Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, March 31, 2013

OTP: April 2013: Daily Caller: Baseball and the GOP: To rebrand the party, think like a sports fan

This week’s GOP autopsy report, commissioned by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, is a great start in the much-needed task of rebranding the Republican Party. As the chairman acknowledged, “the way we communicate our principles isn’t resonating widely enough” and “we have to be more inclusive.” The report contains 219 recommendations to “connect people to our principles.” To achieve that goal, the party will need a strategic vision of how voters think about politics, which is something that the report lacks. For that, the GOP can learn a lot from another American passion: baseball.

This year, about 75 million Americans will go to the baseball stadium to watch a ballgame, about the same number as those who will vote in next year’s election. We rarely think about why someone becomes a baseball fan, or why they root for a certain team. Nor do we usually think about why someone chooses to vote for a certain political party. But it’s actually a very useful exercise.

When it comes to baseball, fan loyalty has almost nothing to do with the brain, and almost everything to do with the heart. In all of history, there’s never been a baseball fan who rooted for his team because it had the lowest ticket prices, or because it had the most taxpayer-friendly stadium deal, or because its players did the most community service. For the vast majority of Americans, rooting for a baseball team — not to mention, voting for a political party — isn’t really a rational choice; it’s more of a statement of personal identity — a statement telling the world, “This is who I am.” And for most people, defining “who I am” starts with family and community, before branching out into areas like race, age, gender, and class.

Family is pretty straightforward. If your mom and dad are Yankee fans, you’re almost certainly a Yankee fan. The same is true in politics. If your mom and dad are Republicans, you’re almost certainly a Republican.

Community is also pretty straightforward. If you grew up in, say, Philadelphia, chances are pretty great you’re a Phillies fan. Likewise, someone who grew up in Republican territory like, say, suburban Dallas or rural Indiana is much more likely to become a Republican than a nearly identical person from Seattle or Santa Fe.

Cities with more than one baseball team, like New York or Chicago, show revealing breakdowns by race and gender. The racial split in Chicago between Cubs fans on the North Side and White Sox fans on the South Side is well-documented. In New York, there’s an intriguing gender gap between Mets and Yankee fans, with women gravitating a lot more to the Yanks. While there’s a few theories out there trying to explain that, one obvious answer leaps out: Yankees heartthrob Derek Jeter.

In sports, as in politics, people’s convictions can’t be conveniently reduced to who their parents are or what they look like. But those things are an important foundation, upon which more rational sentiments come into being. Once you’re attached to your team on an emotional level — seeing them as a personal reflection of who you are and what you care about most — a rational exterior comes into being through phrases like “the Red Sox are the best team because they have the most heart” or “the Republicans are the best party because they know how to create jobs.”

Tripon Posted: March 31, 2013 at 10:52 AM | 6544 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

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.

Page 58 of 66 pages ‹ First  < 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 >  Last ›
   5701. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 25, 2013 at 11:38 AM (#4425543)
The bombing Borat family should have been kept out of the country because they were a lousy statistical bet,

Not for Andy and the Dems, who like people who aren't too smart and aren't too competent since those people will tend to be more dependent on government and thus vote DEM. If a few of them happen to be terrorist bombers, well, that collateral damage is outweighed by the imperative of Democratic governance.
   5702. The Good Face Posted: April 25, 2013 at 11:40 AM (#4425544)
Boo, hoo.

Tell you what. You stop doing it, and we will. 'K?

Until then, I'll keep asking if you support Rand Paul's call for the death penalty without trial for petty theft.


Wha? Honestly none of that makes any sense at all. I get that you're mad. The Boston bombing is a political disaster for the Democrats, and I understand the urge to spin, but at least try to make coherent arguments. I don't mind if they're lousy arguments, after all you don't have much to work with, but they should at least be comprehensible.
   5703. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 25, 2013 at 11:43 AM (#4425547)
Wha? Honestly none of that makes any sense at all. I get that you're mad.

The frustration at not being able to call on the race card is palpable.
   5704. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 11:48 AM (#4425550)
Not for Andy and the Dems, who like people who aren't too smart and aren't too competent


Creationists?
   5705. The Good Face Posted: April 25, 2013 at 11:52 AM (#4425552)
The frustration at not being able to call on the race card is palpable.


It's just enraged lashing out at this point, regardless of applicability. Rand Paul! Drones! Death Penalty! Islamophobia!

I think they can feel the support for "immigration reform" slipping away. That was going to be their trump card, the ultimate victory that would assure unlimited political power. Now it might not happen, and their impotent fury is making them insane. They were supposed to WIN! It's not FAIR!
   5706. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 11:53 AM (#4425555)
Not at all. Unskilled men with no college education who barely speak English and depended on the U.S. government for welfare? Toss in a few random run-ins with the law, and these are exactly the type of guys who you and Joe have argued should not be allowed in the United States.


Now you're just flat lying. I have done no such thing. I have never, ever, beaten the anti-immigration drum. It's not a pet issue of mine. I've commented occasionally when something has come up - such as the Marathon Bombers - but have never "argued that people like" your family should not be allowed in the United States. What in the hell are you talking about?

If I have a chip on my shoulders, it's only because people like you have argued so hard all my life that people like me should never have been here in the first place.


I have not argued so hard -- or so soft -- about any of this. I was talking in this thread about investigating and deporting an immigrant who a foreign government had warned us about -- please read those words -- and who had raised red flags.
   5707. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 11:54 AM (#4425557)
I find it funny that the people who have been arguing that we need to let in more highly-educated immigrants and fewer unskilled immigrants are now arguing the reverse.
   5708. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: April 25, 2013 at 11:54 AM (#4425558)
Honestly none of that makes any sense at all.


Physician, heal thyself:

5539. The Good Face Posted: April 24, 2013 at 03:53 PM (#4424856)

My favorite was the argument that he was a typical all-American stay-at-home dad.



That was a howler. Especially after the "Men must work and slave to support their children no matter what!" thread.


The first part was never argued by anyone on the left. The second was actually the position of someone on the right.

5565. The Good Face Posted: April 24, 2013 at 04:52 PM (#4424982)

Pretending the Borat brothers are just random deranged people is simply magical thinking that has terrible real world consequences.


Nobody made that argument. The "deranged was just a throwaway line, explained almost immediately.

5578. The Good Face Posted: April 24, 2013 at 05:28 PM (#4425017)

Not to mention that there isn't a stitch of evidence that they're deranged (*) -- yet our modern liberal brethren won't hestitate to say so, while at the same time hectoring other people for "jumping" to such conclusions as that Borat the Elder may have beaten his wife and may have been up to not much good on his 6-month sojourn to Dagestan.



They're just furthering the narrative. If the Borat brothers were deranged nut cases, then there's no need to pay any attention to our immigration policies. Or anything else. Crazy people happen, nothing anybody could have done! Certainly nothing more diversity couldn't fix.


...which you chose to ignore and instead doubled down on.

And that's just in the last 18 hours.
   5709. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 11:56 AM (#4425560)
And given that violent anarchists and gangsters were disproportionately Italian, and Communists were disproportionately Jewish, why were those groups allowed to immigrate as they were BITD, while Muslims today are seen as suspect because of their alleged ideology?

I haven't seen anybody here make that argument.


It wasn't here, but the solidly liberal Bob Beckel made a similar argument on tv the other day.
   5710. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4425563)
The frustration at not being able to call on the race card is palpable.


Yep. They don't have their typical cards to play here. Race card? No. Bigotry card? No. Brown card? No. Women card? No. Homosexuals card? No.

All they have is the Terrorists card, which of course is useless.
   5711. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 12:04 PM (#4425565)
Not for Andy and the Dems, who like people who aren't too smart and aren't too competent since those people will tend to be more dependent on government and thus vote DEM.


How can you possibly argue that people who aren't too smart and aren't too competent are primarily Democrats? Do you seriously think this? I am not going to say there are no stupid-ass people who vote Democrat or people living on welfare that vote Democrat, because there are, but wow, what you said is just so wrong.

Education Map
Electoral Map

EDIT:

In both maps red=bad. ;-)
   5712. The Good Face Posted: April 25, 2013 at 12:12 PM (#4425568)
The first part was never argued by anyone on the left. The second was actually the position of someone on the right.


You need to revisit the great Child Support debate thread. Lotta lefties on the "Mens gotta support their kids after PIVS!!!" bandwagon. Now some of those same lefties made the "He wasn't unemployed, he was a stay-at-home-dad" argument in this thread. I found that funny. Probably because it was.

Nobody made that argument. The "deranged was just a throwaway line, explained almost immediately.


Andy made the argument. He backed down after I confronted him because it was so dumb even he couldn't defend it.

Look, I gather you're upset that I've been rubbing faces in poo here, but that's not really the same thing as posting incoherent gibberish. Which brings us back on topic. I like it when your posts are readable; gives me more poo to rub your face in. Things work much smoother when everybody understands and acts out their proper role.

   5713. Lassus Posted: April 25, 2013 at 12:15 PM (#4425569)
Yes indeed. Goofy.

I tried to look up the father, he was an office worker over there, a mechanic over here. No info on the mom. Maybe she was caring for the kids who were minors? GoodFaceistan at least won't have any office workers, by god. Sign me up!


Yep.

I thought I warned you about this, Ray. America will not stand for this sort of fives and jerking. It's like you're actually agreeing or something equally terrible. For god's sake, why? WHY?
   5714. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: April 25, 2013 at 12:18 PM (#4425571)
The Boston bombing is a political disaster for the Democrats


Congratulations on finding a way to make this horrible event give you a political advantage.
   5715. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 12:21 PM (#4425575)
Congratulations on finding a way to make this horrible event give you a political advantage.


Newtown.
   5716. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 12:23 PM (#4425576)
Missing, falsely accused Brown U. student found dead.
   5717. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 12:25 PM (#4425578)
Congratulations on finding a way to make this horrible event give you a political advantage.


Newtown.


Katrina
   5718. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: April 25, 2013 at 12:25 PM (#4425579)
Newtown.


A fair point.
   5719. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: April 25, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4425580)
Katrina


Well, that wasn't so much "an advantage for Democrats" as "something that was handled badly by the Republican administration." It didn't take much stretching to point at the Superdome and make fun of "Heck of a job, Brownie."

Wait, are you sure you want to list a bunch of things that were bad for Republicans? That seems like a bad tactic. Just rest on Ray's response.
   5720. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 12:34 PM (#4425583)
Katrina


I found it humorous that Bush included the tough decision on how to handle Katrina in his Presidential Library Decision wing. Was there really that much thought to NOT providing federal aid to those affected? Who exactly was telling him not to send all the help that was possible?
   5721. Rants Mulliniks Posted: April 25, 2013 at 12:39 PM (#4425585)
Karl Rove and/or Dick Cheney would be my guess. Both men are evil. Bush is just dumb.
   5722. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 12:43 PM (#4425588)
Well, that wasn't so much "an advantage for Democrats" as "something that was handled badly by the Republican administration."

And by Democratic administrations at the state and local level, who bear the primary responsibility for emergency response.

But that didn't stop the Dems from claiming it was all Bush's fault.
   5723. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 12:52 PM (#4425589)
But that didn't stop the Dems from claiming it was all Bush's fault.


Poor Dubya, everyone was so mean to him. No wonder he started drinking again.
   5724. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 25, 2013 at 12:52 PM (#4425590)
Ranking World Thinkers (as counterpoint to the Paltrow thread, or as Shaw once quibbled, "What if it had my beauty and your brains?")

Nate Silver at 16!
Niall Ferguson at 22 is also interesting. He's certainly one of the better known historians in the world. Not sure if that qualifies you as a "great thinker"...(though I suppose it helps in a vote on who is a great thinker).


I would love to re-see the old episode of "Family Feud" featuring the question, "Name the smartest person who ever lived." I don't recall the entire list, but I know that seven of the eight answers were then currently alive; that Albert Einstein was at #2, trailing #1 Henry Kissinger; and that Dr. Joyce Brothers made the list.
   5725. Greg K Posted: April 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM (#4425596)
Dr. Joyce Brothers made the list.

Obligatory:
Only because she brought her own mic.
   5726. Rants Mulliniks Posted: April 25, 2013 at 01:08 PM (#4425602)
#1 Henry Kissinger


This must have been when everybody still believed coming off the gold standard was such a good idea.... *ducks*
   5727. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 01:11 PM (#4425604)
This must have been when everybody still believed coming off the gold standard was such a good idea.... *ducks*

The only reason I like the gold standard idea is b/c it would be cool to have actual gold and silver coins again.

Spend 4 nights in a nice hotel, plunk down your $1000 gold piece.
   5728. Steve Treder Posted: April 25, 2013 at 01:34 PM (#4425634)
The ethics around recording someone after they've requested to go off the record are pretty scuzzy, no doubt. But the fact that practically no one within the GOP writ large is willing to speak the plain truth on the record is also a thing.

... GOP consultant Frank Luntz criticized Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and others in right-wing talk radio for attacking Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) over his support for immigration reform.

Luntz's comments came during an April 22 talk at the University of Pennsylvania. According to Mother Jones, Luntz asked to go off the record after being questioned about political polarization because he was concerned his comments could have repercussions. One of the students in the audience then started to record Luntz without the consultant's knowledge.

In that video, Luntz says:

'And they get great ratings, and they drive the message, and it's really problematic. And this is not on the Democratic side. It's only on the Republican side...[inaudible]. [Democrats have] got every other source of news on their side. And so that is a lot of what's driving it. If you take -- Marco Rubio's getting his ass kicked. Who's my Rubio fan here? We talked about it. He's getting destroyed! By Mark Levin, by Rush Limbaugh, and a few others. He's trying to find a legitimate, long-term effective solution to immigration that isn't the traditional Republican approach, and talk radio is killing him. That's what's causing this thing underneath. And too many politicians in Washington are playing coy.'
   5729. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 25, 2013 at 01:42 PM (#4425644)
Ranking World Thinkers (as counterpoint to the Paltrow thread, or as Shaw once quibbled, "What if it had my beauty and your brains?")


This list is laughably ####### terrible.
   5730. Ron J2 Posted: April 25, 2013 at 01:45 PM (#4425647)
#5727 I've mentioned it before. One of the local museums had a $1 million gold coin on display. Pretty cool.
   5731. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 25, 2013 at 01:49 PM (#4425651)
I find it funny that the people who have been arguing that we need to let in more highly-educated immigrants and fewer unskilled immigrants are now arguing the reverse.


Tribalism is a funny thing, man.
   5732. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: April 25, 2013 at 01:54 PM (#4425658)
This list is laughably ####### terrible.

Concur.
   5733. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 25, 2013 at 02:17 PM (#4425671)
The bombing Borat family should have been kept out of the country because they were a lousy statistical bet,


Not for Andy and the Dems, who like people who aren't too smart and aren't too competent

Yeah, this is why Silicon Valley and overachieving Jews and Asians consistently vote for Democrats, and why the most uneducated parts of the country are all on the "conservative" side of every argument. (EDIT: coke to jacksone)

-----------------------------------------------------

And given that violent anarchists and gangsters were disproportionately Italian, and Communists were disproportionately Jewish, why were those groups allowed to immigrate as they were BITD, while Muslims today are seen as suspect because of their alleged ideology?

I haven't seen anybody here make that argument.


It wasn't here, but the solidly liberal Bob Beckel made a similar argument on tv the other day.

Yeah, Beckel's quite the liberal. The second coming of Dick Morris or Lou Dobbs would be more like it. A short snippet of quotes from his Wiki page:

In August, 2012, Beckel reportedly offended some Jews when he referred to Jewish Americans who had participated in a Mitt Romney fundraiser in Israel as "a bunch of diamond merchants we don’t know the names of."

In November, 2012, Beckel concluded, while commentating on the San Francisco public nudity ban live on Fox News, that most nudists were, as children, "probably gang-banged, I don't know!", and then proceeded to laugh about his comment and saying, "they were probably sexually assaulted, I don't know!".

In February, 2013, Beckel made the statement that rapes on campus don't really happen and asserted that victims of date rape aren't going to "take a gun out and shoot [their] date".
   5734. The Good Face Posted: April 25, 2013 at 02:38 PM (#4425696)
Yeah, Beckel's quite the liberal. The second coming of Dick Morris or Lou Dobbs would be more like it. A short snippet of quotes from his Wiki page:


In August, 2012, Beckel reportedly offended some Jews when he referred to Jewish Americans who had participated in a Mitt Romney fundraiser in Israel as "a bunch of diamond merchants we don’t know the names of."

In November, 2012, Beckel concluded, while commentating on the San Francisco public nudity ban live on Fox News, that most nudists were, as children, "probably gang-banged, I don't know!", and then proceeded to laugh about his comment and saying, "they were probably sexually assaulted, I don't know!".

In February, 2013, Beckel made the statement that rapes on campus don't really happen and asserted that victims of date rape aren't going to "take a gun out and shoot [their] date".


No True Scotsman fallacy.
   5735. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 25, 2013 at 02:39 PM (#4425697)
On Bush Library Day, history weighs in. I thought it was just more of the same old lefty criticism until the final speaker, who by definition has no right and no left.
   5736. Morty Causa Posted: April 25, 2013 at 02:54 PM (#4425708)
No True Scotsman fallacy.


As opposed to a truism:

"It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine." P. G. Wodehouse.
   5737. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 25, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4425709)
Yeah, Beckel's quite the liberal. The second coming of Dick Morris or Lou Dobbs would be more like it. A short snippet of quotes from his Wiki page:


In August, 2012, Beckel reportedly offended some Jews when he referred to Jewish Americans who had participated in a Mitt Romney fundraiser in Israel as "a bunch of diamond merchants we don’t know the names of."

In November, 2012, Beckel concluded, while commentating on the San Francisco public nudity ban live on Fox News, that most nudists were, as children, "probably gang-banged, I don't know!", and then proceeded to laugh about his comment and saying, "they were probably sexually assaulted, I don't know!".

In February, 2013, Beckel made the statement that rapes on campus don't really happen and asserted that victims of date rape aren't going to "take a gun out and shoot [their] date".


Classic. Simply classic.
   5738. zonk Posted: April 25, 2013 at 03:04 PM (#4425717)
Are we in reruns already?

I think we had already discussed Bob Beckel... I mean - the dude was a player once upon a time, but for the last 10-15 years, he's been pretty much relegated to running (losing) city council campaigns. Oh yeah - I think he also did some sacrificial sheep loser primary for Idaho Senate or something a few cycles back (and even managed to get canned off that, IIRC).

I mean, the guy might be a 'Democrat' - but he certainly doesn't have any juice nor would I suspect that there's (m)any Democrats that take any sort of cues from him.
   5739. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 25, 2013 at 03:12 PM (#4425725)
I mean, the guy might be a 'Democrat' - but he certainly doesn't have any juice

No one said he had any juice. They just said he was a liberal, which he self-evidently is.
   5740. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 03:12 PM (#4425727)
Karl Rove and/or Dick Cheney would be my guess. Both men are evil. Bush is just dumb.


And smart. Don't forget that he tricked Democrats into war.

Granted, I suppose one doesn't need to be smart to fool Democrats, so I haven't really proven anything.
   5741. The Good Face Posted: April 25, 2013 at 03:15 PM (#4425729)
Karl Rove and/or Dick Cheney would be my guess. Both men are evil. Bush is just dumb.


And smart. Don't forget that he tricked Democrats into war.


Stupid like a fox!
   5742. BDC Posted: April 25, 2013 at 03:16 PM (#4425730)
I'm on record somewhere in these threads as doubting that stricter gun control would have prevented Newtown, and I similarly doubt that stricter immigration controls would have prevented Boston. However, the reality of politics since forever is that single incidents turn iconic (or at least catalytic) in ways that spread way beyond their isolated flashpoint beginnings. I could often wish that the policy debates weren't so heavily influenced by the pathos of the moment, but wishing that is wishing for humanity to be a different thing.
   5743. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: April 25, 2013 at 03:37 PM (#4425741)
Karl Rove and/or Dick Cheney would be my guess. Both men are evil. Bush is just dumb.


And smart. Don't forget that he tricked Democrats into war.



Stupid like a fox!


High Five!!
   5744. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 03:42 PM (#4425748)
I'm on record somewhere in these threads as doubting that stricter gun control would have prevented Newtown, and I similarly doubt that stricter immigration controls would have prevented Boston. However, the reality of politics since forever is that single incidents turn iconic (or at least catalytic) in ways that spread way beyond their isolated flashpoint beginnings. I could often wish that the policy debates weren't so heavily influenced by the pathos of the moment, but wishing that is wishing for humanity to be a different thing.

It would be nice if we all could just accept that such tragedies are part of the price for living in a free society, but the world have evolved so that every prodblem requires the Gov't to "Do Something!!!!", or at least convene a study group until the issue blows over.
   5745. Tripon Posted: April 25, 2013 at 03:55 PM (#4425755)

It would be nice if we all could just accept that such tragedies are part of the price for living in a free society, but the world have evolved so that every prodblem requires the Gov't to "Do Something!!!!", or at least convene a study group until the issue blows over.


You could make a decent argument that because the U.S. is a free society, it suffer less attacks like these compared to other countries with overly harsh governments and restrictions. Just look at the IRA and the UK. Those attacks happen precisely because London didn't want to give up control of Ireland.
   5746. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 04:01 PM (#4425765)
You could make a decent argument that because the U.S. is a free society, it suffer less attacks like these compared to other countries with overly harsh governments and restrictions. Just look at the IRA and the UK. Those attacks happen precisely because London didn't want to give up control of Ireland.

Sure, but we're not going to stop them all.

Also, you picked a bad example. The majority of the Northern Irish didn't want to become part of Ireland, and the British wouldn't force them.

Pre-1920, your point is spot on. Michael Collins waged one of the few quite justifiable campaigns of "Terrorism", and largely limited it to legitimate targets (military, police, police informers, etc.).
   5747. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 25, 2013 at 04:02 PM (#4425767)
Not at all. Unskilled men with no college education who barely speak English and depended on the U.S. government for welfare? Toss in a few random run-ins with the law, and these are exactly the type of guys who you and Joe have argued should not be allowed in the United States. If I have a chip on my shoulders, it's only because people like you have argued so hard all my life that people like me should never have been here in the first place.

Your "woe is me, I'm a victim" routine is rearing its ugly head again, especially in the last sentence. By the standard you seem to be implying, the U.S. should have no border enforcement at all, because the kids of some low-skilled, non-English-speaking people might attain higher levels of educational and/or professional achievement than their parents.

The U.S. no longer has a need for masses of low-skilled, non-English-speaking immigrants, like your father or like my great-grandparents. Just because a certain immigration policy made sense 50 or 100 years ago doesn't mean it continues to make sense today.

As I've said time and again, it's bizarre watching liberals make this same immigration argument over and over in a time when the U.S. has ~8 percent unemployment and ~25 percent unemployment, when the U.S. economy is offering fewer and fewer low-skilled jobs that pay a living wage, and when working-class wages have been stagnant for generations. You guys really need to make up your minds with regards to your policy priorities. Do you want a lot more people in the U.S. but with a lower average standard of living or do you want the same number of people with a growing standard of living? (And unless you have a magical plan for rendering supply and demand irrelevant, you can't answer "both.")
   5748. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 25, 2013 at 04:07 PM (#4425774)
5674. Misirlou is calling you DUDE! Posted: April 25, 2013 at 07:45 AM (#4425382)

On a more serious note, why is the CIA's claim that they asked him to be put on a watch list and the FBI refused (Joe's link) more believable than the FBI's claim that "The FBI is under very strict legal guidelines and standards when investigating Americans or persons on American soil. The standards are carefully scrutinized." (my link)? Maybe both are true, maybe neither. But I'm sick and tired of the hand waving and rife speculation by the Dionne's when evidence contrary to their views surfaces. I'm not going to play Joe's game again.

In the CNN link, the FBI says they had "vague" evidence with no follow up and thus were constrained by law by how much investigation they could do on an American resident. Does Joe have evidence this is not true? If so, he should go to work for a major metropolitan newspaper. He's got a Pulitzer in the making. If he has none, he should STFU on this until the adults in the media get the real story. Then we can debate who's feet to lay the blame at.

I'm unimpressed with your whining. If "LA El Hombre's" cousin could end up on the no-fly list for being an anti-Iraq War protester, as "LA El Hombre" claims, then it's rather absurd that the older Tsarnaev brother wasn't put on a U.S. watch list after a foreign country specifically warned us about him possibly being a terrorist. The idea that "the law" somehow prohibits the FBI from Googling people is — wait for it — laughably absurd.
   5749. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: April 25, 2013 at 04:30 PM (#4425792)
I'm unimpressed with your whining. If "LA El Hombre's" cousin could end up on the no-fly list for being an anti-Iraq War protester, as "LA El Hombre" claims, then it's rather absurd that the older Tsarnaev brother wasn't put on a U.S. watch list after a foreign country specifically warned us about him possibly being a terrorist. The idea that "the law" somehow prohibits the FBI from Googling people is — wait for it — laughably absurd.


See, this is the sort or garbage I'm talking about. Because it somehow supports your worldview, the testimony of an anonymous guy on a message board trumps a major media outlet with a source inside the FBI. However, if another anonymous guy contradicts your worldview, well, then he's just a crackpot. I reject your premise utterly, unless you are willing, right here and now, to accept without question, everything LA Hombre says instead of picking and choosing when to believe him and when to mock him.
   5750. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2013 at 04:37 PM (#4425803)
And smart. Don't forget that he tricked Democrats into war.

Granted, I suppose one doesn't need to be smart to fool Democrats, so I haven't really proven anything.

Since a majority of Dems actually voted against Bush's Iraq incursion I'm not quite sure what you thought you had proven...

   5751. The Good Face Posted: April 25, 2013 at 04:41 PM (#4425807)
You guys really need to make up your minds with regards to your policy priorities. Do you want a lot more people in the U.S. but with a lower average standard of living or do you want the same number of people with a growing standard of living? (And unless you have a magical plan for rendering supply and demand irrelevant, you can't answer "both.")


You're oversimplifying here. There are at least three distinct camps on the left when it comes to this issue. The first camp just wants a one party state, but since they can't quite seem to get there through our current electoral system, they've decided they need a new electorate. They have no interest in how (or whether) the economics work since they'll be the folks at the top of the heap. They are generally political or economic elites, people who serve them, or people who aspire to one of those two things. We'll call them the "Hugo Chavez wannabes". The second camp actually buys into the Thomas Friedman nonsense about how today's illiterate Nahuatl-speaking peasants are tomorrow's software billionaires after a couple of community college classes. We'll call these people "idiots". The third camp wants the same thing as the first camp, but they're not economic or political elites. They're driven by ressentiment against conservatives and treat politics as an outlet for their impotent hatreds. These are the folks you see commenting on NYT opinion pieces, ranting about "rethuglicans". We'll call these poor souls "playa haters".

Keep in mind there's always the possibility of camps one and three overlapping with camp two. It's a rich tapestry over there on the left!
   5752. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 25, 2013 at 04:49 PM (#4425816)
See, this is the sort or garbage I'm talking about. Because it somehow supports your worldview, the testimony of an anonymous guy on a message board trumps a major media outlet with a source inside the FBI. However, if another anonymous guy contradicts your worldview, well, then he's just a crackpot. I reject your premise utterly, unless you are willing, right here and now, to accept without question, everything LA Hombre says instead of picking and choosing when to believe him and when to mock him.

Several articles cited "U.S. intelligence officials" with regards to the CIA while your linked article cited a "senior U.S. official" — NOT a "source inside the FBI," as you just claimed — regarding the FBI's handling of the Tsarnaev brothers. Believe whichever story(ies) you want.

As for the latter part of your odd rant, I don't "accept without question" 100 percent of what anyone says about anything, so I'll have to pass on your strange offer/demand.
   5753. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 04:49 PM (#4425817)
You're oversimplifying here. There are at least three distinct camps on the left when it comes to this issue. The first camp just wants a one party state, but since they can't quite seem to get there through our current electoral system, they've decided they need a new electorate. They have no interest in how (or whether) the economics work since they'll be the folks at the top of the heap. They are generally political or economic elites, people who serve them, or people who aspire to one of those two things. We'll call them the "Hugo Chavez wannabes". The second camp actually buys into the Thomas Friedman nonsense about how today's illiterate Nahuatl-speaking peasants are tomorrow's software billionaires after a couple of community college classes. We'll call these people "idiots". The third camp wants the same thing as the first camp, but they're not economic or political elites. They're driven by ressentiment against conservatives and treat politics as an outlet for their impotent hatreds. These are the folks you see commenting on NYT opinion pieces, ranting about "rethuglicans". We'll call these poor souls "playa haters".

Keep in mind there's always the possibility of camps one and three overlapping with camp two. It's a rich tapestry over there on the left!


That made me chuckle, esp. the bolded part.
   5754. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: April 25, 2013 at 04:54 PM (#4425826)
Believe whichever story(ies) you want.


And you apparently believe an anonymous guy on a message board...except when you don't.
   5755. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2013 at 04:55 PM (#4425827)
The third camp wants the same thing as the first camp, but they're not economic or political elites. They're driven by resentment against conservatives and treat politics as an outlet for their impotent hatreds.


You cut and pasted that from someone describing one faction of conservatives didn't you....

No...

There are at least three distinct camps on the right when it comes to this issue. The first camp just wants a one party state, but since they can't quite seem to get there through our current electoral system, and demographics are pulling away from them, they've decided they need to somehow recreate the electorate that used to exist, by preventing as many brown and black skinned folks from voting by whatever means possible. They have no interest in whether the economics work for anyone except the already rich since they're the folks at the top of the heap. They are generally political or economic elites, people who serve them, or people who aspire to one of those two things. We'll call them the "Galtian overlord wannabes". The second camp actually buys into the Randian nonsense about how laissez-faire capitalism is the only morally just system, and that any one who is poor deserves their lot in life. We'll call these people \"########\". The third camp wants the same thing as the first camp, but they're not economic or political elites. They're driven by resentment against conservatives and treat politics as an outlet for their impotent hatreds. These are the folks you see posting on wingnut sites and listening to rightwing talk radio, ranting about "feminazis" and "mooselims". We'll call these poor souls \"########\" too.


   5756. The Good Face Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:02 PM (#4425832)
You cut and pasted that from someone describing one faction of conservatives didn't you....


That's pretty weak sauce my playa hater, but illustrative of the longstanding principle that evil cannot actually create. It can only destroy, or mar and pervert that which has been created by good. Your efforts only exalt the brilliance of the original.
   5757. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:04 PM (#4425834)
And you apparently believe an anonymous guy on a message board...except when you don't.

If it makes you happy, you can strike my reference to "LA El Hombre's" cousin. The key part of my comment was the closing sentence:

The idea that "the law" somehow prohibits the FBI from Googling people is — wait for it — laughably absurd.

... which remains true.
   5758. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:09 PM (#4425836)
How can you possibly argue that people who aren't too smart and aren't too competent are primarily Democrats? Do you seriously think this? I am not going to say there are no stupid-ass people who vote Democrat or people living on welfare that vote Democrat, because there are, but wow, what you said is just so wrong.

Education Map
Electoral Map

EDIT: In both maps red=bad. ;-)


Did an educated person make this post? It should be pretty clear to anyone who knows anything about politics that the least educated in the so-called Education Map don't vote with the majority in the GOP areas on the Electoral Map. This has been the case for decades upon decades. In 2012, those without a high school degree favored Obama 64-35; high school graduates favored Obama by a narrower margin, 51-48; those with some college favored Obama 49-48; and college graduates backed Romney 51-47, although those with post-graduate degrees favored Obama 55-42. You can look it up.
   5759. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:11 PM (#4425837)
... in a time when the U.S. has ~8 percent unemployment and ~25 percent unemployment

Typo in my #5747; should have said "~25 percent underemployment."

***
If you take -- Marco Rubio's getting his ass kicked. Who's my Rubio fan here? We talked about it. He's getting destroyed! By Mark Levin, by Rush Limbaugh, and a few others. He's trying to find a legitimate, long-term effective solution to immigration that isn't the traditional Republican approach, and talk radio is killing him. That's what's causing this thing underneath. And too many politicians in Washington are playing coy.'

I like Frank Luntz, but Marco Rubio's "getting his ass kicked" because he deserves to get his ass kicked. Rubio is plainly putting his personal political ambitions ahead of the good of the country and the good of the Republican Party, and Levin, Limbaugh, et al., are doing a great service to both by calling Rubio on it.

Whether one looks at amnesty (sorry, "comprehensive immigration reform") from the standpoint of low-skilled U.S. workers whose wages have been stagnant for generations or from the standpoint of GOP electoral politics, amnesty would be an utter disaster. I understand why the Dems are drooling at the possibility, but any Republican who claims this is a good idea is uninformed at best or a saboteur at worst. An Obama amnesty in 2013 isn't miraculously going to have the opposite effect for the GOP as the Reagan amnesty of 1986. It's a pipe dream.
   5760. Publius Publicola Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:17 PM (#4425841)
I'm really not getting Face's argument that the bombing incident in Boston is good for Republican politics, as it dampens enthusiasm for immigration reform.

The Republicans themselves have recognized that their stance on blocking reform has been politically problematic for them and they aren't going to win any more of the latino and asian vote until they can put their nativist reputation behind them and open up the tent a little more. If the vote is delayed, the Democrats will still have that stick to beat them to a pulp with.

The worst thing for the Republicans is for the immigration issue to continue to hang around like a fart in a phone booth. Unless they can move some of the latino vote, they can kiss the oval office goodbye in the forseeable future.
   5761. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:18 PM (#4425843)
If it makes you happy, you can strike my reference to "LA El Hombre's" cousin. The key part of my comment was the closing sentence:

The idea that "the law" somehow prohibits the FBI from Googling people is — wait for it — laughably absurd.


... which remains true.


And yet, somehow I'll still take the word of CNN's source until something more concrete than Joe's imagination comes up thank you very much.
   5762. Publius Publicola Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:20 PM (#4425845)
although those with post-graduate degrees favored Obama 55-42.


I like how Clapper deemphasized this part by not bolding it.

That's a huge voting gap by our nation's intelligentsia. And since people with advanced degrees make more than the the rest of the population, it means they find the Republican platform so abhorent, they can't abide voting for their narrow self-interest.

People with advanced degrees basically run everything that's anything. They control government offices, business, academia, etc. And it goes a long way towards validating the Republican's self-assigned reputation as the party of stupid.
   5763. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:20 PM (#4425847)
Your efforts only exalt the brilliance of the original.


Nah, you're posts are easy to do a 1890 inverse on, you see there's this thing called "projection"...
   5764. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:21 PM (#4425848)
And yet, somehow I'll still take the word of CNN's source until something more concrete than Joe's imagination comes up thank you very much.

"Joe's imagination"? I just went through this in #5752:

Several articles cited "U.S. intelligence officials" with regards to the CIA while your linked article cited a "senior U.S. official" — NOT a "source inside the FBI," as you just claimed — regarding the FBI's handling of the Tsarnaev brothers. Believe whichever story(ies) you want.

Did you not notice that the first three words are linked to major news outlets?

***
5760. Publius Publicola Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:17 PM (#4425841)
I'm really not getting Face's argument that the bombing incident in Boston is good for Republican politics, as it dampens enthusiasm for immigration reform.

The Republicans themselves have recognized that their stance on blocking reform has been politically problematic for them and they aren't going to win any more of the latino and asian vote until they can put their nativist reputation behind them and open up the tent a little more. If the vote is delayed, the Democrats will still have that stick to beat them to a pulp with.

The worst thing for the Republicans is for the immigration issue to continue to hang around like a fart in a phone booth. Unless they can move some of the latino vote, they can kiss the oval office goodbye in the forseeable future.

Concern troll is concerned.
   5765. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:23 PM (#4425852)
It wasn't here, but the solidly liberal Bob Beckel made a similar argument on tv the other day.


What ####### idiot thinks Bob Beckel is relevant to anyone? Ooh, ooh, what did Alan Colmes have to say about the bombing??

Stop feeding the trolls. This thread has turned to absolute #### as a result.

As to more pressing matters, Gwynneth Paltrow is just peachy if you like soft, tall blonds who manage the odd feat of having very good bodies without being particularly sexy. In our newspeak age when "hot" has replaced fifty other, smarter, more evocative words, she's not particularly "hot", though she is attractive. Give me my crazy, pixie, voluptuous William & Mary grad any day.

Pics of the George W. Bush Presidential Library. A hoot and a half. It look like a high school designed by an architect who graduated last in his class and hasn't quite mastered AutoCAD.

edit: Yup. It was Roger Stern, that limp little ####.

Talk about rubbing your face in it: "There will also be authentic Florida ballot chad from the 2000 election on display,..."
   5766. Publius Publicola Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:24 PM (#4425853)
What ####### idiot thinks Bob Beckel is relevant to anyone?


Roger Ailes.
   5767. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:24 PM (#4425854)
That's a huge voting gap by our nation's intelligentsia. People with advanced degrees basically run everything that's anything. And it goes a long way towards validating the Republican's self-assigned reputation as the party of stupid.


You eggheads think you're so smart because you have the whole educational system rigged in your favor. I bet if there were a level playing field you wouldn't be able to pass this simple 4th grade science test. No wonder you elitists are so afraid of vouchers.
   5768. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:25 PM (#4425856)
Several articles cited "U.S. intelligence officials" with regards to the CIA while your linked article cited a "senior U.S. official" — NOT a "source inside the FBI," as you just claimed — regarding the FBI's handling of the Tsarnaev brothers. Believe whichever story(ies) you want.


No points for you. I believe the CIA asked. But I also believe the US official, who stated the info the CIA brought to the FBI was the exact same info given to the FBI by Russia. The info that was too vague to be useful without more clarification, which never came.

Russia to FBI - We need you to investigate these guys because of A, B, and C

FBI to Russia - We tried to check them out, but A, B, and C don't tell us much. Can you elaborate? Hello, is anyone there?
.
.
.
CIA to FBI - We need you to add this guy to your watch list because of A, B, and C

FBI - Not again...
   5769. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:28 PM (#4425858)
No points for you. I believe the CIA asked. But I also believe the US official, who stated the info the CIA brought to the FBI was the exact same info given to the FBI by Russia. The info that was too vague to be useful without more clarification, which never came.

Russia to FBI - We need you to investigate these guys because of A, B, and C

FBI to Russia - We tried to check them out, but A, B, and C don't tell us much. Can you elaborate? Hello, is anyone there?
.
.
.
CIA to FBI - We need you to add this guy to your watch list because of A, B, and C

FBI - Not again...

Oh, so now your beliefs trump the news sources I cited. You're doing exactly what you falsely and dishonestly accused me of doing. Quite a performance you're putting on here.
   5770. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:32 PM (#4425860)
I'm really not getting Face's argument that the bombing incident in Boston is good for Republican politics, as it dampens enthusiasm for immigration reform.


I didn't really get the left's view that Newtown was politically good for Dems- incidents like that have the opposite effect politically- the NRA is one of the if not the most dedicated single issue bloc out there, all the pro-gun control frenzy over Newtown does is make them dig their heels in deeper and mobilize, the pro-guns/anti-control types may be fewer in number than the pro-gun control types, but on average they are far far far more active and care far more about that one issue above all else.

With regard to the Boston Marathon- I can certainly see it as having a short term political boost for the nativist wing of the GOP- it may water down any immigration reform pending or kill it outright-
but long-term I can't see how that is positive for the GOP, it's going to continue to let the Dems tell "brown skinned" people bad things about the GOP- and the percent of the voting eligible populace that is going to keep rising even if immigration was miraculously stopped 100% tomorrow.

For Repubs wanting to stop immigartion because they fear new immigrants will vote Dem at some point in the future after they get here and become naturalized (or their children born here vote) is a classic case of locking the barn after the horses have escaped. Moreover, Arab Americans, Hispanic Americans vote at low but increasing rates, and the GOP is in danger of those groups locking in to voting Dem the way blacks have locked in.
   5771. The Good Face Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:33 PM (#4425861)
Nah, you're posts are easy to do a 1890 inverse on, you see there's this thing called "projection"...


Hoho, my post upset you so much that you frantically put together a "NO U! U DO TEH BAD THINGS!" version within minutes of the posting and I'm the one projecting? Ok my 'lil playa hater!

PS - I don't mind you stalking me, but fix your typos. Even Kevin's posts in this thread are better written than yours; a man should have standards.

   5772. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:35 PM (#4425865)
You eggheads think you're so smart because you have the whole educational system rigged in your favor. I bet if there were a level playing field you wouldn't be able to pass this simple 4th grade science test. No wonder you elitists are so afraid of vouchers.


Please tell me that's a joke.

please?
   5773. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:36 PM (#4425869)
No points for you. I believe the CIA asked. But I also believe the US official, who stated the info the CIA brought to the FBI was the exact same info given to the FBI by Russia. The info that was too vague to be useful without more clarification, which never came.


What are you an FBI fanboy?
Seriously, don't you think it is also possible that the FBI simply screwed the pooch on this one?
   5774. JL Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:37 PM (#4425870)
Oh, so now your beliefs trump the news sources I cited. You're doing exactly what you falsely and dishonestly accused me of doing. Quite a performance you're putting on here.


What in the articles you cited contradicts this belief?
   5775. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:41 PM (#4425872)
Even Kevin's posts in this thread are better written than yours; a man should have standards.


Kevin has a new sock puppet?

Hoho, my post upset you so much that you frantically put together


frantically?

frantically?

PS - I don't mind you stalking me, but fix your typos.

funny thing was, when I copied your post I fixed your typos (i.e.,ressentiment) but then I overlook mine...
oh well...
   5776. The Good Face Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:42 PM (#4425873)
Even Kevin's posts in this thread are better written than yours; a man should have standards.


Kevin has a new sock puppet?


You're kidding, right?
   5777. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:43 PM (#4425874)
funny thing was, when I copied your post I fixed your typos (i.e.,ressentiment) but then I overlook mine...

"Ressentiment" wasn't a typo.

***
What in the articles you cited contradicts this belief?

Those articles, specifically the one in the New York Daily News, didn't say the FBI declined to put the older brother on the watch list because they had already investigated the same info.; they said that the FBI "ignored" the CIA's request. Big difference.

From the article:

The FBI received identical information on Tsarnaev in March 2011, including possible travel plans, but no action was taken by any agency.
   5778. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:51 PM (#4425878)
Seriously, don't you think it is also possible that the FBI simply screwed the pooch on this one?


Of course it's possible. I just don't think Joe knows one way or another. He's merely combing the net for articles which support his view, and then trumpeting them as the absolute truth, and I refuse to buy into his premise. The death penalty cost thing was amusing for one night, but enough is enough. He may well be "right", but only because if you continuously bet on black, you'll be right about half the time.
   5779. Steve Treder Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:52 PM (#4425880)
The Republicans themselves have recognized that their stance on blocking reform has been politically problematic for them and they aren't going to win any more of the latino and asian vote until they can put their nativist reputation behind them and open up the tent a little more. If the vote is delayed, the Democrats will still have that stick to beat them to a pulp with.

The worst thing for the Republicans is for the immigration issue to continue to hang around like a fart in a phone booth. Unless they can move some of the latino vote, they can kiss the oval office goodbye in the forseeable future.


This is exactly the dynamic the frustrated GOP consultant quoted in #5728 is talking about. Playing to the rabid base on this issue is a net loser for the party, and they can't figure out how to break the cycle.
   5780. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:52 PM (#4425881)
What ####### idiot thinks Bob Beckel is relevant to anyone?


All the liberals who immediately took to their bully pulpits to shoot him down? On tv, radio, and in print?

Those favoring amnesty/comprehensive immigration reform have a real problem on their hands. Ignore it at the Republicans' delight.
   5781. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4425882)
Of course it's possible. I just don't think Joe knows one way or another. He's merely combing the net for articles which support his view, and then trumpeting them as the absolute truth, and I refuse to buy into his premise. The death penalty cost thing was amusing for one night, but enough is enough. He may well be "right", but only because if you continuously bet on black, you'll be right about half the time.

This is getting more childish by the minute. Does your mommy know you're on the computer now?

I haven't "comb[ed] the net" for anything. Get serious. I saw a major news headline and posted it here. (And the idea that a right-winger is looking for reasons to be anti-law enforcement is beyond comical.)
   5782. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:55 PM (#4425884)
although those with post-graduate degrees favored Obama 55-42.

I like how Clapper deemphasized this part by not bolding it.

That's a huge voting gap by our nation's intelligentsia. And since people with advanced degrees make more than the the rest of the population, it means they find the Republican platform so abhorent, they can't abide voting for their narrow self-interest.

People with advanced degrees basically run everything that's anything. They control government offices, business, academia, etc. And it goes a long way towards validating the Republican's self-assigned reputation as the party of stupid.


No point in bolding the whole post, which wasn't necessary to rebut Jacksone's #5711 suggesting that low education voters are predominantly Republican when that is simply not the case and everyone who has studied American politics knows it.

#5762 is also wrong to suggest that those folks with advanced degrees voting Democratic "run everything" thus, making the GOP the "party of stupid". Republicans do fine with those that have medical and law degrees, same for science & engineers. The post-graduate gap is largely due to all the teachers that get Masters for the pay raise that comes with it, and others in the liberal arts - many of which are now unemployed or underemployed. I didn't introduce this topic, but the numbers are what they are - voters with the least education tend to vote Democratic and have done so for decades. Saying anything else is just spin that makes you look dumb.
   5783. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2013 at 05:57 PM (#4425885)
"Ressentiment" wasn't a typo.


Oh I see GF was trying to imply that the resentment liberal allegedly feel towards conservatives is not ordinary resentment but rather derives from the liberal's sense of innate inferiority when they gaze upon their conservative superiors...

My bad.

You're kidding, right?

Oh I suspect someone here of being Kevin, but I am far from sure.
   5784. JL Posted: April 25, 2013 at 06:01 PM (#4425888)
Those articles, specifically the one in the New York Daily News, didn't say the FBI declined to put the older brother on the watch list because they had already investigated the same info.; they said that the FBI "ignored" the CIA's request. Big difference.


Not sure any of them say that. The title of the New York Daily News article says that. But the body of it says that FBI, among others, received the request. It also notes that the FBI had received identical information earlier “but no action was taken by the agency.” This is poorly written, but I presume it is referring to putting their name on the watch list. Either way, you can read anything into that you want. Based on this language, they could have ignored it or could have not put the name on the list because they had already run an investigation.

I agree that none of the articles use the words "the FBI refused to put him on the watch list because they had already been investigated.” But at least one somewhat suggests that. The WaPo article is silent on the FBIs reasoning, but USA Today seems to say that after receiving the information from the CIA, “[t]he FBI again contracted its Russian counterparts, asking if they had additional information on Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Russian authorities, the official said, never responded.” This certainly contradicts your assertion that the request was ignored. It also suggests that based on what the FBI had done before, and with no new information, it was not going to change its initial conclusion.
   5785. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 25, 2013 at 06:05 PM (#4425892)
There are at least three distinct camps on the left when it comes to this issue. The first camp just wants a one party state, but since they can't quite seem to get there through our current electoral system, they've decided they need a new electorate.

OTOH all the "conservatives" need is a time machine and all their problems will be over.

-----------------------------------------------

That made me chuckle, esp. the bolded part.

Yeah, and here's a winning coalition for the next few U.S. elections: snapper, Good Face, and Kehoskie. Can't see how it can fail!

-----------------------------------------------

The worst thing for the Republicans is for the immigration issue to continue to hang around like a fart in a phone booth. Unless they can move some of the latino vote, they can kiss the oval office goodbye in the forseeable future.

Are you nuts? Kehoskie says that all the GOP has to do is to increase the white turnout!
   5786. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 25, 2013 at 06:10 PM (#4425896)
Not sure any of them say that. The title of the New York Daily News article says that. But the body of it says that FBI, among others, received the request. It also notes that the FBI had received identical information earlier “but no action was taken by the agency.” This is poorly written, but I presume it is referring to putting their name on the watch list.

It actually says that "no action was taken by any agency." Regardless, I'm not sure why you're saying it was poorly written. It seems to be a very simple statement of the facts as they're currently known.

I agree that none of the articles use the words "the FBI refused to put him on the watch list because they had already been investigated.” But at least one somewhat suggests that.

You're hanging your hat on what one article "suggests"? If any of these authors knew the above to be true, why wouldn't they write it? I'm not a big fan of the news media, but I doubt three different outlets would decline to write something they knew or suspected to be true and that some rival outlet would be likely to write as soon as they talked to an FBI source (especially since this is the type of thing the FBI would want to strongly and quickly refute if it's untrue).

The WaPo article is silent on the FBIs reasoning, but USA Today seems to say that after receiving the information from the CIA, “[t]he FBI again contracted its Russian counterparts, asking if they had additional information on Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Russian authorities, the official said, never responded.” This certainly contradicts your assertion that the request was ignored.

Even if true, it still makes the FBI look bad. Russia apparently asked the U.S. to investigate (or told the U.S. it should investigate) the older brother. The FBI apparently asked Russia for further info., which apparently didn't come, at which point the FBI didn't take further action. How does that make the FBI look any better? Instead of acting on a tip — and not a tip from some anonymous source, but from a foreign government known to have an extensive intelligence apparatus — the FBI asked for more info. and then "[took] no action."

It also suggests that based on what the FBI had done before, and with no new information, it was not going to change its initial conclusion.

But what had the FBI "done before"? The article said that, "The FBI received identical information on Tsarnaev in March 2011, including possible travel plans, but no action was taken by any agency." That doesn't suggest much of anything was done, aside from asking Russia for additional info.
   5787. JL Posted: April 25, 2013 at 06:17 PM (#4425898)
You're hanging your hat on what one article "suggests"? If any of these authors knew the above to be true, why wouldn't they write it? I'm not a big fan of the news media, but I doubt three different outlets would decline to write something they both knew to be true and something that some other outlet would be liable to write as soon as they talked to an FBI source.


Not at all. You are the one who cited these for your proposition that they all support the FBI ignoring the CIA. The fact that none say that and one seems to say the opposite is your problem, not mine. And if these folks knew the tip had "been ignored", why did they not just write that?

Even if true, it still makes the FBI look bad. Russia apparently asked the U.S. to investigate (or told the U.S. it should investigate) the older brother. The FBI apparently asked Russia for further info., which apparently didn't come, at which point the FBI didn't take further action. How does that make the FBI look any better? Instead of acting on a tip — and not a tip from some anonymous source, but from a foreign government known to excel at intelligence — the FBI asked for more info. and then "took no action."


Well, I read it that this is after they had already investigated the first time. They had already gotten that same tip from the Russians directly. They came up with nothing, so naturally when asked to look again by the CIA, went to Russia for guidance. They did not get any. I am not sure it is unreasonable to not investigate the same tip twice.
   5788. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 25, 2013 at 06:28 PM (#4425904)
Not at all. You are the one who cited these for your proposition that they all support the FBI ignoring the CIA. The fact that none say that and one seems to say the opposite is your problem, not mine. And if these folks knew the tip had "been ignored", why did they not just write that?

Incorrect at best, blatantly dishonest at worst. The Daily News headline uses the word "ignored," and the story says that "no action was taken by any agency." It's unclear why you're inferring "no action" includes an investigation.

Well, I read it that this is after they had already investigated the first time. They had already gotten that same tip from the Russians directly. They came up with nothing, so naturally when asked to look again by the CIA, went to Russia for guidance. They did not get any. I am not sure it is unreasonable to not investigate the same tip twice.

What "first time"? The FBI apparently received the info. before the CIA. Again, from the article:

The FBI received identical information on Tsarnaev in March 2011, including possible travel plans, but no action was taken by any agency.

The statement "no action was taken by any agency" doesn't seem to suggest an investigation occurred in March 2011.
   5789. JL Posted: April 25, 2013 at 06:35 PM (#4425906)
Incorrect at best, blatantly dishonest at worst. The Daily News headline and story both use the word "ignored."


I found "ignored" in the headline, but not story, even after I used the "find" function.

What "first time"? The FBI apparently received the info. before the CIA. Again, from the article:


I quoted from the USA Today article that you posted. That is the one that suggested a first investigation. So now you are down to one article that supports you, not the three you initially stated. Is that incorrect or just blatantly dishonest?
   5790. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 25, 2013 at 06:43 PM (#4425909)
I found "ignored" in the headline, but not story, even after I used the "find" function.

I had already corrected that, but congratulations on scoring a pedantic point.

I quoted from the USA Today article that you posted. That is the one that suggested a first investigation. So now you are down to one article that supports you, not the three you initially stated. Is that incorrect or just blatantly dishonest?

LOL. Asking Russia for additional information about a person who was living in the U.S. now constitutes an "investigation"? (And you're not even quoting what the article actually said; you're talking about what it "suggested.") You've got to be kidding.

As someone here asked on a different topic a few months ago, if your neighbor tells you your house is on fire, and then you ask him if it's your house or your garage but he doesn't get back to you, do you just shrug your shoulders and forget about it, or do you look into the original tip?
   5791. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 25, 2013 at 06:51 PM (#4425913)
Republicans do fine with those that have medical and law degrees, same for science & engineers. The post-graduate gap is largely due to all the teachers that get Masters for the pay raise that comes with it, and others in the liberal arts - many of which are now unemployed or underemployed.


Scientists appear to be more liberal than the population as a whole.. I'm a scientist with both academic and industry experience and that's certainly consistent with my experience. You'd think Creationism and saying mean things about Al Gore would be a big winner with the nerdy white coat set, but there you go,
   5792. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 25, 2013 at 06:59 PM (#4425918)
Are you nuts? Kehoskie says that all the GOP has to do is to increase the white turnout!

For all the talk about changing demographics and all that, 1 percentage point of the white vote is still worth at least 7 or 8 percentage points of the Latino vote. I like the GOP's chances of adding 2 or 3 percentage points of the white vote in 2016 a lot more than I like the GOP's chances of scoring an additional 10 or 20 percentage points of the Latino vote, especially if the economy remains stagnant.

Incidentally, while Andy has fun mocking my position on this, I'm not the only one who believes it. It hasn't been getting a lot of attention, probably because this type of honesty could kill amnesty, but the guy who ran Obama's winning presidential campaigns has been saying essentially the same thing:

"And by the way: the bigger problem [the GOP has] with Latinos isn’t immigration. It’s their economic policies and health care. The group that supported the president’s health care bill the most? Latinos."
   5793. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 25, 2013 at 07:38 PM (#4425937)
Republicans do fine with those that have medical and law degrees, same for science & engineers...
You mean, 'Republicans do fine with people making those salaries,' and that greed to a point trumps education. Pity.
   5794. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 25, 2013 at 08:02 PM (#4425945)
Of course, docs in academia apparently vote Democratic, and those are some weird folk indeed.
   5795. Publius Publicola Posted: April 26, 2013 at 08:17 AM (#4426105)
I'm also not getting the righties point on the lack of a thorough investigation by the FBI somehow validating the accusation that progressives are soft on terrorism.

First of all, the FBI is a conservative constituency. So unless you have some evidence that the Obama administration caused the FBI to back off, I don't see where this argument gets you anywhere. Second, the FBI must receive tens of thousands of tips to follow up on. They can't do an ultra-exhaustive running searches of everyone, it would be counterproductive.

Finally, and this is directed at the self-righteous righties, did it ever occur to any of you that the Russians might try to exploit the American counter-terrorism effort by planting fake or misleading intel that targets ethnic Chechens who might cause them trouble either abroad or after slipping back in? And that the FBI knows that the Russians are capable of playing this double game, have been misled before, and so are rightfully skeptical of information they receive from the Russian intelligence agencies? Hasn't Putin developed something of a reputation of targeting political enemies regardless of international borders?

So, being the fervent anti-communists you all are, why are you all supporting Putin and his cohorts in this instance? If you were given a tip by the Russian intelligence agencies, did an investigation, discovered nothing, asked for additional information and were ignored, wouldn't this be a red flag to you and relegate this case to the false lead trash bin? When you have likely hundreds of more promising leads to follow up on? No?
   5796. Ron J2 Posted: April 26, 2013 at 09:22 AM (#4426139)
#5773 I believe I'm already on record on this. That it'll probably turn out that somebody took a quick look, saw "Chechen nationalist" and decided it was nothing of interest domestically.
   5797. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 26, 2013 at 09:40 AM (#4426154)
Are you nuts? Kehoskie says that all the GOP has to do is to increase the white turnout!

For all the talk about changing demographics and all that, 1 percentage point of the white vote is still worth at least 7 or 8 percentage points of the Latino vote. I like the GOP's chances of adding 2 or 3 percentage points of the white vote in 2016 a lot more than I like the GOP's chances of scoring an additional 10 or 20 percentage points of the Latino vote, especially if the economy remains stagnant.


Perhaps so, but that doesn't speak to the point about the folly of writing off the Latino vote and concentrating your efforts solely on whites, which is what you were saying should be done in the aftermath of the Romney fiasco.

Incidentally, while Andy has fun mocking my position on this, I'm not the only one who believes it. It hasn't been getting a lot of attention, probably because this type of honesty could kill amnesty, but the guy who ran Obama's winning presidential campaigns has been saying essentially the same thing:

"And by the way: the bigger problem [the GOP has] with Latinos isn’t immigration. It’s their economic policies and health care. The group that supported the president’s health care bill the most? Latinos."


But again, all that's saying is that Latinos also support the health care bill. It certainly doesn't say that they don't care about immigration, or that the GOP isn't driving them away with their position on that subject. The first part of Plouffe's comment was this:

But, I asked Plouffe, wasn’t the G.O.P. just one postmodern presidential candidate — say, a Senator Marco Rubio — away from getting back into the game?

Pouncing, he replied: “Let me tell you something. The Hispanic voters in Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico don’t give a damn about Marco Rubio, the Tea Party Cuban-American from Florida. You know what? We won the Cuban vote! And it’s because younger Cubans are behaving differently than their parents. It’s probably my favorite stat of the whole campaign. So this notion that Marco Rubio is going to heal their problems — it’s not even sophomoric; it’s juvenile!

   5798. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 26, 2013 at 09:51 AM (#4426160)
Perhaps so, but that doesn't speak to the point about the folly of writing off the Latino vote and concentrating your efforts solely on whites, which is what you were saying should be done in the aftermath of the Romney fiasco.

I've bit my tongue about it for months now, but a big demographic change in which a bunch more people look to government to give them #### is nothing to celebrate, and your perpetual giddiness about it -- particularly in this economic climate -- is downright bizarre. Your attitudes are primarily those of the political hack, not the concerned citizen.
   5799. The Good Face Posted: April 26, 2013 at 10:08 AM (#4426167)
I've bit my tongue about it for months now, but a big demographic change in which a bunch more people look to government to give them #### is nothing to celebrate, and your perpetual giddiness about it -- particularly in this economic climate -- is downright bizarre. Your attitudes are primarily those of the political hack, not the concerned citizen.


This is nothing new; it's been Andy's raison d'etre for as long as he's been posting here. He's not concered about the country, or even the people who live here; it's all about sticking it to his enemies. See my post in #5751 for an explanation of what drives the Andys of the world.
   5800. Lassus Posted: April 26, 2013 at 10:13 AM (#4426172)
I've bit my tongue about it for months now

You've done WHAT?

I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.


Good Face, you sound more like Glenn Beck every post.
Page 58 of 66 pages ‹ First  < 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Kiko Sakata
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-2-2014
(41 - 11:04pm, Sep 02)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1958 Discussion
(2 - 11:00pm, Sep 02)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogGleeman: Twins ask fans which brand of luxury car they are
(14 - 10:57pm, Sep 02)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogThe indisputable selfishness of Derek Jeter
(38 - 10:52pm, Sep 02)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogAstros Fire Bo Porter
(62 - 10:50pm, Sep 02)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(318 - 10:47pm, Sep 02)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogPhoto of the day: Bill Murray, indy league ticket-taker
(127 - 10:42pm, Sep 02)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogExpanded Rosters Exacerbate Baseball’s Biggest Issue
(30 - 10:30pm, Sep 02)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogGiants to promote Brett Bochy
(2 - 10:24pm, Sep 02)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogBrewers prospect plays every position, all in one game
(20 - 10:03pm, Sep 02)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMets call up Dilson Herrera, have "talked about" d'Arnaud to LF
(52 - 10:01pm, Sep 02)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogBPP: Why do people still think Jack Morris pitched to the score?
(37 - 9:52pm, Sep 02)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogNewsweek: Can Baseball Get More Interesting to Watch With Big Data?
(14 - 9:43pm, Sep 02)
Last: BDC

NewsblogAdam Jones says he was joking about 'airport' comment at social media event
(23 - 9:37pm, Sep 02)
Last: Esoteric

NewsblogPassan: 10 Degrees: Cole Hamels' trade value might be Phillies' lone bright spot
(5 - 9:34pm, Sep 02)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

Page rendered in 0.9946 seconds
52 querie(s) executed