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 33 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 >  Last ›
   3201. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 19, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4276748)
Except that Nate has made similar observations about polls when they showed pro-Obama numbers that went well beyond the consensus. His consistent theme has been that outlier results should be taken with a grain of salt.

If you have to warn your readers, 19 days from Election Day, that the poll to which you deliberately gave the most weight has a years-long track record of unreliability, you've either constructed your model incorrectly or failed to properly educate your readers (or both).
   3202. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 19, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4276750)
He gives Gallup more weight than any other national tracking poll. Period. 12% is 12%. And that 12% still leaves 88% as a counterweight. I'm not sure why you keep trying to inflate one poll out of many way beyond its actual significance---but I can guess. (smile)

I'm not doing anything except pointing out that Nate apparently believes (or believed) Gallup to be the most reliable of the daily tracking polls, which Johnny Sycophant (#3144) and others have disputed.
   3203. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 19, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4276751)
I like this, but I think they should be even more fundamental than that. They should come up with a uniform platform focused on electoral reform, based on something simple like preference voting rather than something pie-in-the-sky like proportional representation based on overall vote totals. Build party infrastructures (and try to win the local dogcatcher races on traditional party platforms) and support each other in races where one has more of a chance at it, with the pledge that they will place electoral reform before everything else. Once we have preference voting then they're free to go for each other's throats.


Actually, I really like this idea. Even at the local level - school boards, state houses, whatever - the Greens and Libs should run local candidates and go at one another on the merits. But at the national level, and the state level, they should form a TPA party - the "Third Party Alliance" party - and that party's sole function should be ballot access and proportional representation.
   3204. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 19, 2012 at 03:30 PM (#4276753)
You people don't understand. There are two, and only two, rational responses for Nate Silver to choose between. Either embrace each and every Gallup result as another flawless example of the pollster's art, or purge his system entirely of an organization that dates back to FDR's first re-election campaign. Context is for the weak.
   3205. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 19, 2012 at 03:30 PM (#4276756)
But at the national level, and the state level, they should form a TPA party - the "Third Party Alliance" party - and that party's sole function should be ballot access and proportional representation.

The Constitution Party got on the ballot in all 50 states but then struggled to find a candidate. This hunger for a third party exists only in the minds of a very small minority of political junkies.
   3206. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 19, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4276757)
Re: Third parties.

Canada has MPs from five parties currently sitting in the House of Commons, but that's not a fair representation of the situation I don't suppose, as the Bloc Quebecois (separatists) will only ever run in Quebec of course. We did elect our first Green MP in the last election, and the New Democratic Party (left of the Liberals) became the official opposition to this.

The downside of course is that Stephen Harper and the Cons formed a majority with less than 40% of the popular vote. Voter turnout was only 61%.

   3207. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 19, 2012 at 03:35 PM (#4276759)
You people don't understand. There are two, and only two, rational responses for Nate Silver to choose between. Either embrace each and every Gallup result as another flawless example of the pollster's art, or purge his system entirely of an organization that dates back to FDR's first re-election campaign. Context is for the weak.

Since when do we want subjective "context" to be a day-to-day factor in a statistical model? The overriding purpose of models like Nate's is to reduce or eliminate day-to-day noise.
   3208. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 19, 2012 at 03:37 PM (#4276764)
RCP now has Obama +0.1
this is starting to look like my Rotisserie Leagues' standings' live update page...

   3209. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 19, 2012 at 03:40 PM (#4276767)
Since when do we want subjective "context" to be a day-to-day factor in a statistical model? The overriding purpose of models like Nate's is to reduce or eliminate day-to-day noise.


And, in fact, he recommends that people use his model. He's warning against using Gallup on its own.
   3210. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 19, 2012 at 03:43 PM (#4276768)
And, in fact, he recommends that people use his model. He's warning against using Gallup on its own.

Why would readers of FiveThirtyEight use Gallup on its own? If this was the only purpose of his "Gallup vs. the World" post, it appears he was preaching to the choir.
   3211. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 19, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4276769)
No matter how you slice it, it shouldn't have taken a big Romney lead to inspire the disclaimer Nate posted yesterday. Disclaimers that are posted after the fact tend to look more like spin than disclosure.


As Nate himself tweeted several hours ago:

National polls published in the last 24 hours: Obama +3.2, Obama+3, Obama +3, Obama +1, Obama +0.6, Obama +0.5, TIE, Romney +7.

Maybe a good time to discuss a certain poll is when it is a huge outlier, to try to gain some perspective on that? That's what I'd do if I were him.

If you have to warn your readers, 19 days from Election Day, that the poll to which you deliberately gave the most weight has a years-long track record of unreliability, you've either constructed your model incorrectly or failed to properly educate your readers (or both).

This is why you use MANY different polls. Come on, now.

   3212. DA Baracus Posted: October 19, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4276772)
   3213. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 19, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4276774)
Canada has MPs from five parties currently sitting in the House of Commons, but that's not a fair representation of the situation I don't suppose, as the Bloc Quebecois (separatists) will only ever run in Quebec of course. We did elect our first Green MP in the last election, and the New Democratic Party (left of the Liberals) became the official opposition to this.


The more impressive Canadian political change is what happened to the conservative movement in Canada in the last 20 years.

The Progressive Conservative party used to be the ruling party as late as 1993 before being destroyed like no party in North American history (57% of the seats to less than 1% of the seats in one election).

They were replaced by the Reform Party, which was a regional offshoot of the PC party that grabbed 25x as many seats as the PC party did in 1993.

Then about half of the Reform party split off and merged with some of the PC party to create the Canadian Alliance party.

The Canadian Alliance party then merged with the remaining parts of the PC party to create the Conservative Party.

The Conservative Party has been the ruling party in Canada since 2006.
   3214. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 19, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4276776)
Why would readers of FiveThirtyEight use Gallup on its own?


Great news!
Romney now leading Obama 52-45 in the Gallup LV


I guess you don't read fivethirtyeight, though?
   3215. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 19, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4276777)
If this was the only purpose of his "Gallup vs. the World" post, it appears he was preaching to the choir.


Well, he probably was mostly preaching to the choir. That's who you preach to! They're sitting right next to the preacher.

I think Nate has to write something occasionally so he's not just updating a number. And when Gallup is an outlier, that's an interesting topic for two reasons ("The biggest poll isn't the only voice" and "Outlier or Bellwether?").

Personally, I think day-by-day polling is too much information, so I'm skipping most of it. In fact, since I'm a Washington voter, I've already got my ballot. So I'm going to go home, vote, and then I won't have to pay any attention to the last month of the campaign except to make cheap jokes about both candidates. Whee!
   3216. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 19, 2012 at 03:56 PM (#4276780)
The Conservative Party has been the ruling party in Canada since 2006.


And I'd be shocked if less than 60% of Canadians said they hated Harper with a passion. I've never met anyone not from Alberta that doesn't, even lifelong Conservatives.
   3217. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 19, 2012 at 03:56 PM (#4276781)
I guess you don't read fivethirtyeight, though?

That's your idea of a "gotcha"? Lassus had specifically asked for yesterday's tracking polls, not yesterday's FiveThirtyEight projection. (And I thought the opening "Great news!" made it obvious the post was made tongue-in-cheek.)
   3218. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 19, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4276786)
If this was the only purpose of his "Gallup vs. the World" post, it appears he was preaching to the choir.


Given the number of angry comments he gets on fivethirtyeight, and sniping at him through twitter from certain people, I'm going to guess it's more than "the choir" that reads his posts and visits his site.

   3219. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 19, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4276788)
That's your idea of a "gotcha"? Lassus had specifically asked for yesterday's tracking polls, not yesterday's FiveThirtyEight projection.


Ah, you're right. Should have posted this one instead, from the other day:

Romney now up six in Gallup's LV poll — 51-45 — and also leads 48-46 in their RV poll.


Anyway, I'm just ####### with you, because I'm pretty sure you're just ####### with us too, right? Right?
   3220. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: October 19, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4276790)
The downside of course is that Stephen Harper and the Cons formed a majority with less than 40% of the popular vote. Voter turnout was only 61%.


Right, this is why you have to champion preference voting or something similar. Third parties cannot mathematically work in our current system of elections. It's almost like voting for the opposition.

(For the record, in preference voting you rank every candidate you'd be willing to see elected, and then there is an instant runoff. Whoever comes in last is disqualified and #1 votes for her are thrown out, with the #2 votes on that ballot then counted, or the whole ballot is thrown out if there is no one else on it. Then the next last-place candidate is thrown out and the runoff goes on until someone breaks 50%. So for example a Quebecois lefty might vote #1 Bloc, #2 NDP, #3 Liberals and not do anything to get a Conservative elected.)
   3221. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 19, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4276792)
Anyway, I'm just ####### with you, because I'm pretty sure you're just ####### with us too, right? Right?

You're right. Posting anything other than Nate's latest projection is totally absurd. I should have my pocket-protector taken away.
   3222. Steve Treder Posted: October 19, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4276797)
Whatever else one may say about it, you can't deny that the Tea Party faction reliably injects humor into the discourse.

Walsh said he was against abortion “without exception,” including rape, incest and in cases in which the life or health of the mother was in jeopardy.

Asked by reporters after the debate if he was saying that it’s never medically necessary to conduct an abortion to save the life of a mother, Walsh responded, “Absolutely."

“With modern technology and science, you can't find one instance,” he said. “... There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing.”

Walsh is running on his record and outlined his philosophy by saying he “generally tried to make a rule when I went to Washington that I was going to try to cut government spending wherever I could.”

Yet the one-term congressman also acknowledged voting for millions of dollars in government funding to sponsor NASCAR stock cars, saying he felt it was a valuable recruitment tool for the military.
   3223. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 19, 2012 at 04:15 PM (#4276799)
Right, this is why you have to champion preference voting or something similar. Third parties cannot mathematically work in our current system of elections. It's almost like voting for the opposition.

If you need to change a system that's been in place for over 200 years in order to help your cause, maybe your cause just isn't all that popular in the first place.

The U.S. has political gridlock in a two-party system. How would a three- or four-party system change that in a positive way?
   3224. Steve Treder Posted: October 19, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4276804)
The U.S. has political gridlock in a two-party system.

Wait, what? I thought Obama's utter failure to accomplish anything was due to his complete lack of skillz, not political gridlock.

Then again, the passing of Obamacare is the worst calamity in world history -- and yet Obama has utterly failed to accomplish anything.
   3225. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 19, 2012 at 04:25 PM (#4276807)
Then again, the passing of Obamacare is the worst calamity in world history -- and yet Obama has utterly failed to accomplish anything.

Leave it to Treder to consider "the worst calamity in world history" to be an "accomplishment."
   3226. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: October 19, 2012 at 04:56 PM (#4276838)
The U.S. has political gridlock in a two-party system. How would a three- or four-party system change that in a positive way?


Well, right now politics is based on sticking it to the other side. If there are multiple other sides then that doesn't work, and you have to campaign and govern based on actually doing things (or not doing things, if that's what you want). With multiple parties in the house you might still have gridlock in certain areas in which public opinion is very closely divided, and not in areas in which there is more consensus.

And the voting system has been changed numerous times in the last 200 years. Direct election of Senators is only about 100 years old, for example.
   3227. DA Baracus Posted: October 19, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4276847)
I know Republicans are worried about voter fraud, but man, they're really worried:

A man who was being paid to register voters by the Republican Party of Virginia was arrested Thursday after he was seen dumping eight registration forms into a dumpster.

Colin Small, 31, was working as a supervisor as part of a registration operation in eight swing states financed by the Republican National Committee. Small, of Phoenixville, Pa., was first hired by Strategic Allied Consulting, a firm that was fired by the party after suspect voter forms surfaced in Florida and other states.

   3228. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 19, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4276858)
Here's something weird that I don't know how to feel about. The Times Co. (the corporation that owns the Seattle Times) has spent its money buying political ads... in the Seattle Times (Seattle's daily newspaper).

Is that okay? Does the First Amendment get involved? Does this damage the idea of journalistic integrity? Or does it make the newspaper's bias explicit, and thus okay?

Extra points for coming up with an opinion without checking to see which positions the Seattle Times is supporting.
   3229. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: October 19, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4276859)
A man originally reported to have been working for the Republican Party of Virginia was arrested by the Rockingham County, Va., Sheriff’s Office on Thursday and charged with attempting to destroy voter registration forms by tossing them into a dumpster behind a shopping center in Harrisonburg, Va.

“Prosecutors charged him with four counts of destruction of voter registration applications, eight counts of failing to disclose voter registration applications and one count of obstruction of justice,” according to a report late Thursday afternoon from TPM’s Ryan Reilly. More charges could be forthcoming, according to officials.

But there is more to the story, as evidence emerges to document that it ties into a still-expanding nationwide GOP Voter Registration Fraud Scandal that the BRAD BLOG first began reporting in late September, after we’d learned that the Republican Party of Florida had turned in more than 100 allegedly fraudulent and otherwise suspect voter registration forms in Palm Beach County. The story has continued to widen ever since, to a dozen Florida counties and several other states, now including Virginia, and even to the upper-echelons of the Republican Party itself.

The man arrested today was 23-year-old Colin Small of Phoenixville, Pa. As it turns out, he does not only work for the Virginia Republican Party. According to an online profile, he appears to be working for the Republican National Committee and, prior to that, served as an Intern for Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Joseph Tanfani at the Los Angeles Times is reporting that Small was “working as a supervisor as part of a registration operation in eight swing states financed by the Republican National Committee.”


More

[edit] coke to DA Baracus ...
   3230. SteveF Posted: October 19, 2012 at 05:32 PM (#4276866)
Is that okay? Does the First Amendment get involved? Does this damage the idea of journalistic integrity? Or does it make the newspaper's bias explicit, and thus okay?


It's fine. The first amendment isn't involved at all. Advertisements, as long as it's clear they are actually advertisements, won't damage the journalistic integrity of the newspaper.

Newspapers have biases, usually pandering to the political opinions of their readerships to maintain circulation.
   3231. DA Baracus Posted: October 19, 2012 at 05:33 PM (#4276867)
Is that okay? Does the First Amendment get involved? Does this damage the idea of journalistic integrity? Or does it make the newspaper's bias explicit, and thus okay?


As long as it's not deceptive in that it looks like an article/editorial and they paid a standard ad rate, no issue.
   3232. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 19, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4276869)
Is that okay? Does the First Amendment get involved? Does this damage the idea of journalistic integrity? Or does it make the newspaper's bias explicit, and thus okay?

The outrage in that article seems bizarre. If it's OK for actual newspaper employees to write editorials endorsing positions and candidates, why would it be wrong for advertisements to be placed that do the same? If anything, the latter seems much more ethical than the former.
   3233. Lassus Posted: October 19, 2012 at 06:05 PM (#4276886)
Lassus had specifically asked for yesterday's tracking polls

Actually, I specifically asked for what the days' polls were that you didn't agree with.
   3234. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 19, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4276888)
The outrage in that article seems bizarre.


It's actually an article in the Seattle Times itself! The people who work on the newspaper apparently all hate this. They wrote a sternly-worded letter about it.
   3235. formerly dp Posted: October 19, 2012 at 06:14 PM (#4276892)
The mother of an American diplomat killed during a terrorist raid on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi has hit out at Barack Obama for describing the attack as 'not optimal', saying: 'My son is not very optimal - he is also very dead.'


Joe, I asked this upthread, but you predictably ignored it:
Did you pitch a similar shitfit with the death of every US soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did you call for Bush to fully investigate the circumstances leading to Pat Tillman's death? Or light the tubes afire with calls to uncover the real circumstances of Jessica Lynch's rescue? What did you think of the government's torture program in Abu Ghirab? Did you put every resource allocation decision made by the government under a microscope when there was an avoidable America death abroad during the Bush administration? IOW, your concern over the 4 American deaths in Libya seems, like Romney's, motivated not by a concern for those who lost their lives and their families, but by an attempt to score political points against Obama. And BTW, that same insincere concern is why Obama schooled your boy on the subject Tuesday night.

You can spare everyone on this board your poorly-feigned sympathy and just say "I really really think Obama's a dumb stupid-face" instead of trying to dress that sentiment up in something that you delude yourself into thinking passes for a rational and reasoned argument.
   3236. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: October 19, 2012 at 06:20 PM (#4276894)
Company officials described the campaign as an effort to demonstrate the effectiveness of newspaper advertising and attract new political-ad revenue.


This is the part of the Seattle Times story that bothers me. Trying to get a governor elected because you like him is fine, trying to get him elected because he'd (for example) give the Times a tax break seems unpleasant but entirely standard, but doing it to sell more ad space feels like it's crossing some sort of ethical line.
   3237. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 19, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4276895)
Joe, I asked this upthread, but you predictably ignored it: ...

I didn't reply because the premise is silly. I've said all along that it's dumb to hold Obama responsible for details, like consulate security, that likely never reached his desk. I'm bashing Obama for lying to the American people for two weeks, by blaming a stupid YouTube video for what he knew on Day 1 was a terrorist attack unrelated to that video.

The only person who has "politicized" Benghazi is Obama himself. Instead of coming clean on Day 1, Obama tried to blame a half-rate filmmaker for the attack, so Obama could continue dancing on bin Laden's grave and claiming, in his daily stump speech, that "al Qaeda is on the run" — a claim that, mysteriously, was deleted from Obama's stump speech as soon as the Benghazi truth came out.
   3238. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 19, 2012 at 06:36 PM (#4276897)
Salt Lake Tribune endorses Obama. Did not see that coming.
   3239. formerly dp Posted: October 19, 2012 at 06:40 PM (#4276900)
I didn't reply because the premise is silly.


The premise is only silly to is someone with inhibited reading comprehension skills.

Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, and Abu Ghirab. How much of a shitfit did you throw for the way Bush handled these incidents? Each of them involved much more coordinated dishonesty than even his staunchest critics are accusing Obama of here. And spread out over a longer period of time, for far more nefarious purposes. Righties cared about Lynch and Tillman as stories, but not as actual human beings. The administration treated the human beings involves reprehensibly. But if you can quote yourself lobbing similar grenades at Bush when you were posting to the Fox boards, I'll withdraw my complaint.

Plus: the rhetoric you're using conflicts with your claim not to hold Obama responsible for the details. Like the quote from TDS you posted, and this follow-up. The problem with randomly flinging #### every third post is that you end up taking wildly inconsistent positions in the process.
   3240. formerly dp Posted: October 19, 2012 at 06:45 PM (#4276903)
The only person who has "politicized" Benghazi is Obama himself.


This must be another situation where you had Romney on mute.
   3241. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 19, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4276904)
But if you can quote yourself lobbing similar grenades at Bush when you were posting to the Fox boards, I'll withdraw my complaint.

I don't post at the Fox boards, but I'm guessing they have smarter lefties than this place.

Plus: the rhetoric you're using conflicts with your claim not to hold Obama responsible for the details.

Now who's struggling with reading comprehension? Obama knew the truth on Day 1 but shamelessly lied through his teeth for two weeks thereafter, including at the United Nations. Your inability to admit this basic, obvious truth just shows what an Obama Delusionist you are.
   3242. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 19, 2012 at 06:49 PM (#4276906)
The only person who has "politicized" Benghazi is Obama himself.
*spit-take*

The Hill:
Romney issued a statement late Tuesday, before the full extent of the tragedy was known, that said the Obama administration was wrong to initially sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

“I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi," Romney said in a statement — released before he learned of the death of Stevens. "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
   3243. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 19, 2012 at 06:50 PM (#4276907)
Also, Joe, is the Obama administration politicizing Benghazi or covering it up? Pick one.
   3244. Steve Treder Posted: October 19, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4276911)
But if you can quote yourself lobbing similar grenades at Bush when you were posting to the Fox boards, I'll withdraw my complaint.


I don't post at the Fox boards, but I'm guessing they have smarter lefties than this place.

This sort of frantic question-dodging is truly, it must be said, RossCW-esque.
   3245. formerly dp Posted: October 19, 2012 at 06:54 PM (#4276912)
I don't post at the Fox boards, but I'm guessing they have smarter lefties than this place.


I had assumed you learned your posting style on the Fox boards, because this level of persistent partisan dipshittery is unprecedented on BTF.

Now who's struggling with reading comprehension? Obama knew the truth on Day 1 but shamelessly lied through his teeth for two weeks thereafter, including at the United Nations.


Again, having a hard time connecting dots. Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman and Abu Gihrab. Did any of these have you calling for Bush's nuts in vice?
   3246. formerly dp Posted: October 19, 2012 at 06:59 PM (#4276914)
Your inability to admit this basic, obvious truth just shows what an Obama Delusionist you are.


The broad brush isn't helping you here. I've very publicly criticized Obama for many things, on this board, including his stance on gay marriage in an exchange with you a couple of days ago. Earlier today, I said I'm not planning to vote for him. I'm not so much pro-Obama as I am I'm anti-moron. And there are a lot of moronic and unhinged criticisms being directed at Obama, especially by you on this board. So that puts me in the uncomfortable position of defending a guy who has done a lot of things I don't support.
   3247. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 19, 2012 at 07:01 PM (#4276915)
Which part of the quote in #3242 was incorrect? Obama & Co. started talking about the dumb YouTube video from Day 1. Even if it turned out the attack was a spontaneous offshoot of a protest of a video, in what universe is a YouTube video an excuse for killing people?

Also, Joe, is the Obama administration politicizing Benghazi or covering it up? Pick one.

They politicized it by covering it up and spinning a phony tale about a YouTube video.
   3248. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 19, 2012 at 07:10 PM (#4276917)
The broad brush isn't helping you here. I've very publicly criticized Obama for many things, on this board, including his stance on gay marriage in an exchange with you a couple of days ago.

A liberal is mad at a liberal for being insufficiently liberal. News at 11.
   3249. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 19, 2012 at 07:19 PM (#4276919)
   3250. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 19, 2012 at 07:20 PM (#4276920)
Liberals differ on issues. This is hard for conservatives to understand, as they are lockstep with each other on just about everything.
   3251. Lassus Posted: October 19, 2012 at 07:20 PM (#4276921)
Good lord, Joe, did you not read dp's lengthy and somewhat shrill shitfit about the drone strikes and how it was a perfectly reasonable and sound reason not to vote for him?

Regarding delusion, take a look in the mirror.
   3252. formerly dp Posted: October 19, 2012 at 07:23 PM (#4276922)
A liberal is mad at a liberal for being insufficiently liberal. News at 11.


The path from Point A to Point B eludes you easily. You don't get the play the "apologist for Obama" card unless someone's an actual apologist for Obama-- sometimes the other guy isn't an apologist. Sometimes you're just being a moron. And you still haven't actually addressed the question I raised-- did you take to the interwebs castigating Bush for Lynch, Tillman, and Abu Ghirab? Or were those "different"?

Some new material every now and then wouldn't hurt, especially given your post count. Time to retire "News at 11". And "ha ha ha". Makes you sound like you're posting on a Fox board.

   3253. formerly dp Posted: October 19, 2012 at 07:27 PM (#4276923)
Good lord, Joe, did you not read dp's lengthy and somewhat shrill shitfit about the drone strikes and how it was a perfectly reasonable and sound reason not to vote for him?


I'm still worried Andy'll beat me with a pool cue if I ever dare to vote Green in a swing state...
   3254. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 19, 2012 at 07:27 PM (#4276924)
Does the local news air at 11 p.m. everywhere but Arizona?

I grew up thinking a 10 p.m. broadcast was universal, but when I moved to California then Iowa and then Florida, I was surprised to see this wasn't so.

   3255. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 19, 2012 at 07:28 PM (#4276925)
Good lord, Joe, did you not read dp's lengthy and somewhat shrill shitfit about the drone strikes and how it was a perfectly reasonable and sound reason not to vote for him?

Don't remember it. Regardless, not sure why bashing Obama re: gay marriage or drone strikes means it's OK to play dumb re: the Benghazi fiasco.
   3256. Spahn Insane Posted: October 19, 2012 at 07:30 PM (#4276926)
Perhaps if Obama had donned a flight suit in addressing the UN, Joe would've less appalled by his "politicizing."
   3257. Lassus Posted: October 19, 2012 at 07:42 PM (#4276931)
Don't remember it.

There's a ####### shock.


Regardless, not sure why bashing Obama re: gay marriage or drone strikes means it's OK to play dumb re: the Benghazi fiasco.

That's ok, I'm not sure why calling someone an Obama Delusionist over one issue, when they've shown they are willing to differ strongly enough on multiple others to encourage people NOT TO VOTE FOR HIM, makes perfect sense to you.
   3258. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 19, 2012 at 07:48 PM (#4276934)
And you still haven't actually addressed the question I raised-- did you take to the interwebs castigating Bush for Lynch, Tillman, and Abu Ghirab? Or were those "different"?

Do we have evidence that Bush deliberately lied about Jessica Lynch or Pat Tillman for purposes of aiding his reelection effort?

As for "Abu Ghirab," that's the fifth time you've spelled it wrong. When you're trying to trump up phony outrage, it helps if you spell the names correctly.

But anyway, since I've explicitly said Obama shouldn't be held responsible for minor details like consular security, it's unclear why you're claiming Bush was responsible for the actions of some prison guards half a world away.

Some new material every now and then wouldn't hurt, especially given your post count. Time to retire "News at 11". And "ha ha ha". Makes you sound like you're posting on a Fox board.

Oh, gee. Some anti-Catholic bigot who hides behind an alias doesn't like my political comments. Life is hardly worth living anymore.
   3259. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 19, 2012 at 08:08 PM (#4276945)
Sometimes you're just being a moron.


This is an odd use of the term "sometimes."
   3260. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 19, 2012 at 08:38 PM (#4276981)
Ta-Nahesi Coates is a national ####### treasure.
   3261. Kiko Sakata Posted: October 19, 2012 at 09:18 PM (#4277036)
Does the local news air at 11 p.m. everywhere but Arizona?


It airs at 10:00 in Chicago. I thought it just aired right after primetime everywhere, so 11:00 in the Eastern and Pacific time zones, and 10:00 in Central and Mountain. What did they televise from 10:00 to 11:00 in Iowa before the news when you were there?
   3262. formerly dp Posted: October 19, 2012 at 10:20 PM (#4277157)
Do we have evidence that Bush deliberately lied about Jessica Lynch or Pat Tillman for purposes of aiding his reelection effort?


So: you're fine with a politician lying, as long as it's not an election season? And are you actually dumb enough to think that Bush lying about Tillman and Lynch wasn't done for political gain?

As for "Abu Ghirab," that's the fifth time you've spelled it wrong. When you're trying to trump up phony outrage, it helps if you spell the names correctly.


I'd rather make a spelling mistake than a thinking mistake. You prefer the latter. To each his own.

But anyway, since I've explicitly said Obama shouldn't be held responsible for minor details like consular security, it's unclear why you're claiming Bush was responsible for the actions of some prison guards half a world away.


Apparently, you don't know what happened in Abu Ghirab. Bush says "a few bad apples" and you clap your flippers like a trained seal. Are you pretending this wasn't part of a coordinated dehumanization strategy on the part of the Bush administration?

Oh, gee. Some anti-Catholic bigot.


I'm beginning to think you don't know what the word 'bigot' means. Have I said anything about the Catholic church that doesn't conform to whatever historical record you want to reference? Killing people for writing and saying things they don't like? Check. Allowing little boy rapers to keep raping little boys? Check. Denying women power because their vaginas make them inferior in God's eyes? Check.

who hides behind an alias


Are you still on this? If you had achieved your crackpipe dream of becoming a GM, I'd hope you'd have the good sense not to post under your real name. But this is a chicken and the egg thought experiment that might break you.

doesn't like my political comments.


Your political comments are inoffensive, moronic, and ultimately harmless. Your inability to generate new material is boring. That's probably the worse sin.
   3263. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 19, 2012 at 10:38 PM (#4277195)
So: you're fine with a politician lying, as long as it's not an election season? And are you actually dumb enough to think that Bush lying about Tillman and Lynch wasn't done for political gain?

What political gain? Those wars were already well underway, and the Lynch incident was ~18 months away from Election Day 2004.

I'd rather make a spelling mistake than a thinking mistake. You prefer the latter. To each his own.

You've made both mistakes while I've made neither. It's a joke to blame Bush for the behavior of a few prison guards halfway around the world, just as it's absurd to expect Obama to have known how many guards were stationed in Benghazi. I'm more than willing to admit the latter, but you can't bring yourself to admit the former.

Apparently, you don't know what happened in Abu Ghirab. Bush says "a few bad apples" and you clap your flippers like a trained seal. Are you pretending this wasn't part of a coordinated dehumanization strategy on the part of the Bush administration?

This is funny. You accuse me of acting "like a trained seal," but you're the one who's exhibiting both Bush Derangement Syndrome and a bad case of Obama Delusion. There were no protests in Benghazi before the attack, and yet Obama shamelessly claimed otherwise for two weeks.

I'm beginning to think you don't know what the word 'bigot' means. Have I said anything about the Catholic church that doesn't conform to whatever historical record you want to reference? Killing people for writing and saying things they don't like? Check. Allowing little boy rapers to keep raping little boys? Check. Denying women power because their vaginas make them inferior in God's eyes? Check.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Islam and Islamic customs with regards to women? Are you as brave describing your feelings about that as you are your hatred for Catholicism?

Are you still on this? If you had achieved your crackpipe dream of becoming a GM, I'd hope you'd have the good sense not to post under your real name. But this is a chicken and the egg thought experiment that might break you.

Why would I hide behind an alias? Just because you're too much of a coward to attach your name to your comments and/or a payroll bandit who posts on company time — or is it taxpayer time? — doesn't mean the same applies to the rest of us.

Your political comments are inoffensive, moronic, and ultimately harmless. Your inability to generate new material is boring. That's probably the worse sin.

Gee, for someone whose comments are "inoffensive, moronic," "harmless," and "boring," I seem to generate a lot of replies and controversy around here. I guess that says more about the lefties here than it does about me.
   3264. Lassus Posted: October 19, 2012 at 11:08 PM (#4277239)
Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Islam and Islamic customs with regards to women? Are you as brave describing your feelings about that as you are your hatred for Catholicism?

Hey, I will: They suck, and badly. This has nothing to do with what dp asked you of course, but why would you care about answering? You never do!

OK, now what? What delusion am I under?
   3265. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 19, 2012 at 11:30 PM (#4277252)
OK, now what? What delusion am I under?

You only want me to list one? Ha ha.
   3266. formerly dp Posted: October 19, 2012 at 11:53 PM (#4277258)
What political gain? Those wars were already well underway, and the Lynch incident was ~18 months away from Election Day 2004.


You're twisting yourself around a lot here. But thanks for at least Googling to find out what I was referring to. That sort of propaganda apparently sits OK with you, because it wasn't close enough to an election. That's a weird post-hoc moral standard you've established.

You've made both mistakes while I've made neither. It's a joke to blame Bush for the behavior of a few prison guards halfway around the world, just as it's absurd to expect Obama to have known how many guards were stationed in Benghazi. I'm more than willing to admit the latter, but you can't bring yourself to admit the former.


So you're sticking with the Bush "a few bad apples" story?

This is funny. You accuse me of acting "like a trained seal," but you're the one who's exhibiting both Bush Derangement Syndrome and a bad case of Obama Delusion. There were no protests in Benghazi before the attack, and yet Obama shamelessly claimed otherwise for two weeks.


A few bad apples. Yeah, you covered that-- opened up and swallowed hard when Bush shot then one into your throat. It's not like there's a record of state-sanctioned torture or anything.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Islam and Islamic customs with regards to women? Are you as brave describing your feelings about that as you are your hatred for Catholicism?


Some of their customs are really bad, reprehensible, and abominable. What does one have to do with the other? And it's worth pointing out that the Catholic church has done more to actively retard the rights of American women than any Muslim group. On top of that, last I checked, there's no Islamic organization active in the US that considers raping Imams to be immune to American law.

Why would I hide behind an alias?


You wouldn't. Because your career is in ruins and your dreams have been ground into dust. And, to make matters worse, you live in Syracuse. No one cares about you. The rest of us don't have the luxuries afforded by failure.

Gee, for someone whose comments are "inoffensive, moronic," "harmless," and "boring," I seem to generate a lot of replies and controversy around here. I guess that says more about the lefties here than it does about me.


I wouldn't brag about being a well-fed troll. But when you've struck out at everything else you've ever attempted, I guess you need something to hang your hat on.
   3267. tshipman Posted: October 20, 2012 at 12:01 AM (#4277261)
You wouldn't. Because your career is in ruins and your dreams have been ground into dust. And, to make matters worse, you live in Syracuse. No one cares about you. The rest of us don't have the luxuries afforded by failure.


This is really inappropriate, and you should retract/apologize.


***

I'm still not getting why Republicans look at the Bengazi thing as a political winner for Republicans. At the worst case scenario for the administration, they repeated some stuff that they knew to not be true for diplomatic reasons. Those statements did nothing to hurt anyone. It's a tragedy that four people died in Libya, but how many thousands died in Iraq? People aren't stupid.
   3268. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 20, 2012 at 12:58 AM (#4277269)
You're twisting yourself around a lot here. But thanks for at least Googling to find out what I was referring to. That sort of propaganda apparently sits OK with you, because it wasn't close enough to an election. That's a weird post-hoc moral standard you've established.

Actually, I still have no idea to what you were referring. I remember the Jessica Lynch story, but I don't recall her playing any role in the 2004 election or Bush otherwise benefitting politically from her.

So you're sticking with the Bush "a few bad apples" story?

A few bad apples. Yeah, you covered that-- opened up and swallowed hard when Bush shot then one into your throat. It's not like there's a record of state-sanctioned torture or anything.

Yikes. This is your idea of high-level discourse?

You really have to be deranged to believe Bush instructed some prison guards to torture Abu Ghraib prisoners. We all saw the downside; what was the alleged upside? What did Bush possibly have to gain from either wanting that behavior to go on or turning a blind eye to it?

Some of their customs are really bad, reprehensible, and abominable. What does one have to do with the other? And it's worth pointing out that the Catholic church has done more to actively retard the rights of American women than any Muslim group. On top of that, last I checked, there's no Islamic organization active in the US that considers raping Imams to be immune to American law.

I didn't say one had anything to do with the other. I began that comment with "Just out of curiosity" because I was, in fact, curious if you hate Islam as much as you hate Catholicism.

You wouldn't. Because your career is in ruins and your dreams have been ground into dust. And, to make matters worse, you live in Syracuse. No one cares about you. The rest of us don't have the luxuries afforded by failure.

Ha ha. My "dreams have been ground into dust"? Your Googling has led you astray (and I haven't lived in Syracuse in almost a decade).

Anyway, the last sentence was the funniest. Are you claiming to be so successful and/or famous that you can't attach your name to comments on a baseball forum? Aren't you some sort of teacher or college professor?

I wouldn't brag about being a well-fed troll. But when you've struck out at everything else you've ever attempted, I guess you need something to hang your hat on.

The snark-dominated house style here at BBTF is both fun and entertaining, but you seem to be taking it to unhealthy levels. Whatever is causing your hostility, I hope it gets worked out. It can't be healthy to have so much rage that you resort to hurling invective on the internet while hiding behind an alias.
   3269. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 20, 2012 at 01:12 AM (#4277272)
I'm still not getting why Republicans look at the Bengazi thing as a political winner for Republicans. At the worst case scenario for the administration, they repeated some stuff that they knew to not be true for diplomatic reasons. Those statements did nothing to hurt anyone. It's a tragedy that four people died in Libya, but how many thousands died in Iraq? People aren't stupid.

The worst case for the Obama administration is that they lied for political reasons, not diplomatic reasons, and the second-worst case is that they're incompetent.

Given that the president of Libya has denied all along that the YouTube video had anything to do with the attack in Benghazi, claiming Obama's deception was for "diplomatic reasons" is illogical.

Obama spent the weeks before Sept. 11 dancing on bin Laden's grave and mentioning, at every opportunity, that "al Qaeda is on the run." Admitting that Benghazi was a terrorist attack meant Obama could no longer do either of those things (and, indeed, as soon as it became undeniable that the YouTube video had nothing to do with Benghazi, the "al Qaeda is on the run" line was deleted from Obama's stump speech).
   3270. Dr. Vaux Posted: October 20, 2012 at 01:14 AM (#4277274)
Aren't you some sort of teacher or college professor?


You do realize that such a person does have to be careful about what public statements can be attributed to him or her.
   3271. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 20, 2012 at 01:30 AM (#4277279)
You do realize that such a person does have to be careful about what public statements can be attributed to him or her.

I understand that a teacher or professor probably shouldn't go around saying things like:

Yeah, you covered that-- opened up and swallowed hard when Bush shot then one into your throat. (#3266)

... on the internet, but that's different than being unable to attach one's name to one's comments. It appears 'formerly dp' would rather act like a jerk anonymously than be constrained by attaching his name to his comments.

I understand there are valid reasons to use an alias online, but it's no surprise that 95 percent of the vitriol here — and elsewhere online — is hurled by people acting anonymously. I like to give Sam a hard time, but at least he owns his comments (and threats of neck-stabbings).
   3272. formerly dp Posted: October 20, 2012 at 06:05 AM (#4277287)
Actually, I still have no idea to what you were referring. I remember the Jessica Lynch story, but I don't recall her playing any role in the 2004 election or Bush otherwise benefitting politically from her.


Google it. Or you could just say "I hold Obama to a different standard, because I really, really, really don't like him." In terms of political benefit: Bush's popularity as a president was tied directly to how people felt about the wars. Any pro-military propaganda was pro-Bush propaganda. That didn't have to be the case, but Bush went out of his way to make it so.

You really have to be deranged to believe Bush instructed some prison guards to torture Abu Ghraib prisoners. We all saw the downside; what was the alleged upside? What did Bush possibly have to gain from either wanting that behavior to go on or turning a blind eye to it?


Read the link I posted. The scandal at the prison was that people sent pictures-- Bush knew about the extraordinary rendition techniques because they were par for course. The "bad apples" made the mistake of bragging about it. In terms of the benefits of extraordinary rendition-- I agree with you, I don't see the upside. But the Bush administration did, which is why the guards were instructed to do that sort of psychotic stuff. Along with your lack of interest in/knowledge about the Tillman and Lynch incidents, it seems you paid strikingly little attention to any of the massive cover-ups and wrong-doings under the Bush administration.

I began that comment with "Just out of curiosity" because I was, in fact, curious if you hate Islam as much as you hate Catholicism.


My beef with Catholicism is directed at the institution. I've explained this to you, but you pretend not to understand.

I understand that a teacher or professor probably shouldn't go around saying things like:


Yeah, you covered that-- opened up and swallowed hard when Bush shot then one into your throat. (#3266)


It's a colorful metaphor. Is it really that offensive to you? After every invective you've hurled at Obama supporters/liberals, this seems a strange place to draw the line.

I understand there are valid reasons to use an alias online, but it's no surprise that 95 percent of the vitriol here


You don't get to dodge like that-- just because you direct your comments more broadly at "liberals" and "Obama supporters" doesn't make them any less vitriolic. And if you "understood" you wouldn't constantly call people who use aliases cowards. If you don't think that [insert generic Obama supporter reading your BTF posts after Googling your name] would be offended by the content of what you say here, you have a self-awareness issue that's potentially detrimental. See below.

==
This is really inappropriate, and you should retract/apologize.


Eh. In response to a post where I was called a bigot, and another where I was called a coward, it's all fair game. I actually think Syracuse is a wonderful place when it doesn't have 4 feet of snow on the ground. Summers there, magnificent; upstaters are really pleasant people.

In terms of Joe's career-- I have no idea how well it is or isn't going. But I do know this: anyone with anything resembling a career in 2012 has nothing to gain and everything to lose by posting political comments on a baseball site under their real name, regardless of the content. I don't think anyone should choose to do or not do business with Joe based on his political beliefs. But by posting comments that insult people who self-identify as Obama supporters/liberals in a public forum under his real name, he makes it very easy for people to do so.
   3273. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: October 20, 2012 at 07:30 AM (#4277292)
Hey, guys, did I miss anything?

(RMc reads all 3,272 posts)

Nope.
   3274. Lassus Posted: October 20, 2012 at 08:02 AM (#4277296)
Hey, guys, did I miss anything?

Yes, the Tigers winning the ALCS.
   3275. Answer Guy Posted: October 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM (#4277330)
Yes, the Tigers winning the ALCS.


Presumably that's why he wasn't posting.

Meanwhile...
Great job, Republicans! In your zeal to try to score political points from Benghazi you just undermined US interests in Libya. Issa and Chaffetz ought to be impeached for this, but of course they won't be.
   3276. Spahn Insane Posted: October 20, 2012 at 11:28 AM (#4277373)
In your zeal to try to score political points from Benghazi you just undermined US interests in Libya. Issa and Chaffetz ought to be impeached for this, but of course they won't be.

One would think being accused of multiple auto thefts (in Issa's case) would disqualify you from election to Congress in the first place. Not sure whether Issa's alleged car thefts rank above or below Allen West's war crimes on the congressional disqualification scale; tough to tell, since obviously neither one's considered disqualifying by their respective constituents...
   3277. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 20, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4277375)
One would think being accused of multiple auto thefts (in Issa's case) would disqualify you from election to Congress in the first place.

Why? Income tax evasion didn't disqualify Rangel.
   3278. Spahn Insane Posted: October 20, 2012 at 11:35 AM (#4277379)
Why? Income tax evasion didn't disqualify Rangel.

No, but it should've.

EDIT: This comment seems particularly dissonant coming from you.

ALSO EDIT: I stand by my view that Rangel should've been forced out, but note that in the original post I said "disqualify...from election to Congress in the first place." Rangel was already a sitting congressmen when his tax evasion came up (which doesn't excuse it--quite the opposite--but it might explain how, after several decades of service, he'd have a sizeable constituent base willing to forgive him for just about anything by that point). That's a point of distinction with the two guys I named--Issa was accused of multiple car thefts before he ever sought political office--same with West and his "enhanced interrogation techniques." Both those guys were elected to FIRST terms notwithstanding those facts. (Rangel apparently didn't become a criminal until after he was elected.)
   3279. DA Baracus Posted: October 20, 2012 at 11:35 AM (#4277381)
One would think being accused of multiple auto thefts (in Issa's case) would disqualify you from election to Congress in the first place.


He was just building up expertise for making car alarms.
   3280. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 20, 2012 at 11:40 AM (#4277383)
No, but it should've.

EDIT: This comment seems particularly dissonant coming from you.


I'm just pointing out the silliness of arguing the corruption and peccadilloes of the other side. Both sides have sleazy characters in spades.

At the end of the day, if Romney was Mother Theresa, Albert Schweitzer and Gandhi rolled up into one, and Obama was Jimmy Walker, you'd still vote Obama. And if it was reversed, I'd still vote Romney.

Why don't we just stick to policy issues? We're all true-believers; that's what we vote on. At least we can have an interesting discussion.

   3281. Spahn Insane Posted: October 20, 2012 at 11:44 AM (#4277384)
He was just building up expertise for making car alarms.

And quite successfully, apparently. Per Wiki, he's the wealthiest member of Congress.
   3282. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 20, 2012 at 11:49 AM (#4277388)
And quite successfully, apparently. Per Wiki, he's the wealthiest member of Congress.

Wealthier than Herb Kohl? He owns the Milwaukee Bucks.
   3283. Steve Treder Posted: October 20, 2012 at 12:08 PM (#4277395)
OK, who saw this coming?

Where, we ask, is the pragmatic, inclusive Romney, the Massachusetts governor who left the state with a model health care plan in place, the Romney who led Utah to Olympic glory? That Romney skedaddled and is nowhere to be found.

And what of the president Romney would replace? For four years, President Barack Obama has attempted, with varying degrees of success, to pull the nation out of its worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression, a deepening crisis he inherited the day he took office.

In the first months of his presidency, Obama acted decisively to stimulate the economy. His leadership was essential to passage of the badly needed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Though Republicans criticize the stimulus for failing to create jobs, it clearly helped stop the hemorrhaging of public sector jobs. The Utah Legislature used hundreds of millions in stimulus funds to plug holes in the state’s budget.


We're through the looking glass now, people.
   3284. tshipman Posted: October 20, 2012 at 12:11 PM (#4277396)
At the end of the day, if Romney was Mother Theresa, Albert Schweitzer and Gandhi rolled up into one, and Obama was Jimmy Walker, you'd still vote Obama.


This is silly. If Romney were those people, or if he had even just had the courage of his convictions, he wouldn't have the policy positions he does. You don't believe in helping the poor and then run on a platform of massive budget cuts to those programs.

Eh. In response to a post where I was called a bigot, and another where I was called a coward, it's all fair game.


No, it's not. It's not appropriate for you to say what you said.

The worst case for the Obama administration is that they lied for political reasons, not diplomatic reasons, and the second-worst case is that they're incompetent.


Again, if the party who lied in order to start a war wants to go down that route, by all means. I guess I don't get the premise. Why would Obama need to lie for political reasons? It doesn't benefit him in any way for the attack to be spontaneous rather than planned. In fact, it plays better if it was planned. Obama is good at killing terrorists. You might have heard.

As far as competence or incompetence, I guess I don't get that line of argument either. It's another country. The accounts I have read indicated that the Ambassador's guards did everything possible. If it's your sort of thing, they killed quite a few terrorists. They were outnumbered. You can't conduct diplomacy with a brigade.

Given that the president of Libya has denied all along that the YouTube video had anything to do with the attack in Benghazi, claiming Obama's deception was for "diplomatic reasons" is illogical.


There are a lot of other countries in the Middle-East.


   3285. Spahn Insane Posted: October 20, 2012 at 12:31 PM (#4277406)
And quite successfully, apparently. Per Wiki, he's the wealthiest member of Congress.

Wealthier than Herb Kohl? He owns the Milwaukee Bucks.


Maybe Issa's the wealthiest member of the House. (In any case, Kohl's gone in a couple months...)

**checks** Nope, Wiki says he's the wealthiest in Congress. $450MM net worth. Kohl's worth $279MM, per Wiki.
   3286. Spahn Insane Posted: October 20, 2012 at 12:33 PM (#4277408)
This is silly. If Romney were those people, or if he had even just had the courage of his convictions, he wouldn't have the policy positions he does.

Certainly not all versions of them, anyway.
   3287. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame) Posted: October 20, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4277415)
The Salt Lake Tribune endorsed Obama last time out, too. Bush before that, though. Salt Lake itself is a blueish island in the red sea that is Utah.
   3288. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 20, 2012 at 12:43 PM (#4277417)
At the end of the day, if Romney was Mother Theresa, Albert Schweitzer and Gandhi rolled up into one, and Obama was Jimmy Walker, you'd still vote Obama. And if it was reversed, I'd still vote Romney.

Ah, but what if Romney had been caught in flagrante delicto with a Mormon Tabernacle Choir boy? Would you overlook that for a lower tax rate?

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

And quite successfully, apparently. Per Wiki, [Issa is] the wealthiest member of Congress.


Wealthier than Herb Kohl? He owns the Milwaukee Bucks.

According to Roll Call's annual (2012) survey, Issa is currently 3rd at $140.55M, topped by John Kerry Heinz at $198.65M and Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex) at $305.46M. Kohl is 31st at $10.06M. The top 50 has 31 Republicans and 19 Democrats, but of the top 10, 6 of them (Kerry, Warner, Rockefeller, Blumenthal, Lautenberg and Feinstein are Democratic senators, and Nancy Pelosi is 13th. This list apparently excludes non-income generating wealth such as John McCain's 47 houses, stuff like that, so it's not necessarily the last word on the subject.

Of course the biggest difference is that those 19 Democrats are the only ones on that top 50 list who are willing to let their tax rate be greater than that of their secretaries. But that's a whole different subject.
   3289. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: October 20, 2012 at 12:52 PM (#4277424)
I don't understand how NO ONE has mentioned the BSoA in this or any off-topic thread.
   3290. Steve Treder Posted: October 20, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4277425)
The Salt Lake Tribune endorsed Obama last time out, too. Bush before that, though. Salt Lake itself is a blueish island in the red sea that is Utah.

Well, yeah, but Romney is the first LDS candidate for President in history. It is a very big deal for the Salt Lake paper to not endorse him. I know lots of Mormons (many in my family), and they feel a strong sense of commitment to their own. This will be highly controversial in the state of Utah (and southern Idaho as well, no doubt).
   3291. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 20, 2012 at 01:22 PM (#4277447)
I don't understand how NO ONE has mentioned the BSoA in this or any off-topic thread.

They should just merge them with the Girl Scouts and fire all the Scoutmasters. It'll work itself out on its own.
   3292. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: October 20, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4277450)
They should just merge them with the Girl Scouts and fire all the Scoutmasters. It'll work itself out on its own.


Perhaps, though I'd take it a step further and fire the board and the rest of leadership, too.
   3293. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 20, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4277454)
The Salt Lake Tribune endorsed Obama last time out, too. Bush before that, though. Salt Lake itself is a blueish island in the red sea that is Utah.


Well, yeah, but Romney is the first LDS candidate for President in history. It is a very big deal for the Salt Lake paper to not endorse him. I know lots of Mormons (many in my family), and they feel a strong sense of commitment to their own. This will be highly controversial in the state of Utah (and southern Idaho as well, no doubt).

If you read some of the comments on that page, you'll see that this is an understatement. Here's one of the choicer ones:

itsuus
It is with great passion that I like to see God restore this nation to one that will glorify His name and bring His blessing and favor on this great country once again.


Tribune responds with a Marxist support for O. Never in US history has any president acted more dictatorial as B. Hussein O. He has a total disregard for our Constitution. He told us a 10 trillion debt was un American and that he would cut it in half! And He would bring our unemployed to 5.8% and he would reform the immigrant problems. What is his record? Is he competent: Let be fare here! With a super majority he utterly failed. Yes but look at the stuff he inherited; 2 yrs with Harry Reed and Nancy Pelosi presided over the 2 yrs that led to the 08 bust. That's right he had a 2 yr jump start and after 6 yrs of hard left policies the only conclusion anyone can come to who doesn't have their head in the liberal quick sand is that Obama is nothing more than a preschooler playing with nuclear weapons, he is a disaster that is happening all around us and yet the Tribune sees this incumbent as an empty chair that can save them from these difficult times that were largely caused by Fanny and Freddy drunk on socialistic un American policies instituted largely by Lords of Democratic Party and the B Clinton repeal of the Glass Steagall Act not to mention the Un American Fed Reserve role. All that to say this; Only those without an ounce of common sense can't comprehend that Obama is doing everything in his power to wreck this country that he HATES. He can't be this stupid and "accidently" wreak this much havoc. Can Romney do better? Let's look at what we have to judge by: Romney's record on the Olympics and in Mas= Straight A's. Obama's record= FAILURE after Failure and he came to office without a record so we can't even say that he succeeded at anything at all - ever! Is Romney the candidate of choice? No, but does he love this country - yes. I would say that any 10 yr old could make Obama look like a complete failure. So obviously Romney will do just fine. He will put a stop to the stranglehold that just 3.2% of our population have on this county, the G & L. He will put a stop to tax dollars paying for abortions! He will release the natural resources that will make this the wealthiest of all nations causing companies to desire to invest here like never before. Whom will you follow? The Tribunes Marxist position - Therefore, our endorsement must go to the incumbent, a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day. The president has earned a second term. Romney, in whatever guise, does not deserve a first. Or fight to bring back the America we all loved so much? Because she is about to breath her last if we don't act swiftly to save her!

   3294. DA Baracus Posted: October 20, 2012 at 01:33 PM (#4277456)
**checks** Nope, Wiki says he's the wealthiest in Congress. $450MM net worth. Kohl's worth $279MM, per Wiki.


But then their list of richest politicians says he is "only" worth $220M, and that Michael McCaul is richer, but he married into it.

What exactly he's worth doesn't really matter, he's filthy stinking rich. He's been accused of multiple car thefts and then made millions upon millions in the car alarm business. Nice work if you can get it.
   3295. tshipman Posted: October 20, 2012 at 01:33 PM (#4277457)
According to Roll Call's annual (2012) survey, Issa is currently 3rd at $140.55M, topped by John Kerry Heinz at $198.65M and Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex) at $305.46M. Kohl is 31st at $10.06M. The top 50 has 31 Republicans and 19 Democrats, but of the top 10, 6 of them (Kerry, Warner, Rockefeller, Blumenthal, Lautenberg and Feinstein are Democratic senators, and Nancy Pelosi is 13th. This list apparently excludes non-income generating wealth such as John McCain's 47 houses, stuff like that, so it's not necessarily the last word on the subject.


This can't be right. The Bucks are worth more than 100M on their own. I guess that falls under "non-income generating wealth," but it sure seems like it's missing big stuff.
   3296. DA Baracus Posted: October 20, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4277466)
If you read some of the comments on that page, you'll see that this is an understatement. Here's one of the choicer ones:


That's so good I am willing to believe it's fake.
   3297. zenbitz Posted: October 20, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4277467)
Isn't Salt Lake where all the young liberal Mormon spawn move if they can't or won't go out of state?
   3298. DA Baracus Posted: October 20, 2012 at 01:45 PM (#4277472)
Isn't Salt Lake where all the young liberal Mormon spawn move if they can't or won't go out of state?


Yes.
   3299. JL Posted: October 20, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4277476)
In David Ignatius' column in the WaPost today, he cites a CIA report of September 15 that supports Rice's description. It appears that at that point, the CIA was not willing to call it a coordinated terrorist attack.
   3300. BDC Posted: October 20, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4277490)
John Kerry Heinz

I saw what you did here. And chuckled :)

Evidently McCaul (Congressman for a relatively affluent suburban/rural belt that stretches from north Austin to north Houston, and includes the great ice-cream capital of Brenham) is also wealthy by marriage.
Page 33 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Martin Hemner
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 2 OMNICHATTER
(363 - 10:36pm, Oct 22)
Last: zonk

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(64 - 10:35pm, Oct 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogMcSweeneys: NEW BASEBALL STATISTICS.
(3 - 10:31pm, Oct 22)
Last: kthejoker

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3183 - 10:31pm, Oct 22)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogJerome Williams re-signs with Phils
(9 - 10:21pm, Oct 22)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogStatcast: Posey out at the plate
(13 - 10:21pm, Oct 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogJay set for surgery — and for CF in 2015 : Sports
(5 - 9:58pm, Oct 22)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(341 - 9:56pm, Oct 22)
Last: Norcan

NewsblogAd Week: What Is Madeleine Albright Doing on the Wheaties Box?
(1 - 9:54pm, Oct 22)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogHow Wall Street Strangled the Life out of Sabermetrics | VICE Sports
(7 - 9:47pm, Oct 22)
Last: Arbitol Dijaler

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(180 - 9:47pm, Oct 22)
Last: AROM

NewsblogHunter Pence responds to Royals fan signs with monster Game 1 | MLB.com
(54 - 7:50pm, Oct 22)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogMike Scioscia, Matt Williams voted top managers
(43 - 7:45pm, Oct 22)
Last: catomi01

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(28 - 7:11pm, Oct 22)
Last: Belfry Bob

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(39 - 7:10pm, Oct 22)
Last: bobm

Page rendered in 0.9983 seconds
52 querie(s) executed