guy in #5565 whom people are high-fiving explicitly stated that a well-timed game-changer probably would have blown up Nate's model.)

Every Single Game Changer of the 2012 Election

There were 68 of them.

And that's not even counting the dozen or so that Yankee Redneck uncovered.

Joe, here's another pool hall sucker bet I'll offer you.

Classic Andy. Makes a false claim, but then comes back with the Dan Rather "fake but accurate" defense.

You may not have framed copies of his Upper Bain rookie card on your wall, but you seemed to echo nearly every single talking point he made in his campaign, including his "47%" speech. A pure coincidence, I'm sure.

LOL. I was in the "anyone but Romney" camp throughout the primary, up to the point of publicly begging others to get into the race even as the primary was becoming a fait accompli for Romney. I preferred Romney over Obama, but the idea that I was a huge supporter of Romney, let alone Romney being my "hero," is utterly dishonest.

Discounting the vig, at the time I made my challenge Joe would have had to post $100 on Intrade to win $300, while I would have had to post $300 to win $100. Or, if we'd each posted $300, I would have won $100 while Joe would have won $900. For someone who was unskewing right and left and ridiculing Nate's projections at every opportunity, Joe sure seemed to have a rather weak set of convictions.

Yes, except I explicitly didn't believe in the numbers being presented, while you claimed to believe in them 100 percent. The only one here with a "weak set of convictions" is you.

I guess you just missed the entire discussion about game-changers rendering odds moot.

Show me where Nate was adjusting his numbers based on the threat/possibility of a game-changer.

See 5572. How often do you think "game changers" occur anyway? I can't recall any in the last month of a presidential election ever.

Joe, I'd lover to play poker with you. You'd be the guy who flops a full house but is afraid to be because his opponent could get 4 of a kind on the river.

I guess you just missed the entire discussion about game-changers rendering odds moot.

But again, unless you were sincerely convinced that every last minute "game changer" was going to favor Obama, why should that have affected your views on the real odds of the race? Did you really ever believe that the 3 to 1 odds (on Intrade) favoring Obama reflected the real odds in the race? Was there ever a point during the campaign where you thought that taking 3 to 1 odds on Romney would have been an unacceptable risk, given the "real" odds in your feverishly unskewing mind?

Joe, I'd lover to play poker with you. You'd be the guy who flops a full house but is afraid to be because his opponent could get 4 of a kind on the river.

Coming from one of the most passive-aggressive guys on a site full of passive-aggressive guys, this is funny.

See 5572. How often do you think "game changers" occur anyway? I can't recall any in the last month of a presidential election ever.

Short memory, huh? The Bush DUI story almost assuredly cost him the popular vote.

***

But again, unless you were sincerely convinced that every last minute "game changer" was going to favor Obama, why should that have affected your views on the real odds of the race? Did you really ever believe that the 3 to 1 odds (on Intrade) favoring Obama reflected the real odds in the race? Was there ever a point during the campaign where you thought that taking 3 to 1 odds on Romney would have been an unacceptable risk, given the "real" odds in your feverishly unskewing mind?

Asked and answered, about a dozen times.

Yes, except I explicitly didn't believe in the numbers being presented,

Funny, but I seem to recall that your skepticism was directed towards the idea that Obama was as solid a favorite as Nate had claimed. Your point about "not believing the numbers" would be coherent only if your skepticism had been aimed in the other direction, since the Intrade odds usually paralleled Nate's projections to a fairly large degree.

while you claimed to believe in them 100 percent. The only one here with a "weak set of convictions" is you.

First, I'm not sure where you got that "100 percent" idea. All I ever said about Nate was that (a) his prior track record was impressive, certainly more so than Rasmussen's; and (b) his methodology made sense. That certainly doesn't equate to feeling confident enough to lay 3 to 1 odds on Obama's election.

But again, unless you were sincerely convinced that every last minute "game changer" was going to favor Obama, why should that have affected your views on the real odds of the race? Did you really ever believe that the 3 to 1 odds (on Intrade) favoring Obama reflected the real odds in the race? Was there ever a point during the campaign where you thought that taking 3 to 1 odds on Romney would have been an unacceptable risk, given the "real" odds in your feverishly unskewing mind?

Asked and answered, about a dozen times.

More like evaded, spun, and ducked. You consistently held that Romney's "unskewed" odds were much better than Nate's projections, which were reflected on Intrade. To a rational person, such a thought would present a golden opportunity, given your alleged convictions, but perhaps not given your available discretionary bankroll.

More like evaded, spun, and ducked. You consistently held that Romney's "unskewed" odds were much better than Nate's projections, which were reflected on Intrade. To a rational person, such a thought would present a golden opportunity, given your alleged convictions, but perhaps not given your available discretionary bankroll.

I never considered or portrayed Romney as anything other than a very slight favorite, based almost entirely on the stagnant U.S. economy. I considered Romney to be a relatively poor candidate who was prone to making unforced errors, and he was running against a group of cutthroat Chicago operatives who likely had access to Romney's tax returns, among other things. I've said all of the preceding what seems like countless times here, but I guess you just can't resist reprising the pool-hall tough-guy role at every opportunity.

First, I'm not sure where you got that "100 percent" idea. All I ever said about Nate was that (a) his prior track record was impressive, certainly more so than Rasmussen's; and (b) his methodology made sense. That certainly doesn't equate to feeling confident enough to lay 3 to 1 odds on Obama's election.

Oh, backtracking on your confidence in Nate, huh? How convenient.

I never considered or portrayed Romney as anything other than a very slight favorite, based almost entirely on the stagnant U.S. economy.

If you considered a sports team a "very slight favorite" to win a best of seven series, I'd think that being offered 3 to 1 odds would seem too good to resist.

First, I'm not sure where you got that "100 percent" idea. All I ever said about Nate was that (a) his prior track record was impressive, certainly more so than Rasmussen's; and (b) his methodology made sense. That certainly doesn't equate to feeling confident enough to lay 3 to 1 odds on Obama's election.

Oh, backtracking on your confidence in Nate, huh? How convenient.

So the guy who doesn't want to lay 3 to 1 odds is backtracking, while the guy who doesn't want to take 3 to 1 odds is.....????

Short memory, huh? The Bush DUI story almost assuredly cost him the popular vote.

And Hurricane Sandy almost assuredly cost Romney the election.

If you considered a sports team a "very slight favorite" to win a best of seven series, I'd think that being offered 3 to 1 odds would seem too good to resist.

Do you even read the comments you so dutifully copy into each reply? I considered Romney a very slight favorite but feared that (1) he'd implode and/or (2) his cutthroat opponents would leak his tax returns or come up with some other October or November surprise. (I also saw Romney as a slight favorite based on the stagnant economy, a topic the media did everything it could to not cover.)

So the guy who doesn't want to lay 3 to 1 odds is backtracking, while the guy who doesn't want to take 3 to 1 odds is.....????

You can repeat this a thousand more times but the facts won't change. You consistently claimed to have high confidence in Nate's opinion of the state of the race, yet you apparently wagered $0 based on Nate's numbers.

Short memory, huh? The Bush DUI story almost assuredly cost him the popular vote.

I probably could be wrong, but I really don't remember people giving two shits about that at election time.

I probably could be wrong, but I really don't remember people giving two shits about that at election time.

You got that first part right.

If you considered a sports team a "very slight favorite" to win a best of seven series, I'd think that being offered 3 to 1 odds would seem too good to resist.

Do you even read the comments you so dutifully copy into each reply? I considered Romney a very slight favorite but feared that (1) he'd implode and/or (2) his cutthroat opponents would leak his tax returns or come up with some other October or November surprise. (I also saw Romney as a slight favorite based on the stagnant economy, a topic the media did everything it could to not cover.)

So IOW even though you still considered Romney a favorite, you were so afraid of some hypothetical implosion** or dirty trick that you considered that sufficient to resist 3 to 1 odds? All I can say is that that must have been one hell of a powerful fear.

**Even though the most notable implosion of mid-campaign was Obama's sleepwalk through the first debate.

So the guy who doesn't want to lay 3 to 1 odds is backtracking, while the guy who doesn't want to take 3 to 1 odds is.....????

You can repeat this a thousand more times but the facts won't change. You consistently claimed to have high confidence in Nate's opinion of the state of the race, yet you apparently wagered $0 based on Nate's numbers.

And you can keep pretending that being asked to post 3 to 1 is the same as being offered 3 to 1, but I doubt if many mathematicians would agree with you.