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 0.6964 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.
I only took a quick look, but it appears this poll had a Dem+9 lean. Unless people believe the 2012 electorate will be as Dem or more Dem than 2008, ...
More of a hate fest on people who loudly proclaim that all politicians are corrupt as a way to justify disengagement.
Unions don't have the power to fire you if the election goes against the preferred position. You do realize this, right?
and the PEW poll that had Romney +4 had a Repub +3 lean, unless people believe the 2012 electorate will be more Republican than 2010...
Among other things:
1: The Polls (Ras and unskewed excluded) do not engage in partisan weighing,- partisan affiliation is something that's polled FOR, not assumed a priori and used to adjust results.
2: Among many other reasons, this is why people like RCP and 538.Com aggregate different polls.
Dude, don't be confusing Snapsnap with inconvenient facts.
I'll just hand out cokes now instead of writing something and then saying that.
Basically what it boils down to is that any poll that is favorable to Obama is flawed in someway while any poll that is favorable to Romney somehow reflects reality honestly and accurately.
You don't know any real lefties do you? They've been ######## about Clinton's "triangulation" non-stop from 1994 to today.
Right, but if you poll a thousand people and it's showing a more Dem electorate than 2008, common sense says your sample is inaccurate. No matter how you slice it, the 2012 electorate is not going to be more Dem than 2008. This has nothing to do with "poll trutherism" or any other such nonsense; it's just a basic political reality.
Does the fact that no pollsters agree with you give you pause? Even Rasmussen disagrees.
So unions have greater free speech rights than employers?
Rasmussen is predicting the 2012 electorate will be more Dem than 2008? I must have missed that.
No, Ras says you shouldn't weight on party affiliation.
I mean, whatever, you want to live in your bubble, you go on ahead.
Thing is, though -- there is literally no imaginable mechanism I can think of for a union to 'expel' someone from a union based on support... the local President or anyone else could search up and down the internet, find say - donations to GOP candidates - and there is simply no mechanism for the union to really do anything about it. Beyond criminal acts or some such -- how do you even expel someone from a union for any reason?
An employer, though, is different... I'm sure it's illegal, but do you really think there would be no repercussions for an employee who donated $200 to the DNC or OFA? You think the westgate or koch corporations might decide you're not getting that promotion or that raise?
I know that within my company -- at pretty much my level and above -- promoting someone to a certain point isn't self-contained. By the same token, I have a ceiling for what I can offer so far as merit raises and such. These things have to get blessed at the executive level, but I have no idea what that entails (i.e., I make the request and I hear back...)
If I worked at Koch industries and my own superior recommended me for a big raise or big promotion based on my productivity and fitness for such -- do you really think there's no way that someone wouldn't do a little googling, see that I'm -- while not huge, large enough donor that I exist on all sorts FEC and other disclosure sites -- and this wouldn't impact me?
I'll just add that I'm not trying to have a dialogue with you know who (he's shown that he has absolutely no interest in doing that,) I'm writing for the lurkers.
The partisan composition of the polls vary, specifically throwing out one poll because you think the composition is off is simply reverse cherry picking.
Let's take a hypothetical* set of polls:
D+9
D+6
D+3
Even
R+1
R+3
That averages out to Dem +2.3
Now 2010 was even and 2008 was Dem +8 (I may not be precise on that, but this is a hypothetical)
So our hypothetical set is between 2008 and 2010, but closer to 2010.
If you throw out the D+9 poll, because you are obsessed with the idea that the 2012 electorate is not going to look like 2008, you now have a set that is Dem +1 - and basically a dead wringer for 2010... But why are you throwing out the Dem, +9 and not the Rep +3?, when do you stop throwing out poll results?
*As we've seen you know who does not understand what a hypothetical is, but this isn't for him obviously.
You guys need to get your theories straight. You claim party ID is fluid and that people tend to identify with the winner, and yet you apparently believe polls that show a higher Dem lean in 2012 than in 2008 but a smaller or non-existent lead for Obama. Does not compute.
No Ras said you shouldn't adjust one pollsters numbers with another pollster's partisan affiliation findings (talking about unskewed)-
Ras does fully automated polling, landlines only, no calls backs, so their initial raw data set is not "random" they then adjust for a few factors, race sex, partisan affiliation etc., before releasing results- other pollsters also do some demographic adjustments- but Ras is the most reputable one to do partisan adjustments, and they only do it because of the automated/non-random nature of their data set.
FYI (not "expelling," but punishing) ...
Video: Unions Fine Members Who Don't Show Support for Elizabeth Warren
No, I understand what hypotheticals are, I just object when your hypotheticals have no connection to reality.
Your latest hypothetical, in #2115, is the latest in the pattern. Fully 33 percent of your hypothetical polls lean toward the GOP, while the real number has been about 2 percent.
It's funny how you guys all cite polling methodology but absolutely refuse to explicitly endorse the end result. Do the lefties here believe the 2012 electorate will be as Dem or more Dem than 2012, or do they not?
Now tell us about Barack Obama and his position on the individual mandate.
What does free speech have to do with anything I said? You're free to say whatever you like about polls or union or virtually anything but that doesn't mean I don't get to think you're an ass for saying those things.
I was just curious how the point you made in #2109 — which you posted twice, for emphasis — relates to the info. packet sent out by the Koch brothers. It seemed as if you disliked their exercise of free-speech rights vis-a-vis their position of power as employers, but perhaps all you were doing was calling them "asses" for doing so.
Officially, he thinks it's a states rights thing, which is of political convenience only. Not really sure whether you like or hate such a thing that it's better that one government does it over the other. Who cares?
Hahahahahahahahahah!
Really? Since everything is determined by seniority, everyone is clearly not equal off the bat. In a union with equality, the shittiest workers would be laid off first, not the most senior.
Plus, the existence of a permanent class of union "organizers" and management, who wield all the powers, but aren't actually real workers, puts lie to the whole thing.
This. If a company has to have layoffs b/c Obama wins, it's going to hit Republican, and Democratic voters equally.
And employers can't fire you based on your vote (which they don't know) or party affiliation.
In any case, no profit maximizing organization is going to lay people off out of spite. They'll lay people off b/c they can't make as much money under a different regime.
Really? Since everything is determined by seniority, everyone is clearly not equal off the bat. In a union with equality, the shittiest workers would be laid off first, not the most senior.
Plus, the existence of a permanent class of union "organizers" and management, who wield all the powers, but aren't actually real workers, puts lie to the whole thing.
Pay and hours is based off of seniority but only being in for one year doesn't make you less of a union member. You don't get less of a vote because you have less time put in than some other guy. Secondly the union members vote and come to a consensus as to how their pay and rank will be handled. A bunch of people with the same amount of voting power get together and hash it out. Those union organizers and managers often come from the union ranks and if not are hired with the permission of the union. Nothing is foisted on the union as a whole without their consent and as a coalition of equals they have agreed to this arrangement.
But, in reality, that's not how it works. The union management is a permanent class that basically does what it wants.
How else do you explain the 100% support of Democrats when union membership doesn't skew nearly that far?
I'd like you to explain the business model that will need to lay off workers because of Obama winning.
I'd like you to explain the business model that will need to lay off workers because of Obama winning.
It's short hand for the policies that result from him winning. The coal industry is a perfect example; they'll be much more employment in coal production and electricity generation if Romney wins.
I'm sure Mexico would be very happy hear that.
Figures show W.Va. coal jobs up under Obama
Tip of the hat to DA Baracus.
Can you find another example? Remember, the idea here is actually laying people off. Not just hiring less, but having to lay people off due to reduced demand/higher costs.
By convincing the union members that it is in their best interests to have them there. Their position within the union is not some noble class. They are there with the blessing of the union members.
How else do you explain the 100% support of Democrats when union membership doesn't skew nearly that far?
People are selfish? The Dems have allied with the unions, if the Reps want to have the same kind of relationship they should try to have that kind of relationship.
What do you mean by "permanent class"?
Can you provide some examples?
For example, the much reviled Karen Lewis (CTU) was a teacher for more than 20 years (and by every account I've heard, even from opponents, praised as a good one) before becoming CTU President.
Richard Trumka's father was a 2nd generation coal miner -- and he himself spent 8 years working in PA mines -- before getting his BA, then JD, then joining the UMWA as a staff attorney, then shortly after -- becoming President of his old local, then eventually, the AFL-CIO as a whole.
Who are these 'union bosses' that people think aren't working for the best interests of their membership, and considering it's the membership that elects them -- how did they become these union bosses?
And what do you base that on?
How do you reconcile this claim with 2136?
Hell, the most omnipresent complaint I hear about Obama from the left is that he buys into 'clean coal'...
Rightwing talking points?
I think Union "bosses*" and shop stewards get voted out by workers quite a bit more frequently than Corporate Board members get voted out by shareholders...
Of course neither get voted out nearly as much as they should IMHO.
*It's not so much that the "boss" gets voted out personally (though that happens), but that one union gets voted out in favor of another (or none), or a union "local" changes its affiliation, etc.
the business model where the CEO intends to over-leverage himself to buy/build his own modern Versailles Palace- counting on the savings he's going to get when Ryan's tax plan is implemented to fund it all.
WV is doing a lot less strip and mountain-top removal mining, and going back to less efficient traditional underground mining. This change back is largely to do with the increased difficulty to get permits for mountain top mining. There are more mining jobs now (well actually this graph shows that the employment numbers for miners has followed the same general trend over the last 8-10 years, with a pretty substantial hiccup when the recession hit), but less coal being produced, so the bottom lime for the Patriot and Alpha coal companies are being effected.
The demand for coal is trending downward every year and it's taking more labor to extract that coal. That's a terrible combination for any industry.
But dagnabbit Romney is gonna reverse that trend!
He theoretically could have some effect. EPA policies and denying permits are the driving forces behind the abandonment of the more efficient mountain top removal mining. More strip mines, coal is produced cheaper and therefore it could compete with other natural resources.
He can't make the marcellus shale dry up.
I've gotten at least 50 poll requests in the last month. Just got one about an hour ago. I've turned them all down.
(You did say polL, right?)
Which interestingly has also seemed to result in less carbon emissions (not less overall but less per unit of energy).
Is their any union where more members support the Repubs than Dems?
MLBPA?
If a union's members are 55-45 Dem, then the Union itself is gonna be pro-Dem (or neutral)
I was going to say the ABA, but I don't have any way of measuring this.
So if an employer exercises his free speech rights, he's a bully, but if a union is 55 percent Dem but donates 95 percent of its political contributions to Dems, that's just democracy in action.
Police unions, historically. But both parties are in agreement on the big crime issues (on a national level at least), so I'd guess it's probably gotten narrower over the past two decades.
To state the most likely example, probably the MLBPA.
My personal opinion is that if a person dislikes his employer's political positions/donations enough he should leave. If he dislikes his union's political positions/donations enough he should leave, leave the union (if the state bars closed shops), or work to get new union leadership voted in. Neither employers nor unions should be allowed to threaten people into voting for one candidate or another.
The ABA's not a "union," and most lawyers aren't members anyway. (What the partisan breakdown is among all lawyers is, I have no idea. I'm guessing partisan affiliation varies greatly depending on what sort of law one practices.)
FTFY
Also I'm not on the Koch Brothers have no right to do what they just did bandwagon.
I can't quite see how these positions reconcile. If someone doesn't like what their employer or union is doing he should leave, but the employer or union shouldn't be doing those things?
Anyway, I agree with your second point. A place of work is a place of business. Politics, religion, personal stuff should be minimized, and certainly not be coercive in any manner. That goes for unions as well. That said, I do feel there should be more restrictions on what the employer can say to the employees than on the union leadership, as it is an unequal relationship, and whether any threats to an employee livelihood, whether is be overt, implied, or merely inferred, should be right out. Joe asked earlier if employers should have fewer free speech rights than unions. I say, in this specific area, yes, they should. Just like they should have a more restrictive right of association. There's a reason why it might be OK for a secretary to sleep with a junior associate but not with the managing partner.
Snapper's not talking about actual unions and their actual leadership as they exist in the world in 2012. He's talking about the bogeyman he heard tale of from 1977. It's another of those insane and infuriating things that rightwingers do where they get stuck in time and continue to debate the monsters from the closets of their youth. (See also, "liberal media bias" and "inflation/stagflation.")
for those too young to remember, "stagflation" was a popular phrase during Carter's presidency into Reagan's first few years.
To [grossly] oversimplify:
stagflation refers to the co-existence of high unemployment and high inflation
stagflation is very awkward to deal with, because typically high unemployment leads to less disposable income, which means fewer dollars chasing products which should mean lower prices (or at least low inflation)- but in a stagflation scenario that is either not happening, or it;s being swamped out by other factors
how do you fight inflation? By curbing the money supply, but by doing that you pull money out of the economy that would be used for re-tooling, hiring, opening new Businesses, etc... which makes unemployment worse- but in stagflation, unemployment is already bad...
alternatively you could seek to fight unemployment by keeping the money spigots open... but if you already have an inflation problem, this will make it worse... prices rise even higher, and you may even get feedback loop as higher and higher prices are demanded on the assumption replacement costs are going to go up...
In 1980 or so the decision was made to wring inflation out of the system - and it was, but for a year or so unemployment hit the highest levels since the Great Depression... It WORKED, but of course if you were one of the unemployed the cure sucked...
I'm pretty sure that ATLA is for whatever lines it's members pockets, and against whatever doesn't. Besides they have re-named themselves the American Association for Justice. Anyway, I'd be pretty surprised if they were to the left of the Dems on, oh, income and property tax issues...
Another hit to the economy that California can't afford.
Another hit to the economy that California can't afford.
It's really beyond time to end that ethanol fuel boondoggle.
Snapper's not talking about actual unions and their actual leadership as they exist in the world in 2012. He's talking about the bogeyman he heard tale of from 1977. It's another of those insane and infuriating things that rightwingers do where they get stuck in time and continue to debate the monsters from the closets of their youth. (See also, "liberal media bias" and "inflation/stagflation.")
Yes, unions are doing such a great job representing their workers that their share of the private workforce falls every year. All those Toyota, Honda, and BMW line workers are just clamoring to join the UAW.
You conflate much here, because it suits your ideology. Union membership is cratering because legal protections for unions and workers has been gutted over the last 40 years. Workers at the new plants would *love* to unionize, but the new plants are almost universally built in states that have more or less made unionization a crime.
I'm not sure such things are always "of convenience only." FDR integrated employment on government contracts, but wouldn't have dreamt of promoting a civil rights bill like the one that passed in 1964. He did what he could. Romney's situation is different in lots of ways, and is more of a paradox, but I don't think it's wholly hypocritical to say "we passed a healthcare system that Massachusetts wanted, and did so responsibly and as conservatively as we could, but I think the Federal Government shouldn't enact its analogy." Of course I don't know if he's said as much explicitly.
This, at least, seems to be something that most people can agree on. I have no idea why it is still around besides inertia/Iowa's stupid caucuses.
One could make the same comment with regard to churches' failure to maintain membership over the past few decades.
Good grief man, you are too easy, you are even starting to take the fun out of mocking you.
Since you have, once again, established that you do not know what the word hypothetical means, let's go with the current 7 polls forming RCP's current O v. R dataset:
Ras: Rep +4
ABC News: Dem +9
Gallup: can't find, but like Mr Unskewed let's assume +Dem
IBD: Dem +3
Politico: Dem +3
Monmouth: Dem +3
FoxNews: Dem +1
Fine let's throw out the 2 outliers
Because the large majority who wants to ditch it cares far less deeply than the small well organized lobbyisted-up minority who benefits from it and wants it kept at all costs
Snapper has in fact made the same comment.
Just to stir things up a bit, I don't believe in States' rights, and believe the 10th should be amended, from this:
to this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, are reserved to the people.
I don't think the "states" are or should be regarded as sovereign entities any more than county or city governments are.
I think some areas are better relegated to States' control just as some areas are relegated to local government control, but we are One People living in One Nation.
That sounds like our relationship with Cuba.
Another hit to the economy that California can't afford.
The world ain't binary. One man's sorrow is another man's gain.
Utter nonsense. There is a Honda plant in Ohio that the UAW has never attempted to unionize. They just don't have the support. Unions have lost ground because they can't win a secret ballot election. It's the same in many other places. Has nothing to do with the fictitious "crimes" that Sam Hutcheson imagines.
EDIT: Should say that the UAW never sought a recognition election at that Ohio Honda plant. I believe they tested the water several times and never found a favorable climate that would justify committing additional resources.
A few other things as well.
I am absolutely politically and emotionally engaged as a personm, and I would be a different, lesser human being without Adams' influence. Your giving up is your loss.
More of a hate fest on people who loudly proclaim that all politicians are corrupt as a way to justify disengagement.
And I agree with this kind of hatefest, it's just not how I read Adams, nor how I think he wanted to be read.
Membership in everything has declined over the last few decades. See Bowling Alone. Rep & Dem parties are also down big too in overall numbers.
And the workers make competitive wages to the UAW, just w/o the gold-plated benefits, and work rules that brought the Big-3 to the brink of bankruptcy.
Adams and Bierce had a similar gift for language, though Bierce was more pessimistic (and what have I said). One may like his "comedy-SF" or not – in my 50s, I still love it – but Adams's sense of the absurdities of existence was unparalleled. If you think you despise Douglas Adams, read Last Chance to See. Exquisite writing.
EDIT: Should say that the UAW never sought a recognition election at that Ohio Honda plant. I believe they tested the water several times and never found a favorable climate that would justify committing additional resources.
If the option to unionize or not was free of any lies and coercive tactics by either side I think most people would opt to unionize. Most places that get unionized don't then choose to disband the union at a later date. I think that is very telling.
Wal-Mart is also not unionized, that isn't proof that the workers wouldn't like to be operating in a union.
Membership in everything has declined over the last few decades. See Bowling Alone. Rep & Dem parties are also down big too in overall numbers.
Which is a sign of the decline of our society. Society as a whole is poorer for us being here posting about baseball with largely anonymous people, than out playing softball or bowling (or even watching the ballgame at the local bar )with our friends and neighbors
Another hit to the economy that California can't afford.
The weather is a cruel mistress. (And I don't disagree the ethanol thing's a mess.)
The world ain't binary. One man's sorrow is another man's gain.
In this case, NY and PA, probably. Both in the top five in dairy production and while the drought hit, it didn't hit as hard and our feed corn wasn't as badly affected.
Apparently society needs more drunk drivers to be a healthy society.
Exactly which part of Obamacare lets one buy health insurance across state lines?
Think these two might be related. The workers don't need to unionize precisely because the existence of the UAW ensures high wages. The companies don't offer high wages out of the goodness of their hearts. they offer them to be competitive with the union shops, and to help ensure theirs doesn't become one.
I run a co-ed softball team. We're playing the third season of 2012 (Spring, Summer and Fall.) I go to the local pub at least a couple of times per week. I still occasionally meet college friends for trivia down at the bar. I go out with coworkers every week I'm on the road. Hell, I even went out *with Snapper.*
I'm the ####### glue that holds this nation together.
They offer high wages because these are skilled workers in a capital intensive industry. Just like the workers in Intel chip factories get high wages.
And, in general I would say the threat of unionization is a good thing; I'm not against the right to unionize.
Well that goes back to the origins of the country. They needed to keep the colonies united against England, but allow for the fact that there were certain customs, mainly slavery, that some states wanted but others did not.
States are a lot less economically independent than they used to be. An exception is regulation, which seems to be increasing. I think states look on it as a more reliable revenue source, as businesses can threaten to leave if taxed but still want to compete for the customer base a state provides.
You're right, the concept of states rights is waning, likely due to the slavery association. Most people think whatever law or lack of law they want should be everywhere, not that we should sector ourselves off into groups with different customs and laws.
I don't know what happens in Canada with the provincial differences (I understand the different issues with the provinces themselves.) Because I don't know how the representation works in the parliamentary system. Maybe if that isn't baked into the cake up there, they have to fight for the legitimate regional interests more. Here we've had the regional representation for so long it's kind of become an afterthought.
I think the 2012 electorate will be exactly as Dem as the 2012 electorate :)
Why is connecting with people online inherently less "good" than connecting in person. I bet many people here know me much better (in one sense) than many people I have known in person. I think the connection built by the internet can help society.
People here are oversimplifying Putnam's argument-- it's not that people bowl alone-- they're still bowling with friends. It's that they're bowling less in leagues-- for Putnam, there's a socialization that occurs from participating in these sorts of formally-structured organizations that's essential to living and participating in a democratic (self-governing) society. DeTocqueville talked almost mockingly about how much Americans love associations, and what Putnam saw in the decline of bowling league participation was emblematic of a larger falling out of love with the habit of forming and participating in associations. It's the difference between a democracy and an ad-hocracy. Putnam wasn't decrying the decline of face-to-face interaction as an end unto itself-- it was a specific type of structured, formalized interaction outside the workplace that he found valuable, because learning to self-govern on a small scale (resolving conflicts, allocating resources, ect-- all of which you have to do in a bowling league) makes us appreciate the challenges and nuances of governing on a large scale. It's a type of democratic socialization.
The question about the inherent goodness or badness of online interactions is an interesting one-- I don't recall what Putnam has said on the subject since, but when the book came out, online communities were a relatively limited and understudied phenomena, so most of his comments about them were speculative. He did put a lot of the blame for the decline on mass media, but in large part, it was because those mass media are non-interactive and encourage passive consumption in isolation (at least according to Putnam). The amount of community-generated knowledge actively produced online, for free by people who will never meet one another, is simply astounding-- no matter what hobby you have, there's a site of relatively civil and helpful people willing to assist you with it. A decade and a half ago, the people engaging in this sort of behavior were a relatively homogenous bunch, but that's changed. If you knit, or need to fix your car, or tinker with baseball stats, there's a semi-formal network of people waiting to help you do so.* I don't think it makes sense to wave that sort of sociological development away just because it happens online, or assume that if it doesn't culminate in a face-to-face meeting it's somehow less good.
Putnam was doing the radio show circuit last week after the Pew poll on religion and had some interesting things to say on the subject of young people and their lack of desire to participate in formally-structured organizations.
Well, he didn't say that Obama would come out and "CHUCK a lot of spears", so, 'no harm, no foul', right?
In my own playbook--not that I'm consulting my wife--I would put the rankings like this, but understand others.
What Clinton was clearly guilty of--a lovely affair--tawdry and dumb but not threatening to the marriage
What Sanford did--fell in love and lost his ####--destroys a marriage but humanly understandable
What JFK did--a million loveless affairs that betrayed all kinds of callousness to everybody (and this is probably what Clinton did, too, if you believe the rumors about pre-Monica)
What Gingrich did--serial abandonment of people in the most-vulnerable conditions
Given that Clinton probably belongs with JFK, I actually find Sanford the least personally objectionable. He fell desperately in love with somebody. It's painful to everybody but it's a human failing. I'll give more leeway for that than to outright users and abusers of people.
To clarify for people like me who couldn't piece any of this together, apparently spearchucker is a racial epithet.
Really? Hadn't heard spearchucker before? What was the one that Ray hadn't heard before? I can't remember. That one surprised me, too.
Anyways, I don't think there's anything to this. It's unfortunate phrasing, but not indicative of racism. It wasn't meant negatively.
I hadn't. I'm not really exposed to people who are overtly racist, so I never really hear any epithets.
I suppose maybe I should have known? I dunno. Lots of people of various skin colors throughout history chucked spears.
The one that was surprising to a lot of folks was 'monday'. At least, I think it was monday. Whatever word it was that that cop called Carl Crawford at a minor league game.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main