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

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

OTP: October 2012-THE RACE: As Candidates Prep, Attention in DC split between politics and baseball

While President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney bone up in Nevada and Colorado for Wednesday’s opening debate, back in the nation’s capital attention is split between the hard-fought presidential race and baseball playoffs.

The Nationals won the first division baseball championship for a Washington team since 1933 by clinching the National League East race Monday night.

Washington, D.C., has the only ballpark where so many Cabinet members, politicians and other luminaries routinely gather and where fans now are openly rooting for a particular president — one who served more than a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt.

“Let Teddy Win” banners and buttons are everywhere. Fans like 2008 GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona say it’s time for Roosevelt’s 500-plus losing streak to end.

[...]

“Teddy, you are the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy by the commie pinko libs in this town,” McCain said in a video played in the stadium Monday night. “But you can overcome that.”

The October 2012 “OT: Politics” thread starts ... now.

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:14 PM | 6119 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nationals, 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 4 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
   301. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 03, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4252877)
Technological progress, how does it work?

Yeah, all those years I lived without a cell phone in the '70s and '80s, I never knew just how much my life was at risk. I should have never left the house!

***
Interesting. I know a couple of people who have moved to cell phones and dropped land lines. The biggest reason was to avoid the charges for reconnecting when they moved. They rented and were sensative to any increase in the rent, so had to move just about every year. After talking to them, it sure seemed like a finacially smart move to me, but I suppose some people think that would be frivolous.

I never said cell phones couldn't make more financial sense than landlines. I was simply mocking the idea that cell phones are a "Lifeline" for people. If you ask people to list their cell phone's top features, I doubt "act as my lifeline" would crack the top 10.
   302. zonk Posted: October 03, 2012 at 05:46 PM (#4252878)
I think something like a GUI would be workable at the city-state (i.e, historical Athens, Vatican city) level. But most US states are too big let alone the whole country. Hell, communism or anarchism is probably workable at that level.


Either you need a very good COLA or you need "more" -- as in govt housing, etc -- in high cost areas.... That's not an argument that everyone should get to live wherever they want - it's just a recognition that people tend to congregate where jobs are, jobs are most prevalent in larger urban areas -- but so are the entertainment and culture options (and need for significant public services) that make them high cost areas to live in.

Or - alternately - you have to find some mechanism to nationalize the prices of the agreed upon necessities...

   303. zonk Posted: October 03, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4252884)
eah, all those years I lived without a cell phone in the '70s and '80s, I never knew just how much my life was at risk. I should have never left the house!


A smartphone might be debatable right now - but this is an obtuse argument to the extreme... We had no chemotherapy in the 19th century -- how did all those people survive? We had no antibiotics in the 18th century, how did those people survive?

If nothing else, though -- I think I can tell you why all those buggy whip manufacturer securities you inherited are worthless.

   304. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 03, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4252888)
Either you need a very good COLA or you need "more" -- as in govt housing, etc -- in high cost areas....

Why? If people can't afford to live in Manhattan, they should move out of Manhattan. This GUI thing hasn't even started and already you're carving anti-market loopholes.
   305. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 03, 2012 at 05:57 PM (#4252898)
A smartphone might be debatable right now - but this is an obtuse argument to the extreme... We had no chemotherapy in the 19th century -- how did all those people survive? We had no antibiotics in the 18th century, how did those people survive?

If nothing else, though -- I think I can tell you why all those buggy whip manufacturer securities you inherited are worthless.


Are you arguing that right now, in American society, a cell phone is necessary to live?

Cell phone = chemo seems just a bit of a stretch. This is why the left's arguments are farcical. If you actually limited your arguments to things that are actually necessities, I'd listen seriously. As I have with emergency care.
   306. JL Posted: October 03, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4252903)
I never said cell phones couldn't make more financial sense than landlines. I was simply mocking the idea that cell phones are a "Lifeline" for people. If you ask people to list their cell phone's top features, I doubt "act as my lifeline" would crack the top 10.

Well, what you sadi was this:

Just look at the discussion about the "free" cell phones a few days ago. The lefties here wouldn't even concede that calling the program "Lifeline" is absurd. Somehow, in less than 20 years, cell phones went from laughed-at luxury item to life-or-death necessity.


It certainly implies that cell phones are merely a frivolous want, particularly since you brought the cell phone example up in the context of people frivolously spending government assistance money.
   307. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4252906)
A smartphone might be debatable right now - but this is an obtuse argument to the extreme... We had no chemotherapy in the 19th century -- how did all those people survive? We had no antibiotics in the 18th century, how did those people survive?

Let's be serious here: A cell phone is a nice thing to have; it's not life-or-death or anything close to that. Putting cell phones on the same continuum as antibiotics is just silly.

It's even more silly for governments that allow more and more moonbat parents to opt out of child vaccinations to consider cell phones some sort of societal urgency.


EDIT: I'd give Ray a Coke, but Michelle Obama and Nanny Bloomberg wouldn't approve, so he'll have to shuffle off to the water cooler. Sorry.
   308. JL Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:02 PM (#4252910)
Are you arguing that right now, in American society, a cell phone is necessary to live?


I would not say it is necessary. I do think a phone line is necessary to live (in any functional sense) in this country. Because a cell phone can be the better financial move, I don't think that getting a cell phone is automatically a frivolous expenditure.
   309. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:04 PM (#4252915)
I was simply mocking the idea that cell phones are a "Lifeline" for people.


Stop the presses! Congress passes program with slightly hyperbolic name! I'm sure that's never happened before.
   310. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4252922)
Are you arguing that right now, in American society, a cell phone is necessary to live?


I am not. Of course necessary is not the bar I put out there for every penny of my money to be spent. Can I live without a cell phone, internet or big screen TV? Yes I can. In theory I can live without running water, electricity and heat. So what?

Where does it state than only necessary things get government funding? And why or why is there zero room between necessary and frivolous? To my mind there is a huge area between the two, to read some here if something is not necessary (as recognized when said writer turned 18 or otherwise mandated) then it must be frivolous.

My workplace gives free flu shots (even to contractors). Is it necessary? Nope. However they have decided (probably because it is cost effective) to do that. No hassle, no paperwork, no money. Similarly governments decide to occasionally do things that are determined to be effective for the society, that are necessary but are not necessary.
   311. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4252923)
It certainly implies that cell phones are merely a frivolous want, particularly since you brought the cell phone example up in the context of people frivolously spending government assistance money.

There's a wide gulf between laughed-at luxury and life-or-death necessity. I'd describe cell phones as a useful want, not a life-or-death necessity.
   312. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:08 PM (#4252929)
It's even more silly for governments that allow more and more moonbat parents to opt out of child vaccinations to consider cell phones some sort of societal urgency.


What on earth do these two things have connecting them? Look I am against parents not get vaccinations. I think it is really stupid and harmful to society. But we as a nation have decided that people can say no to such things, for religious reasons or other reasons.

That has nothing to do with a program to hand out mobile phones.
   313. DA Baracus Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4252939)
You guys are getting sucked into a discussion about what a 26 year old program is named.
   314. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4252944)
What on earth do these two things have connecting them? Look I am against parents not get vaccinations. I think it is really stupid and harmful to society. But we as a nation have decided that people can say no to such things, for religious reasons or other reasons.

That has nothing to do with a program to hand out mobile phones.

It's a matter of common sense and priorities. It's absurd to pretend there's some moral urgency to provide "free" cell phones to able-bodied 20-year-olds while the same governments sit back and allow parents to allow their kids to spread potentially fatal diseases. What's the bigger problem for "society," some 22-year-old without a cell phone or some 18-month-old dying from a preventable disease?

Cell phone = life-or-death necessity.
Vaccination = optional.

Give me a break. You guys need a refresher on what the word "necessity" means.
   315. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:16 PM (#4252946)
It certainly implies that cell phones are merely a frivolous want,


That may or may not be Joe's position. But it's certainly mine. To argue otherwise is absurd. Cell phones - particularly smartphones - are luxury items, and as such are frivolous.
   316. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:21 PM (#4252953)
Cell phone = life-or-death necessity.
Vaccination = optional.

Give me a break. You guys need a refresher on what the word "necessity" means.


Funded program <> life or death necessity. It means it was decided to be a worthwhile program.

Vaccination = optional because we live in a free society and has nothing to do with cost/benefit and everything to do with the freedoms citizens are allowed.

You conflating the two as some sort of referendum on societies priorities is very ... unusual.
   317. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:21 PM (#4252954)
For some people, it's never enough that the poor are poor; the poor also must be humiliated.
   318. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4252957)
For some people, it's never enough that the poor are poor; the poor also must be humiliated.


Because it is necessary!

And yes, I have noticed that as well. Being poor is kind of its own punishment, a society making it less miserable is a feature and not a bug.
   319. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4252958)
Cell phone = life-or-death necessity.
Vaccination = optional.
Wait, are you coming out in favor of mandatory vaccinations? Interesting, to say the least.

Where do you stand on the fluoridation of drinking water?
   320. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:30 PM (#4252983)
Funded program <> life or death necessity. It means it was decided to be a worthwhile program.

Yes, it was "decided" that politicians would use more of other people's money to bribe potential voters.

Vaccination = optional because we live in a free society and has nothing to do with cost/benefit and everything to do with the freedoms citizens are allowed.

What happened to all of us having responsibilities as part of "society"? You're saying people have both the right to a "free" cell phone and the right to spread potentially fatal diseases to their fellow citizens? When does the "responsibility" part kick in?

You conflating the two as some sort of referendum on societies priorities is very ... unusual.

Yes, common sense is quite unusual when lefties start discussing public policy. I agree.
   321. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:33 PM (#4252990)
For some people, it's never enough that the poor are poor; the poor also must be humiliated.

It has nothing to do with humiliating anyone. This is just an example of how this GUI idea would never work because there's no expense liberals are ever willing to spare as long as they can keep taking more of other people's money.

As for helping the poor, I've said what seems like a hundred times that I believe the welfare state traps more people than it helps. That's why I show such disdain for proposals that do nothing but solidify the status quo.
   322. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:39 PM (#4252998)
When does the "responsibility" part kick in?

Pretty much never.
   323. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:40 PM (#4252999)
What happened to all of us having responsibilities as part of "society"? You're saying people have both the right to a "free" cell phone and the right to spread potentially fatal diseases to their fellow citizens?


I have not said I favored or was against forced vaccinations. I said society has decided, which it has. We could in fact pass a law mandating forced vaccinations. I think there is a public policy case to be made. I should think many many people would scream about civil liberties. Imagine the primal scream if Obama were to ask to have such a law passed.

We can discuss such a thing, I think that would be an interesting discussion, because I suspect it would cut across normal party lines. But it still has nothing to do with a program regarding cell phones.

Yes, it was "decided" that politicians would use more of other people's money to bribe potential voters.


And again I mention that this bribery only seems to work on the poor and not on seniors, the most bribed cohort in America and likely to vote against Obama (The GOP firmly hopes or they are truly hosed). At least I assume you think all of Medicare, Medicaid, and so on are "bribery". And if not clue me in on how to distinguish legitimate government program from bribery. Actually I would like that clarified anyway.
   324. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:41 PM (#4253004)
Alaska pays out money to all its residents every year. Bribery? Does it matter the source of the money?
   325. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4253009)
For some people, it's never enough that the poor are poor; the poor also must be humiliated.


So stop doing that.
   326. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4253020)
.
   327. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:50 PM (#4253029)
And again I mention that this bribery only seems to work on the poor and not on seniors, the most bribed cohort in America and likely to vote against Obama (The GOP firmly hopes or they are truly hosed). At least I assume you think all of Medicare, Medicaid, and so on are "bribery". And if not clue me in on how to distinguish legitimate government program from bribery. Actually I would like that clarified anyway.

Because people on welfare are often getting something for nothing, while seniors see themselves not as receiving welfare but as getting their just returns on the decades of payroll taxes they paid. (Obviously, most seniors get out more than they paid in, but they did pay in.)
   328. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:55 PM (#4253052)
It's only bribery when it's not going to big business or military contractors.
   329. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 03, 2012 at 06:55 PM (#4253054)
Because people on welfare are often getting something for nothing, while seniors see themselves not as receiving welfare but as getting their just returns on the decades of payroll taxes they paid.


So the difference between a legitimate government program and bribery is the perception of the recipient? That is interesting. All we have to do is convince the welfare recipients they deserve their welfare because of their membership in society and it is no longer a bribe?

That is truly interesting and what the Conservatives accuse Liberals of wanting. I don't want people on welfare to think the deserve it (just returns) but rather as a fallback of last resort.
   330. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 03, 2012 at 07:04 PM (#4253066)
I don't want people on welfare to think the deserve it (just returns) but rather as a fallback of last resort.


And yet, little attempt is made to ensure that it is a last resort, and few leftists care whether it is a last resort.
   331. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 03, 2012 at 07:04 PM (#4253068)
So the difference between a legitimate government program and bribery is the perception of the recipient? That is interesting. All we have to do is convince the welfare recipients they deserve their welfare because of their membership in society and it is no longer a bribe?

No. There's a big difference between (1) people getting more at age 80 than they paid in at age 20, 30, 40, and 50, and (2) people getting something for nothing at age 20, 30, and 40.

Seniors might get more back than they paid in, but they at least worked and paid in on the front end, usually for three or four decades. (Plus, there's little public support for allowing 85-year-olds to die in the streets.*)


* Except maybe The Good Face. Ha ha.
   332. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 03, 2012 at 07:11 PM (#4253072)
No. There's a big difference between (1) people getting more at age 80 than they paid in at age 20, 30, 40, and 50, and (2) people getting something for nothing at age 20, 30, and 40.


So the person who works and then gets laid off or forced into medical bankruptcy and so goes onto Welfare (or other assistance) for a short while and then gets back on their feet and goes back to work, knows they are being bribed and vote accordingly.

The senior who gets back way more than they put in knows they deserve the extra money and knows they are not being bribed and votes accordingly.

That is awesome.
   333. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 03, 2012 at 07:19 PM (#4253085)
So the person who works and then gets laid off or forced into medical bankruptcy and so goes onto Welfare (or other assistance) for a short while and then gets back on their feet and goes back to work, knows they are being bribed and vote accordingly.

I love how liberals, despite irrefutable evidence of generations of governmental dependency among many welfare recipients, pretend that the average welfare recipient is a guy who got cancer at age 25 and was forced into medical bankruptcy.

Now that Obamacare supposedly will prevent such scenarios, who will be the prototypical welfare recipient in 2014? The lefties probably need to get started on trumping up a new example.

The senior who gets back way more than they put in knows they deserve the extra money and knows they are not being bribed and votes accordingly.

Have seniors been voting 100 percent for Republicans in recent elections and I missed it? A quick look at the exit polls shows that seniors actually went for Obama in 2008 (49 percent) and then for Republicans (59 percent) in 2010. It appears a sizable portion of seniors are being bribed.
   334. booond Posted: October 03, 2012 at 07:25 PM (#4253094)
7-11 coffee drinkers are never wrong.

We don't need no stinkin' debates.
   335. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 03, 2012 at 07:27 PM (#4253096)

It's a funny map; among others, Romney loses Texas, Utah, and Arizona but wins New Hampshire.

Interestingly, 14 out of 15 non-participating states are almost certain to go for Romney.
   336. Swoboda is freedom Posted: October 03, 2012 at 07:40 PM (#4253115)
Plus, there's little public support for allowing 85-year-olds to die in the streets.*)


* Except maybe The Good Face. Ha ha.


Does this mean that TGF supports people dying in the streets or we should allow TGF to die in the streets. I might be open to consider either, but would need some persuading.
   337. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: October 03, 2012 at 07:41 PM (#4253120)
Interestingly, 14 out of 15 non-participating states
Those 15 states make up the Circle K Confederacy.
   338. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: October 03, 2012 at 07:43 PM (#4253124)
Have seniors been voting 100 percent for Republicans in recent elections and I missed it? A quick look at the exit polls shows that seniors actually went for Obama in 2008 (49 percent) and then for Republicans (59 percent) in 2010. It appears a sizable portion of seniors are being bribed.
Here's what Joe means: The ones who vote Republican earned their money, the ones who vote for Democrats are bribed.
   339. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 03, 2012 at 07:47 PM (#4253130)
Have seniors been voting 100 percent for Republicans in recent elections and I missed it?


Are 100% of poor and minorities voting for Democrats and I missed it?

The plain fact is governmental programs are not bribery. he whole idea is silly. Governments (Democracies) are supposed to do things their citizens want. It is one of the main selling points of Democracy even. If a government did nothing for its citizens, if it pissed its citizens off then it will (generally) fall. And yet every time the government does something to help its citizens you scream bribery.

And yet you persist. And when asked to define the difference between a bribing and non-bribing program the only thing you point to is the perspective of the beneficiary. That is just crazy, if I feel like I deserve something the program is OK, but if I don't then I know the government is bribing me?

The reality, which you well know, is governments are supposed to help their citizens and the only reason you are bringing it up is because it is a Democratic administration.
   340. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 03, 2012 at 07:49 PM (#4253133)
Does this mean that TGF supports people dying in the streets or we should allow TGF to die in the streets. I might be open to consider either, but would need some persuading.


Good Face has publicly and repeatedly mentioned that in GoodFaceistan people will be allowed (I don't think encouraged, but I wouldn't rule it out) to die in the streets rather than receive any sort of safety net (including emergency room aid).
   341. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 03, 2012 at 07:54 PM (#4253140)
7-11 coffee drinkers are never wrong.

We don't need no stinkin' debates.


Just a buncha illegal aliens stuffing the ballot boxes. But don't worry, Vultureman will see that they self-deport.
   342. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 03, 2012 at 07:55 PM (#4253143)
Does this mean that TGF supports people dying in the streets or we should allow TGF to die in the streets. I might be open to consider either, but would need some persuading.

Better not go with your better instincts on that one, Swoboda. Been there and done that. (smile)
   343. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 03, 2012 at 08:04 PM (#4253155)
Does this mean that TGF supports people dying in the streets or we should allow TGF to die in the streets. I might be open to consider either, but would need some persuading.

Ha ha. Yes, I might have put the footnote in the wrong place.

***
Are 100% of poor and minorities voting for Democrats and I missed it?

Actually, yes, fairly close. Obama is getting over 98 percent of the black vote and 70 percent of the Latino vote. There's quite a bit of overlap, but Obama also got big majorities among people making $50,000 or less (73 percent of those under $15,000; 62 percent of those from $15,000 to $30,000). Shift even a few percentage points of either group to McCain and Obama wouldn't be president.

If a government did nothing for its citizens, if it pissed its citizens off then it will (generally) fall.

You seem unfamiliar with the governments in just about every country on Earth, especially those here in the Americas.

And yet every time the government does something to help its citizens you scream bribery.
The reality, which you well know, is governments are supposed to help their citizens ...

You talk like government is Santa Claus. "The government" doesn't do things for citizens; politicians do things for citizens using money taken from other citizens.

(I'll leave the "their citizens" thing for someone else; I'll redistribute some of the fun to Ray or David or somebody else.)

And yet you persist. And when asked to define the difference between a bribing and non-bribing program the only thing you point to is the perspective of the beneficiary.

Totally false. We just went through this less than an hour ago.
   344. zonk Posted: October 03, 2012 at 08:19 PM (#4253170)
Mitt is ready to rock...

Hello, human diary. It is I, Mitt Romney, your better.

I am now fully prepared for this evening's debate. I have equipped myself with many zinged statements, several witticisms, and three personal anecdotes that are not about dogs or firing people. I have prepared a complimentary remark with regards to the local Denver foodstuffs. I have memorized the name and face of the planned moderator unit, so that I am not fooled by any attempts to substitute a different moderator unit.

I plan to mention the troops serving in Afghanistan at least once, regardless of which question is being asked. I have prepared a lengthy list of various numbers, many of which can be used interchangeably. I have expunged my mind of all nuance and detail, and have practiced making sincere facial expressions for many hours. I have learned two references to modern culture that I shall use to endear myself, and am arrayed with a variety of polite statements to make about various teams of sport.

There is nothing else to be done. Fully prepared, I shall now sit motionless for several hours so to not jostle loose any of my new learnings.
   345. booond Posted: October 03, 2012 at 08:22 PM (#4253172)
Why didn't the makers of Raspberry Zingers get an ad out?
   346. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 03, 2012 at 08:55 PM (#4253201)
You seem unfamiliar with the governments in just about every country on Earth, especially those here in the Americas.


You realize we are talking about democracies, specifically the US, like I mentioned earlier in the same sub-thread?

You talk like government is Santa Claus. "The government" doesn't do things for citizens; politicians do things for citizens using money taken from other citizens.


that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.


The government is not some exogenous thing. It is there for a reason. It is, in the words of President Lincoln of the people, by the people, for the people.

Totally false. We just went through this less than an hour ago.


Where you explained the difference between the two was all about the opinion of the recipients of the government program - which is still nuts.

EDIT:
Because people on welfare are often getting something for nothing, while seniors see themselves not as receiving welfare but as getting their just returns on the decades of payroll taxes they paid.
   347. mjs Posted: October 03, 2012 at 08:56 PM (#4253204)
Have a strange feeling that both sides will believe their candidate will win the debate tonite.
   348. DA Baracus Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:04 PM (#4253211)
The first question is already shitty.
   349. Monty Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:09 PM (#4253213)
Why didn't the makers of Raspberry Zingers get an ad out?


Maybe it'll pop up on screen whenever Romney gets off a good line.

With a "BOI-OI-OINNNNG!" noise.

The 2012 Presidential Debate: brought to you by the producers of Wipeout.
   350. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:19 PM (#4253219)
Weird visuals. Don't know who's "lying" more, but so far Romney's wiping the floor with Obama.
   351. Lassus Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:20 PM (#4253221)
I just turned it on and SBB's opinion is not really what I'd want to place a bet on. Anyone else?
   352. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:23 PM (#4253224)
Romney wiped the floor with Obama in the first 15 minutes.

(And now Obama is all but begging Lehrer to switch topics. Turns out the economy is a sore subject. Who knew?)
   353. Lassus Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:24 PM (#4253225)
Ah, well, I'm convinced now.
   354. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:25 PM (#4253226)
Weird visuals. Don't know who's "lying" more, but so far Romney's wiping the floor with Obama.
I'm not watching the debate — I'm watching the dying embers of the Angel season — but I glanced at my twitter feed. The idea that anyone's wiping the floor with anyone seems 150% on the watcher's personal bias.
   355. DA Baracus Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:26 PM (#4253228)
I just turned it on and SBB's opinion is not really what I'd want to place a bet on. Anyone else?


Conservatives will say Romney is winning. Liberals will say Obama's had the edge.

They can both agree though that Jim Lehrer is definitely losing.
   356. Lassus Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:28 PM (#4253230)
Romney trash-talks Big Bird as the defining point of PBS.
   357. DA Baracus Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:31 PM (#4253235)
This section was supposed to take 15 minutes. It's been 30.
   358. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:31 PM (#4253237)
Big Obama supporter here and I think he is getting slaughtered right now. He seems incredibly unsure of himself and Romney is coolly swatting away every argument he makes. Romney comes across confident without being cocky of his positions. Obama sounds like a 14 year old kid arguing with his dad. This is as close as Sox-Yankees right now.

And you couldn't pay me to vote for Romney.
   359. SteveF Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:31 PM (#4253239)
Anyone else watching on CNN where they have those undecideds pushing buttons? Judging by the button pressing of men versus women, there seems a real schism on issues you wouldn't think there would be schisms on. Women just seem to respond better to Obama for some reason. Maybe that's because the people pressing buttons aren't really all that undecided.
   360. DA Baracus Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:35 PM (#4253242)
Big Obama supporter here and I think he is getting slaughtered right now.


Romney's got him boxed into the corner (with the "I'm not Obama" approach) but Obama can come out with a big hit because Romney isn't giving specifics. But it's hard to do that when you're on your heels. Lehrer hasn't done him any favors by letting both guys steam roll him over the rules.
   361. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:36 PM (#4253243)
I glanced at my twitter feed. The idea that anyone's wiping the floor with anyone seems 150% on the watcher's personal bias.

People twittering are pretty likely to be just spinning whatever position they previously had, but Romney is doing fine, IMHO. Not going to win in one night, absent an Obama gaffe, but Romney wins when it looks like an even match. That's always the case for the challenger.
   362. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:38 PM (#4253244)
Romney is doing well on this tax/budget/deficit issue.

----

I'm always amused by the fact that neither candidate can ever name any programs that he wants to cut. Romney identified cutting... money to PBS. Obama identified, what, some airplanes for the air force and 18 education programs that he cut.

The 18 education programs is a start. Did he actually cut 18?
   363. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:38 PM (#4253245)
Big difference between Teleprompter Obama and Debate Obama.

Obama keeps looking to Lehrer like a boxer who's had enough.
   364. DA Baracus Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:39 PM (#4253246)
I'm always amused by the fact that neither candidate can ever name any programs that he wants to cut.


Well, Rick Perry showed the danger of doing that.
   365. mjs Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:40 PM (#4253248)
Mostly undecided in who to vote for(generally conservative), but I think Romney has had the better talking points but feels like he's trying too hard to be entertaining/engaging (kinda get the feeling like he's trying to sell me something that's a little too good to be true, but maybe that's what debates are about). I'm probably biased.
   366. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:42 PM (#4253252)
Romney is doing much better tonight.
   367. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:44 PM (#4253254)
Romney: "You said something about deductions for taking plants overseas? I've been in business for 25 years. I don't know what you're talking about. I think you need a new accountant."
   368. Lassus Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:44 PM (#4253255)
Consensus seems to be Obama not doing well, I've only caught a bit as I've been cooking dinner.


The 18 education programs is a start. Did he actually cut 18?

Why do you care?
   369. SteveF Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:44 PM (#4253256)
The times either candidate has actually started to make a real argument about his position (i.e. actually say anything meaningful), the lines reflecting the engagement of undecideds CNN is running just drop like rocks. It's fairly depressing.
   370. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:45 PM (#4253258)
"If you're 54 or 55, you might want to listen." First good line for Obama.
   371. The District Attorney Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:45 PM (#4253260)
If Romney loses Florida and polls indicate that the old folks were concerned about what Romney/Ryan would do to Medicare, then Ryan's not gonna look like a very good pick. The Obama campaign hasn't been pushing the issue much, but I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled it out soon since it's one of their best weapons...
Or, Obama could say he basically agrees with Romney on Social Security. He could do that instead.
   372. DA Baracus Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:45 PM (#4253261)
I think Romney's done a better job of explaining why people should not vote for Obama than he has why they should vote for Romney.
   373. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:47 PM (#4253266)

I think Romney's done a better job of explaining why people should not vote for Obama than he has why they should vote for Romney.


That certainly helps though.
   374. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:48 PM (#4253268)
Obama is hitting his stride on medicare. Romney is floundering.
   375. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:50 PM (#4253269)

Obama is hitting his stride on medicare. Romney is floundering.


Agreed.
   376. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:50 PM (#4253270)
Andrew Sullivan, 6 minutes ago, "This is a rolling calamity for Obama."
   377. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:52 PM (#4253273)
Nate Silver, 5 minutes ago, "Wow! Five stars for Obama! It's! Over!"
   378. DA Baracus Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:52 PM (#4253274)
Andrew Sullivan, 6 minutes ago, "This is a rolling calamity for Obama."


The rest of the quote is: "He's boring, abstract and less human-seeming than Romney!"
   379. DA Baracus Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:53 PM (#4253276)
   380. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:55 PM (#4253277)
Obama is insane to engage Romney on Dodd-Frank. Romney knows this ahit SO well. And he can riff and improv while Obama stays on talking points. It would be like Romney engaging Obama on race.
   381. SteveF Posted: October 03, 2012 at 09:58 PM (#4253283)
You can't score points arguing specifics of Dodd-Frank because the people you are trying to score points with aren't knowledgeable enough to understand what's being talked about. Though the fact that Barney Frank is in charge of constructing so important a piece of legislation is fairly comical.
   382. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:01 PM (#4253286)
I don't agree with that. The rule of debating and or negotiating is that if you're really knowledgable about something, you can win by being facile, regardless of substance. Facility matters so much.
   383. SteveF Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:05 PM (#4253289)
you can win by being facile


That's a fair point. I suppose when I think of winning a debate, I think about winning on the merits of the argument. How naive is that? Your view is certainly the more reflective of the actual reality.
   384. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:09 PM (#4253295)
I thought Romney's "47%" remark would give Obama a firewall in the debate if things turned south. Boy, was that wrong.

   385. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:12 PM (#4253299)
Hopefully that stuff about debates not mattering holds true.
   386. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:13 PM (#4253300)
I suppose when I think of winning a debate, I think about winning on the merits of the argument. How naive is that? Your view is certainly the more reflective of the actual reality.
This is why I don't watch presidential debates or convention speeches. I competed at the JC level, coached at Cal State Long Beach, and judged high school and college tourneys. Nothing about presidential debates has anything to do with debate, and I find myself physically uncomfortable watching them.
   387. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:15 PM (#4253303)
I'm an Obama supporter and I believe earnestly in the substance of what he is saying...and I think he's done abysmally.
   388. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:16 PM (#4253305)
Well, it has a lot in common with parli debate, which I did a bit of in college.
   389. DA Baracus Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:19 PM (#4253308)
   390. PreservedFish Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:20 PM (#4253310)
So who's winning?
   391. Monty Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:22 PM (#4253312)
So who's winning?


The terrorists, same as always.
   392. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:22 PM (#4253313)
Well, it has a lot in common with parli debate, which I did a bit of in college.
It's more like Lincoln-Douglas, except without the cross-examination, and you don't ever have to address any questions the other side brings up. It's just all b.s.
   393. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:24 PM (#4253316)
Bill Maher?@billmaher

i can't believe i'm saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter


Michelle must be pissed he is not doing well. Looks like no anniversary sex for Obama tonight.
   394. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:24 PM (#4253318)
For someone who complains about the filibuster, Obama has been doing a lot of it.
   395. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:27 PM (#4253319)
Let this be a lesson - the prevent defense prevents you from winning.
   396. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:27 PM (#4253321)
Romney: "We can see where you put your money. You put 90 billion dollars into green jobs. 90 billion."
   397. DA Baracus Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:27 PM (#4253322)
If you chose to listen to the spin from the talking heads after the debate then you waive the right to complain about them.
   398. SteveF Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:31 PM (#4253324)
I suspect Obama will be much less passive next debate, but even if he loses all three it still won't matter.
   399. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:31 PM (#4253325)
This is what happens when you rush a kid up from Double-A. He might give you a hot couple weeks, but he'll be exposed eventually.

Rough night for Barry O.
   400. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 03, 2012 at 10:36 PM (#4253331)
Tens of votes shifted tonight.
Page 4 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(5055 - 8:35pm, Dec 19)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogTrading Justin Upton means the Braves are in full rebuilding mode | Mark Bradley blog
(76 - 8:30pm, Dec 19)
Last: Rickey! trades in sheep and threats

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(112 - 8:20pm, Dec 19)
Last: Booey

NewsblogRoyals sign Kris Medlen to two-year deal - MLB Daily Dish
(32 - 8:20pm, Dec 19)
Last: WSPanic

NewsblogJerry Crasnick on Twitter: "Jake Peavy has agreed on 2 yr deal with
(11 - 8:16pm, Dec 19)
Last: Chipper Jonestown Massacre

NewsblogAmazin' Avenue - Cohen: Mets and Rockies discussing Troy Tulowitzki deal with Noah Syndergaard as the centerpiece
(31 - 7:56pm, Dec 19)
Last: Cargo Cultist

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-19-2014
(10 - 7:47pm, Dec 19)
Last: bobm

NewsblogFull Count » Source: Red Sox close to deal sending Will Middlebrooks to Padres for Ryan Hanigan
(9 - 7:40pm, Dec 19)
Last: Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(739 - 7:02pm, Dec 19)
Last: Booey

NewsblogHow the Rays lost the City Council vote - DRaysBay
(4 - 6:55pm, Dec 19)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogMax Scherzer not a realistic option, New York Yankees' Randy Levine says - ESPN New York
(66 - 6:47pm, Dec 19)
Last: bobm

NewsblogThe 4 surprisingly quiet teams of the MLB offseason
(26 - 6:43pm, Dec 19)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9173 - 5:25pm, Dec 19)
Last: Moses Taylor, Moses Taylor

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(159 - 5:04pm, Dec 19)
Last: NJ in DC (Now with Wife!)

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1960 Ballot
(10 - 4:34pm, Dec 19)
Last: DL from MN

Page rendered in 0.7210 seconds
48 querie(s) executed