User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.9367 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Why is it horrible? Seriously. I am very disappointed by the article, because while it points out all these ties to China, it provides no explanation of why this is legally bad. I know little to nothing about campaign finance law, so an explanation as to why these things matter would be helpful. (Heck, I used to think you could not raise money from foreign nationals, but then Romney went to London for a fundraiser with nary a peep, so I guess that is okay? I really don't know.)
Sure if Bill Cosby or whoever says it as a motivational tool, when a white southerner says it?
No.
From the quoted text it is clear the author is not saying answering any one question is racist, however there is a "relevant identifier" that becomes statisitically evident from answers to multiple questions. In other words a single answer to a single question is probably not enough, but this author found (I am pretty sure multiple studies have found the same by the way) that multiple answers to racial questions can identify strong leanings on racial matters that greatly influence actions - like for example voting.
Not being an economic historian, my understanding is "yes,"
it is believed that unemployment in 1893-1896 hit as high as 25%
of course there was no BLS back then so it's really hard to tell...
The problem with most current people's view of labor/economic history and the role of unions and labor "rights," is they seem to have no clue how socially destabilizing gilded age economics were to the average working person, and its that utter lack of stability more than anything else that lead directly to the rise of unions, socialism and communism, etc.,
Back in the 19th you still had many small proprietorship and small farmers- people who for the most part almost instinctively side with the bosses/owners when it comes to labor disputes,
in the libertarian/conservative dream future when unions have been totally crushed, no labor "rights" (collective bargaining etc), there will once again be a "labor movement" rising up- and when it does - there will be no democratic "brake" on it like there was in the 19th century- "employees" will so greatly outnumber non-employees that it won't be feasible -
so yeah, history is gonna repeat itself, if Libs/Conservatives do get to recreate their free enterprise paradise it'll last one maybe two economic crisis-es, when it falls apart the future new economic order after that may very well be to the left of the New Deal.
I didn't say these two were the most liberal members in the history of the federal bench, but if you believe Daniel Patrick Moynihan went looking for right-wingers for Clinton to nominate to the bench, you are mistaken.
Absurd.
By this logic, all writings should have the author's race, gender, and residence disclosed in the byline.
Why is it horrible? Seriously. I am very disappointed by the article, because while it points out all these ties to China, it provides no explanation of why this is legally bad. I know little to nothing about campaign finance law, so an explanation as to why these things matter would be helpful. (Heck, I used to think you could not raise money from foreign nationals, but then Romney went to London for a fundraiser with nary a peep, so I guess that is okay? I really don't know.)
Even better, the "Government Accountability Institute" behind the report includes: the director of the Young America Foundation, the co-editor of "Landmark Speeches of the American Conservative Movement", and the best part - the Executive Chairman is also the Executive Chairman of Breitbart. Which, can you believe that (from the article):
and then concludes with
I also recommend the comments section if you need a laugh.
"Breitbart - We Make the News!"
I think this was my favorite one:
I've always read Ray's 'definitional' argument surrounding marriage rights as basically boiling down to this. Some of the people who support gay marriage would be against polygamy for the same illegitimate (or legitimate) reasons people use for being against gay marriage. Where you stop on the slope isn't a product of reason but of social programming.
Good thing for Obama the debates don't matter and rarely move the needle.
Says the guy who is conveniently ignoring that less than a week ago it was +5. The difference between voting ratios for absentee ballots does not answer whether or not there is "enthusiasm".
Nice to see the intellectual consistency regarding polling.
Debates don't matter and rarely move the needle. If Romney wins the election, or leads at any point up until the election, I'll be happy to concede the point.
Sorry about that. It clearly went right over my head. I certainly agree with not seeing sort of story behind this.
Something the majority explicitly invited Congress to do in the event that the holding was not what Congress intended.
In my version of math, the current Dem+8 is still quite a bit smaller than 2008's Dem+13.
***
Huh? The liberals are the ones screaming today about the party ID splits in the Pew poll. I hope Obamacare covers whiplash.
Hey now it could do both! :)
Seriously though the sad answer is it depends. What sort of subsidies are you asking about?
All the screaming here on this site on this subject from liberals ...
I am pretty sure all (or almost all) of the liberals here believe in poll averaging. And not freaking out over one (or even a few) polls.
How's that RCP 0.5-point spread taste? Last week, the lefties here — including you — had declared Romney's campaign D.O.A. ("Worst ever!" "Worse than Dukakis or Mondale!")
Says the guy who conveniently ignores that less than a week ago it was +5.
Really? Or is this another one of your paint with the world's biggest brush?
Not great I admit. I still think the Romney campaign is largely inept, but they did manage one debate win. However if you look back a few pages - right before the debate - I predicted a mini-surge by the Romney campaign, so while I would like to have had the debate pretty much end things it didn't and now we will have some horse race stuff with Romney doing well. Obama will still win (I hold with my original 65/35 formulation - things have not changed much. Up a bit, down a bit).
Yes, the Dems went from underperforming by 8 points to underperforming by 5 points. Let me know when they're above water relative to 2008.
More accurately, you predicted a trumped-up media narrative of a Romney comeback because the media needs to sell papers and attract viewers. That's not what has happened over the past 5 days.
Will do.
More accurately, you predicted a trumped-up media narrative of a Romney comeback because the media needs to sell papers and attract viewers. That's not what has happened over the past 5 days.
So I guess you're claiming it wasn't trumped up then. Strange that liberal media doing Romney a favor.
Wednesday night's butt-kicking was so clear no one could spin it.
I might have said something somewhere else about media, but I was referencing this post. Besides I think the out sized debate impact was media driven, so even then I am not wrong (yet). If in a week or so (in other words fulls polls released from a week after the debates) there is some big impact then yeah I will be wrong.
Still not expecting it though.
That said, more than a few first debates have moved the needle sharply towards the challenger with little long range effect, most recently in 2004. The question remains as to how well the Democrats can re-group and re-focus the attention on Romney's blatant self-contradictions and the implications of his policy proposals. If they can do that successfully, the first debate will be seen as a bump in the road. But if they can't do that, then all bets are off----and Nate's numbers will reflect that. The next few weeks are going to show what the Obama campaign is made of.
Wow, that's some impressive spin. Last week, anyone who talked about polls was a "truther," but now you apparently believe a dozen different polling outfits rigged their "Who won the debate?" polls in order to trump up a Romney comeback story. In other words, Romney didn't actually win the debate, but the rigged post-debate polling tricked us into believing he won.
"Who are you going to believe: Me, or your lying eyes?"
"I didn't see it."
"Why not? You were a debater! I thought you loved debates?"
"I read them. I don't watch them."
"Why not?"
"I read them for substance. Watching them gets in the way."
And then he went on to misremember everything that went on during the debate. The one impression — and it's the most important one — was that Romney looked like he knew what he was saying, and Obama didn't. It thrilled him.
His mood turned when I started asking him about Romney's shifts in argument. No, he didn't read Romney's site, he doesn't know Romney's budget proposals (other than to increase military spending), he didn't know that Romney had pledged to cut taxes instead of hold the line, etc. And then he made it clear: he doesn't care what Romney's position is on those things. He wanted to cut taxes? Good! Now he doesn't? Good! Not only that, but he defended Romney's position shifts (shifts that he didn't know existed): "A man is allowed to change his mind." Our wives made us stop talking politics.
Between my brother and my birther/truther father-in-law, election season has become hell.
Since we were talking about the debate I was thinking along the line of the Oil subsidies that Romney was talking about since I live in California and that recent spike in Gas prices brought up the topic in a conversation I had with my girlfriend.
also speaking of the debate , all this talk about Romney winning last Wednesday has the feel of Kennedy vs Nixon to it.
Unfortunately that's how most people usually react to debates when their candidate looks "good" and his opponent looks "weak". That's been a factor in election outcomes since 1960, and I'm sure it'll continue to be a factor when we're all dead. Not sure what there is to do about it beyond making sure that your candidate looks "good" the next time, and forces his opponent to look "weak". It's not as if it's beyond Obama's capabilities to make that happen, but it won't happen by wishing.
That isn't the claim at all. The claim is that the media aftermath of the debate, with the soundclips and bits carefully selected, drove the discussion rather than people's nuanced opinion of the debate. People are mostly bandwagoners--see the prevalence of Yankee fans.
That claim would be wrong. People who saw the debate - and it had a larger audience than in 2008 - didn't need any help in deciding who won. Just ask the Taiwanese Animators. There may be a question as to how much it matters or how long the effect lasts, both of which will likely be influenced by subsequent developments, but this was the most one-sided debate ever, and I've seen every televised Presidential Debate (although I am too young to remember anything from 1960 other than a lot of talk about Quemoy & Matsu).
EDIT: Why do you think it took the Obama team 10 minutes before they made an appearance in the spin room?
Larger by roughly 20 million people, biggest audience for a debate since 1980.
For an election that was supposedly in the bag for Obama, an awful lot of people tuned in.
***
Gallup now is almost alone in still polling registered voters rather than likely voters. Subtract the typical ~3 points from the Dem under a "likely voter" screen, and the Gallup is, at best, a tie or small lead for Obama.
People are not happy with Obama, and the direction of this country. Any non-terrible candidate/campaign should beat him.
The debate was Romney's first showing of not being terrible. If he can continue to appear competent through election day, he wins.
Magnets! How do they work?
No comment on the campaign finance torpedo?
This is almost certainly just a reflection of the sample size, not based on any approximate cause.
Romney did better in polls conducted after the debate than during the debate among debate watchers. This is not rocket surgery.
***
I mean, doesn't anyone on the right know how to play this game? Wishcasting about partisan affiliation weighting? Claiming that the BLS is biased? Claiming that one debate means more than the totality of polling/electoral history?
Can we at least up the level of bull####?
Why is that? AS Romney himself said 47% of the people aren't going to vote for him. There are very few undecideds in this election and Obama and Romney aren't so philosophically and politically close to one another that someone who would vote for Obama would switch their vote to Romney with a month to go in the election.
WHOOPS! Wrong thread.
Haven't read much about it yet. I must say, though, that for people who loathe Citizens United so much, it's odd how quickly liberals hand-wave possible violations of the campaign finance laws that remain in effect (e.g., the prohibition on foreign contributions, donor tracking and verification, etc.). It's at least mildly fishy that Obama's campaign website has tougher security for people who want to buy a T-shirt than for people who want to contribute money. I guess they fear chargebacks for merchandise more than they fear fraudulent donations or an FEC investigation.
***
The snap polls released within minutes after the debate had Romney winning in poll after poll, by as much as 30 to 40 points. The people who didn't watch the debate at all might have been impacted by the pundits' reactions, but the people who actually watched the debate didn't need Chris Matthews or Sean Hannity to tell them Obama got creamed.
Well, you know that's not true. The squishy middle doesn't have a clear political philosophy. If they did they'd be part of the 40% that's always Dem, or the 40% that's always Rep.
The middle votes, or even bothers to show up, based on the general state of the country (terrible) and their personal guess of which candidate is a better "leader".
If Romney appears to be just as competent as Obama, the middle will break to him, because the country is in terrible shape.
Also, turnout.
Well, I pay income taxes and I'm going to vote for Obama, so that's 48% right there.
I certainly know I'm partisan, and especially socially, but as much as "REAL PEOPLE KNOW" the country is in terrible shape, it seems odd to be that the same "real people" - like you and Joe - can't accept the fact that a recovery from such a shittyass black hole isn't like snapping your fingers.
Exactly, which is why Romney doesn't have a 60-40 lead over Obama and never will have anything close to that. People know it is going to be a long road to recovery and they also know, despite the doom and gloom of the Joe's of the world, that things aren't as bad as they were in 2008. At this point Romney doesn't just have to be as competent as Obama, as if that criteria was ever true, he has to be viewed as a better option than Obama. There are very few people left who haven't decided whether he is or not and it is going to take a lot more than a debate to get them to switch their votes or for all the undecideds to go for Romney.
If you recall a couple of months ago Joe made a big deal of the President's approval rating, well, it is at 52% this week.
The election is a month away. This would have manifested itself by now.
Actually, it is. Historically, the worse the recession/depression, the more robust the recovery.
It has taken policy blunder, after policy blunder, to depress what should be robust growth.
Not necessarily. Up until the debate, Romney was acting like a complete clown. He had killed my enthusiasm for him.
Up until last Wed night, the average American had no reason to believe Romney was competent.
Enthusiasm is measured by party ID, the party ID split, and voter turnout, not the raw number or percentage of votes.
***
Yeah, if only the level-headed lefties like you were as open-minded with Bush in 1992, instead of trumpeting a "horrible economy" that wasn't horrible and a recession that was long over by the time Clinton took office.
It is like snapping your fingers?
Well, Obama didn't run in 2008 saying the economy couldn't be fixed in one term. Quite the opposite, he said if he hasn't done it in 3 years "then there's going to be a one-term proposition." Equally important, Americans expect a President to be able to get the job done in one term. Obama spent nearly a trillion dollars on his Stimulus Plan, without producing the promised results and with far too much of it going to political allies, cronies and the well-connected. When something hasn't worked and the incumbent's plan is more of the same, folks are going to look elsewhere.
Yeah, never mind how many people actually vote for a candidate. That doesn't matter, obviously.
Romney doesn't need all the undecideds, just a solid majority of them. Per Nate's own data, in a true-incumbent election, the average challenger gains by 3:1 in October and 2:1 in November.
Yes, and it's still a couple points below where Bush was at the same point in 2004.
***
If you honestly believe the 2012 electorate will be as Dem or more Dem than 2008, then it's not the right-wingers who are wishcasting.
Yep, Clinton was such a horrible choice. What a bogeyman Clinton is to righties.
You don't seem to understand what "enthusiasm" means within the context of electoral politics. In your world, we don't even need elections. Whichever party has higher voter registration wins, since enthusiasm/turnout are non-factors.
Well, actually Gallup has Bush at 49% for October while Obama is at 52%. The first poll of October put Bush at 50%. The second poll of the month put him at 47%. Third poll at 48%, and then he had a 51%, 51%, and 48% to end the month. So except for being absolutely and totally wrong on this point you were almost right.
You don't seem to understand what "enthusiasm" means within the context of electoral politics.
Coming from a guy who it doesn't seem to know which number is a larger number I'll take this in the same vein as I view your mathematical skills.
Dem's are running at 31% (and gaining) of the absentee ballots as compared to 33% in 2008 and they are on pace to match or surpass their totals from 2008 but yeah I don't understand "enthusiasm".
Yes. Even easier. It will happen on its own.
If Obama had done absolutely nothing besides offer Gov't financing to troubled banks and the auto companies, and extend UE benefits, the economy would be in better shape today.
Example, please.
How have you not won a Nobel Prize yet?
Oh come on, he wouldn't have made it out of New Hampshire. That's a ridiculous idea.
I'd deserve it every bit as much as Obama did.
He hasn't ordered enough drone strikes.
When did I claim otherwise?
In Gallup's polling for the last week of Sept. 2004, Bush was at 54 percent approval, compared with 48 percent for Obama in the last week of Sept. 2012. Plainly, Obama was underperforming Bush at the same point in time.
Moving ahead to the first week of October, Bush dipped down a few points, but that was in the aftermath of his Sept. 30 debate loss to Kerry, while Obama's numbers for the first week of Oct. 2012 include only three days of post-debate polling.
Anyone who looks at Bush's 2004 approval ratings and Obama's 2012 approval ratings and claims Obama isn't underperforming Bush is mathematically illiterate. Bush was at or over 50 percent nearly all of 2004, while Obama didn't hit 50 percent for the first time until the first week of September. (And making matters worse for Obama, Gallup's numbers skew in favor of Dems — and against Republicans — since it's a poll of registered voters, and yet Obama is still underperforming Bush.)
By the way, this was a nice statistical sleight of hand, comparing Bush's numbers for all of October 2004 to Obama's numbers for the first week of October 2012. I guess doing an apples-to-apples comparison of Sept. 2004 to Sept. 2012 — months for which we have full data — would have been too simple.
Not for a recovery. After a bad recession you typically see 4-5% GDP growth.
Look at the recovery after 1983. It was years of 5% growth, not a random quarter.
14 out of the 31 polls taken before the 2004 election had Bush under 50%. 55% of the polls doesn't really equate to "nearly all" in my book.
Um, not it wasn't. I did in fact break it down and list all of of Bush's numbers for October of 2004 and Obama beats him in terms of same timeframe. So while I know you like to handwave away anything that doesn't fit into your worldview you'll have to come up with a better reason than the one your are giving.
You using all of September or even part of September, since as always you like to be pretty vague about what your actual point and evidence is, and then calling it the "same point" is the true slight of hand.
Off taking the boys to TKD and dinner. Sigh. My post did not say one word about polls. I swear you are such a knob sometimes you are almost lovable. For the record, pretty close to my first post after the debate acknowledged he (Romney won).
The further out from the debate (for the first 48 hours or so) the worse the Obama loss in people's eyes. Yes he lost, but the media (really wanting a comeback story) very much piled on. Just like I predicted. It is not a surprise.
And it is OK. Obama is not going to lose because of one debate and if he does he deserves it. I refuse to get all worked up about Media this or debate that. It happened. What is next?
Well next up are more polls (duh) and more debates. Right now Obama is still ahead and when polls from a week or so time window has passed (end of this week, early next week) we shall see where we are. I suspect Obama will be back in front, but not as much as he was before the debate (a point or two lost).
I am positive Obama will do better in the next couple of debates and I still feel very good about his GOTV operation compared to Romney's. The electoral college is still in his favor in terms of routes to get to the magic number. It is still ~65/35. But that means there is a chance Obama loses. That is why they hold the election.
Yeah, and Obama's approval was under 50 percent in 35 out of 35 polls taken from Jan. 1, 2012 to Sept. 1, 2012, and he's been under 50 percent in 37 out of 40 polls overall. But Obama's not underperforming Bush's 2004 numbers. Nope. No way.
So your response to my statement is to totally ignore it and attack something else? You would do Romney proud.
At this point in time Obama is not underperforming as compared to George Bush. 52% is a bigger number than 50%.
Here on planet Earth, it's October 8, 2012. How do you figure Obama beat Bush "in terms of the same timeframe" when 23 days of Oct. 2012 haven't even happened yet?
Right, using two months for which we have full, apples-to-apples data was really sneaky on my part.
If you want to hang your hat on one data point instead of the 45 other data points that show Obama underperforming in 2012 compared to Bush in 2004, that's your prerogative. That's about as accurate as claiming that Romney has been ahead of Obama all year because of today's Pew poll.
Here on planet Earth, it's October 8, 2012. How do you figure Obama beat Bush "in terms of the same timeframe" when 23 days of Oct. 2012 haven't even happened yet?
What? Are you sure you are on Earth? Why on Earth are you framing this in terms of one month blocks. Oh wait, I know, because it allows you to handwave things you do not want to see.
Right, using two months for which we have full, apples-to-apples data was really sneaky on my part.
Well, it is pretty sneaky when I specifically mentioned this week's gallup poll putting Obama at 52% and your reply is that Obama is still trailing Bush at the same point in 2004.
That's about as accurate as claiming that Romney has been ahead of Obama all year because of today's Pew poll.
Except I've never made any kind of claim like that whatsoever. This is just you trying to cover up your own blunder by attacking me on a point I never made. Romney would be so proud.
What some call piling on is usually called reporting. The media just reported the obvious. That includes the MSNBC crowd (Maddow, Mathews & Schultze) as well as in-the-tank types such as Andrew Sullivan. All the instant polls had Romney by a wide margin. The idea that Obama is victim of the media is ludicrous.
Well, you can report the obvious without the embellishments or you know, they could have talked about how Romney did a complete 180. If Obama didn't come across as such a dead fish that most definitely would have been the story. The media made the story be that Obama was absolutely terrible instead of actually reporting the positions of the candidates and how well those positions lined up with what was actually happening, what their positions have been for awhile, and how those positions will affect our future. Instead what we got was a bunch of talking heads talking about style instead of substance.
Tell that to Kehoskie. He's the one who believes in the unassailable power of the media.
Controversial!
Your prediction last week was that the media would trump up a Romney comeback and that the polls wouldn't shift more than a point toward Romney. Both of these things have been dead wrong: Romney creamed Obama without any help from the media, and the polls have moved substantially more than a point toward Romney.
***
Non sequitur.
I would say precisely that, in a logical sense, unless you care to make the argument that the love two homosexuals feel for one another is somehow less deserving of societal recognition than the love a black/white couple feels for one another. It is a matter of equality and autonomy: you marry whomever you wish to marry whether I approve or not, so long as the union is consensual.
I struggle to see any argument against homosexual marriage that is one bit more compelling than any argument against interracial marriage.
Saying that would be silly, because even though we allowed one it has not real bearing on whether we are to allow the other. And that is why slipper slope arguments are silly. Each decision is made in the context of the times (interracial marriage was - in some places - illegal and now it is legal), but there is not some decision inertia where now we have done A so we have to do B.
It's not decision inertia. It's about being logically consistent. What we allow or disallow should not be based on whim unless we have no other option. Rather, our laws should be based on consistent and logical application of general principles. If the combination of your core assumptions and your principles leads you to a conclusion that seems unreasonable, then the answer is to reconsider your core assumptions and your principles, not to carve out a series of context-based exemptions.
Well, with polygamy and incest, there are issues beyond "this makes me uncomfortable" such as increased probability of birth defects WRT the latter (though we don't prohibit marriage of non-siblings who would have the same issues, like if both partners carry the Tay-Sachs gene), and survivorship and custodial issues with the former.
Why is it my business whether your child has a greater chance of having a birth defect? You mention partners that both carry Tay-Sachs as an example; we simply don't prevent marriage on the basis of birth defect probability. We deal with complicated custodial issues all the time under our current system: what if a mother and father in a traditional marriage disagree over a particular medical treatment?
The reason that we don't allow polygamy and incest under our current law is because those things creep us out. Polygamy wasn't outlawed because of child marriage (which should be illegal on its own because of consent issues) and incest wasn't outlawed because of birth defects. We can handle complex ownership issues between huge numbers of people through existing contract law, and in the few cases where such law does not currently exist, it would not be difficult to devise a contract that handles such issues.
Polygamy creates logistical problems as to inheritance and custody. Also, it's hard to have gender equality and polygamy at the same time. Most polygamy has been polygyny (one man, multiple women) - which really only works if women are subordinate to men or if there's a significant shortage of men. That tended to be case in tribal societies engaged in frequent warfare. There have been human societies where polyandry (one woman, multiple men) was practiced but it's rare. If you allow it both ways, and it's hard to justify not doing so unless you're specifically going to privilege one gender over the other, then you quickly get into situations where A is married to both B and C, but B is also married to D, who is also married to E (but not F), while C is also married to F (but not D or E.)
Incest gets tricky in part because, practically speaking, there's usually consent issues bounded up with familial relations.
But its all irrelevant now as we are not allowed to have (involuntary) sex'n housework slaves. If a bunch of consenting adults want to cohabitate, co-householdify, and #### each other, that's their own business.
And the genetic issues with incest will be solved inside of 20 years. Not that its not icky. But marrying your step brother is icky too.
Maybe because you listed all of Bush's approval ratings for Oct. 2004 [#1167] and then claimed Obama is beating him "in terms of the same timeframe" when 23 days of that timeframe haven't even happened yet.
"At the same point" = their respective approval ratings heading into the debates, and Bush was at 54 percent while Obama was at 48 percent. Insisting on a pedantic date-to-date comparison seems kind of silly since the debates and elections aren't held on the exact same dates every election year.
What "blunder" are you talking about? Do you really believe a single data point supersedes the prior 39 data points in 2012?
Again, Obama was under 50 percent approval in 35 out of 35 polls from Jan. 1, 2012, to Sept. 1, 2012, in a polling system that favors Dems. The Obama people would have loved to have had Bush's 2004 approval ratings for the first 9 months of 2012.
***
On a lighter note, this Taiwanese animation of the debate is funny.
This is typical Joe K nonsense. I gave my prediction and even found the post. Wait a bit and see if I am wrong. I still might be.
And now onto an adult conversation
I am not arguing against gay marriage. Big fan in fact. It is not about more compelling or even how similar the arguments are, it is about the existence of a slippery slope. I am arguing there is no slippery slope connecting interracial marriage and gay marriage. Both issues have been/are being decided by society essentially independantly. Both are on a continuum of tolerance (so to speak) but the decision to legalize interracial marriage did not lead directly to legalizing gay marriage, as someone like Ray almost certainly argued it would back in the day.
I can almost see Ray typing "Once you change the definition to allow marriage between the races, the meaning will be lost to whim, then it is a short step to marriage across genders, and before you know it people will be marrying their pets."
What I am saying is that sort of argument, a slippery slope argument, was silly then and is silly now, and will be silly the next time Ray makes it on the next issue.
So it's not a slope, but it's a continuum?
Can you imagine any scenario under which gay marriage could be legal in the U.S. while interracial marriage (heterosexual or homosexual) remained illegal?
The phrase "slippery slope" doesn't mean that if one thing is allowed today, three other things will be allowed tomorrow; it simply means that allowing one thing is liable, if not likely, to lead to other things down the road. And relative to the decades-long fight to legalize interracial marriage, the fight to legalize gay marriage is probably ahead of schedule.
That's fine, but then tax and inheritance laws will have to change. Otherwise you have tax loopholes you can fly a 777 through. Rich guy "marries" all his kids, but they are also free to marry whom they choose. When he dies, all his assets pass to his "spouses" tax free, no probate, no fuss, no muss. The children then marry all of their children, and so on, and so on.
Not saying it can't be solved, but there are good reasons why assets pass automatically to a surviving spouse, and you wouldn't want to jeopardize that while addressing multiple generational marriages.
Geez, you really love to double down on your mistakes instead of just owning them and moving on.
I talked about a specific point in time and instead of saying something like, "Yeah, but . . ." you just had to disprove something that shows Obama in unfavorable light so you play fast and loose with the English language. Quibble all you want it won't change any of the facts.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main