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 37 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 >  Last ›
   3601. McCoy Posted: October 21, 2012 at 08:26 PM (#4278385)
Now it's a flip
   3602. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 21, 2012 at 08:27 PM (#4278391)
But I didn't call you a....

This is weird. I didn't say you called me anything; I simply answered your question.
   3603. rr Posted: October 21, 2012 at 08:28 PM (#4278396)
Some folks here are embarrassing themselves, especially with the "he has it coming" defense.


Nah. You're just too emotional, tribal, and myopic about the GOP to see what he does in an objective way. This is demonstrated very easily by looking at you, actually: while you are as hardcore righty as he is, you are not getting hassled, because you don't post stuff like he does, in terms of either style or, for the most part, content. Also, flournoy brought up the Wiki stuff, and made a good point about it, and flournoy is not anywhere near the liberal time zone ideologically speaking. It is not entirely a politcal thing. Whether one sees Kehoskie's choices and explanations WRT his Wikipedia page as relevant to discuss here is a question of personal sensibilities, but there are reasons to call him out on it, based on his behavior here.
   3604. Darren Posted: October 21, 2012 at 08:29 PM (#4278397)
Just to be clear, I only say this because I like to follow the political discussions here. There are usually, in these threads, so quite interesting debates. But lately, these threads are almost entirely focused on Joe K. If others are getting something out of these arguments, by all means carry on.
   3605. Non-Youkilidian Geometry Posted: October 21, 2012 at 08:29 PM (#4278398)
Apparently, I'm a huge, stupid troll whose opinions absolutely can't be left unchallenged. Or something.

Gee, Joe, I don't think you're that huge.
   3606. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 21, 2012 at 08:36 PM (#4278423)
Nah. You're just too emotional, tribal, and myopic about the GOP to see what he does in an objective way. This is demonstrated very easily by looking at you, actually: while you are as hardcore righty as he is, you are not getting hassled, because you don't post stuff like he does, in terms of either style or, for the most part, content.

It's really funny being lectured on decorum by one of the most smug people at BBTF.

One of us limits his snark to the politics threads. Hint: It isn't you.

But lately, these threads are almost entirely focused on Joe K. If others are getting something out of these arguments, by all means carry on.

It's like I said on the last page: The lefties here spent almost all of 2012 bragging about how Obama would cruise to reelection. Now that the possibility of a president-elect Romney is a very real possibility, they're lashing out. It's not unexpected, but it's disappointing nonetheless.
   3607. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 21, 2012 at 08:47 PM (#4278444)
The lefties here spent almost all of 2012 bragging about how Obama would cruise to reelection.


Hardly. they spent most of the time pointing out to you how ridiculous was you position that Romney was in better shape than Reagan was in 1980. Most lefties were and are scared shitless that Romney will win.
   3608. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 21, 2012 at 08:53 PM (#4278453)
Hardly. they spent most of the time pointing out to you how ridiculous was you position that Romney was in better shape than Reagan was in 1980. Most lefties were and are scared shitless that Romney will win.

Total revisionist history. The discussion about Reagan was a two-day discussion back in the summer. The liberals here spent almost all of 2012 debating whether Obama would crush Romney or obliterate Romney. Throughout the spring and summer, the mere suggestion that Romney had a chance to win was typically met with derision, and the entire week before the first debate was spent with people writing Romney's obituary — "worst campaign ever," "worse than Dukakis," etc.
   3609. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: October 21, 2012 at 08:54 PM (#4278454)
More than anything, I suspect the recent surge in vitriol is related to the fact that the lefties here thought Obama would cruise to reelection, and now that they're facing the very real possibility of a president-elect Romney, they're lashing out.
Give me some credit. I made the comment that no Primate was more desperate for the last word than JoeK before the political OT threads existed.
   3610. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 21, 2012 at 08:58 PM (#4278456)
Until something of merit is revealed about Romney, the Gloria Allred noise should be considered with the same level of interest as one would consider the Michelle Obama "whitey" tape.
   3611. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:01 PM (#4278461)
Give me some credit. I made the comment that no Primate was more desperate for the last word than JoeK before the political OT threads existed.

Hey, if your amigos stop revising history, I'll stop correcting them. #3607 was one of the most dishonest posts of the year here. Romney was little more than a punchline here until the first debate.
   3612. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:02 PM (#4278463)
#3607 was one of the most dishonest posts of the year here.


Non Joe K division maybe.
   3613. zenbitz Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:04 PM (#4278465)

13 minutes until The Walking Dead.


That's no way to refer to the Cardinals!
   3614. DA Baracus Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:05 PM (#4278467)
Non Joe K division maybe.


Typical of a liberal to move the goal posts.
   3615. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:06 PM (#4278468)
People aren't ganging up on Joe; it's just that the comments are breaking for the challenger.
   3616. DA Baracus Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:06 PM (#4278469)
That's no way to refer to the Cardinals!


No, he DVRed the Yankees and is catching up.
   3617. zenbitz Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:07 PM (#4278470)
For what it's worth (not much), I have been using the same alias on baseball sites for 20 years. It would be obfuscating to use my real name at this point.

JoeK's only crime is that he's... well... kinda boring.
   3618. zenbitz Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:07 PM (#4278471)
That's no way to refer to the Cardinals!



No, he DVRed the Yankees and is catching up


Ah, carry on then.

   3619. McCoy Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:08 PM (#4278473)
Just to beat a dead horse:

Minimum safe distance for AC-130s:
25mm-400-500m
40mm-300-500m
105mm-600-650m
   3620. Spahn Insane Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:15 PM (#4278484)
The idea that colleges and corporations need someone to do racial and ethnic and LBGTQ bean-counting is absurd. If colleges and corporations are the colorblind meritocracies that they should be, there's no need for phony-baloney jobs like Angela McCaskill's.

Jesus Christ. You really know nothing about this subject; indeed, I'd go beyond saying you know nothing about it to say that your ignorance is frankly impressive. "Diversity coordinators" (or "compliance officers," or any number of other titles a person might have at a university, depending on where you are) aren't "counting beans;" if they're doing their jobs right, they're educating staff on the requirements regarding accommodation of students with disabilities, protocol to follow when discrimination claims are raised, and so forth.

And you're correct; if discrimination (or the potential for same--the people you're deriding are at least as important in PREVENTING lawsuits and complaints as they are in responding to them) didn't exist, there'd be no need for such positions. And if drinking beer caused me to $hit gold bouillon, I'd be a wealthy man.
   3621. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:18 PM (#4278486)
3620 — If a person who's anti-gay or anti-gay marriage still qualifies to act as a "chief diversity officer," then the whole thing is a sham.
   3622. Spahn Insane Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:18 PM (#4278488)
This liberal agrees (figured I'd note the occasion for posterity up front).

Nate Silver's model disagrees.


Yeah, I know (hell, I read Silver close to obsessively), but I'm a fatalist at heart.
   3623. Spahn Insane Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:25 PM (#4278496)
By the way--I obviously agree with Joe on very little when it comes to politics, but I agree this focus on his Wiki page is kind of unseemly/irrelevant.
   3624. formerly dp Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:29 PM (#4278500)
If a person who's anti-gay or anti-gay marriage still qualifies to act as a "chief diversity officer," then the whole thing is a sham.

You do understand that you're collapsing your two claims?
1) A person who expresses an anti-gay marriage position in their private time, by signing a petition, should be fired for doing so.
2) Diversity Officer is a "phoney-baloney" position, that involves nothing but crunching numbers and staying up to date on the latest slang people are using.

Now, you can back away from claim #2 while still holding to claim #1. You have been provided with the new information by retro and a few others about the role of diversity officials in large-scale organizations, and learning new things can cause us to re-evaluate our opinions. Or you can cling stubbornly to the original, poorly-informed insult that you hurled at people who work in diversity-related positions.
   3625. Spahn Insane Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:31 PM (#4278501)
3620 — If a person who's anti-gay or anti-gay marriage still qualifies to act as a "chief diversity officer," then the whole thing is a sham.

I agree that a person who's anti-gay probably isn't a good candidate for such a position, particularly if sexual orientation is a protected class under whatever scheme(s) the entity employing her operates under (whether it's state/local non-discrimination law [no sexual orientation statute at the Federal level], or simply corporate policy), but it does not follow from that that "the whole thing** is a sham."

**Meaning what, exactly? Non-discrimination laws in education, employment, etc.? Non-discrimination/diversity policies in private sector entities? Or just the people charged with ensuring compliance with them at the ground level?

EDIT: Also, what 3624 said.
   3626. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:33 PM (#4278503)
By the way--I obviously agree with Joe on very little when it comes to politics


If one agrees with little things like logic, continuity of argument, and facts, one won't like Joe either. I've never run into someone so persistent in his illogic, so willing to change the entire argument just so he. can. be. right.

It's Romneyesque.
   3627. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:34 PM (#4278504)
Are you talking about #3528? You're seriously telling us that major universities and corporations need a high-level VP whose job essentially is to keep up with the latest entries at Urban Dictionary? I'm all for cultural sensitivity, but that's absurd. If this stuff is so vital, how do people make it to Harvard or Goldman Sachs in the first place?

I have no idea what the last sentence means, but you still obviously don't understand what the position does, nor do you have any interest in trying to understand. I mean, sure, you can count beans in a spreadsheet, but what do you do when you realize you have very few beans?

Perhaps your ignorance comes from never having worked in an institutional environment. I've worked in one of the more conservative corporate cultures around for over a decade, and I've seen how institutional biases can play out (while most Wall Street firms hire a fair number of women at the junior levels, when you look at the senior ranks, it's almost exclusively men). I've also seen what a Chief Diversity Officer or similar role does to help address these issues (making people aware that there may be an issue in the first place, also helping the firm become more friendly for working mothers, putting junior women in touch with mentors/support networks), and how a company can benefit from it (by recruiting and retaining highly talented women/minority/LGBT professionals).

In an ideal world none of this would be necessary, but in the real world it is.
   3628. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:42 PM (#4278513)

So these "chief of diversity" jobs are vital to ensure equality on campus, but it's OK if said "chief of diversity" harbors animus toward a protected group. Got it.
   3629. The District Attorney Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:43 PM (#4278516)
Even though I think there is absolutely no logical reason to be against gay marriage, I'm still reluctant to equate being anti-gay marriage with being anti-gay. And honestly, it's entirely a question of the tyranny of the masses. If it were 95% of the population being for gay marriage and 5% against, then I'd feel perfectly fine saying ok, those 5% have an opinion that society has labeled unacceptable. But labeling what might well be a majority of the country -- or if it's not, it's not by much -- as having an opinion that is beyond the pale seems to me to be almost inherently contradictory (not to mention probably counter-productive to further gay rights efforts). Again, don't misunderstand me, I deeply feel that anti-gay marriage people are taking an indefensible position. And it should go without saying that more anti-gay marriage people are going to be true anti-gay bigots than the pro-gay marriage group. But treating them all as bigots is problematic to me.
   3630. Spahn Insane Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:44 PM (#4278518)
Also--contrary to popular belief, one needn't harbor discriminatory animus to engage in unlawful discrimination (particularly under the sex and disability statutes). Much (if not most) of unlawful discrimination is comprised of sins of omission (or ignorance of the law). People who go to Harvard or work for Goldman Sachs, while almost certainly intelligent, aren't inherently immune to this.
   3631. Spahn Insane Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:47 PM (#4278520)
Heh--apparently the edit function's no longer available to me on post 3620, that should read "gold bullion." "Gold bouillon" seems like a bit of a waste...
   3632. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:49 PM (#4278524)
So these "chief of diversity" jobs are vital to ensure equality on campus, but it's OK if said "chief of diversity" harbors animus toward a protected group. Got it.


Well, at least she wasn't accused of being a Republican.

edit: and count me in among those very surprised that joe thinks it's fine and dandy for someone to be fired over non-workplace related private actions.
   3633. rr Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:57 PM (#4278535)
It's really funny being lectured on decorum by one of the most smug people at BBTF.


I actually wasn't talking to you, but this post has nothing to do with "decorum"; you can post however you want within Furtado's rules, and I can put you on ignore if I don't like it. My message is simple: you get what you give here, for the most part. When I am a dick to Face or DiPerna or whoever, they are generally dicks back and vice versa. When I'm not, they're not. When I make snarky generalizations about groups of people whose politics I don't like, I expect to get some flack coming my way for that. That applies to you and to most posters as well. fdp is a friend and I respect him, but he can be nasty on this board, and when he is, he gets it back, and deals with it.

So, I was simply pointing out to YC that you are getting hassled because of the way you post. Certainly politics plays a role, but if it were all about that, all the righties would get the same treatment, including him. They don't. You get treated the way you do because of the way you communicate, as the post above shows. Do you "deserve" that? Well, like Clint Eastwood said in Unforgiven, "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it." BTF is what it is, and IMO you should know that by now.

   3634. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: October 21, 2012 at 09:58 PM (#4278549)
#3628 - For reasons expressed in #3629 I have mixed feelings on whether it's ok to fire her. These were the views of our President until not too long ago. Firing her wouldn't be my first reaction but the school is in a tough place.

#3630 - of course. There are various ways it can manifest itself...for example, the guys in the office all meet up to play squash in the morning before work and never invite the women in the group. Because the senior people are all male, the junior men get much more face time with the boss than the junior women.

Another (more overt) example - a senior male makes a comment, in a room with a couple of junior women, that he doesn't want to hire a certain lawyer to represent the firm because she has kids and she won't have as much time to dedicate to the project. No similar concern expressed about the male partner that he does want to hire. What are the women who work for him supposed to think about their own career prospects?
   3635. McCoy Posted: October 21, 2012 at 10:03 PM (#4278566)
#3630 - of course. There are various ways it can manifest itself...for example, the guys in the office all meet up to play squash in the morning before work and never invite the women in the group. Because the senior people are all male, the junior men get much more face time with the boss than the junior women.



We often make fun of this one, well, our new one that has replaced it is the forced sex trade child worker, whenever we head out for a drink. We usually bring our HR director so we're pretty good.
   3636. Jose Molina wants a nickname like "A-Rod" Posted: October 21, 2012 at 10:12 PM (#4278576)
Don't know why the wikipedia stuff is out of line. Joe was giving posters grief about using aliases here. I pointed out he used an alias on wikipedia and asked him how he could justify the apparent hypocrisy.
   3637. formerly dp Posted: October 21, 2012 at 10:35 PM (#4278606)
So these "chief of diversity" jobs are vital to ensure equality on campus,

It's about more than equality, as I tried to explain above (comfortable and safe learning environment, making sure that students and faculty understand diverse perspectives on things like race, sexuality, gender, disability, ect). But essentially: yes.

but it's OK if said "chief of diversity" harbors animus toward a protected group.

Not to you. You have made that clear, and I understand your position on this, though I disagree with it.* What I find astounding is that you're continuing to assert the worthlessness of diversity officials as a group, because of this one case, and because of your persistent misconceptions about what diversity officials are actually tasked with.

*And if someone had publicly and openly denounced same-sex marriage, I could see that being a factor in decisions about who and who not to hire in the first place. I don't think that signing a petition, no matter how much I disagree with the petition's call to action, should be grounds for termination.
   3638. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 21, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4278623)
What I find astounding is that you're continuing to assert the worthlessness of diversity officials as a group, because of this one case, and because of your persistent misconceptions about what diversity officials are actually tasked with.

No, I'm definitely not "asserting the worthlessness of diversity officials as a group" "because of this one case." I was laughing at the whole "diversity" racket long before this Gallaudet case arose.

Oh, by the way — Since you and your anonymous buddies here apparently believe it's cool to Google people and bring things to BBTF, I assume you'll agree that turnabout is fair play. Thanks to the miracle of Google, it literally took me three minutes to figure out who you are. And thanks to the fine folks at Google Documents, I could have a page online later tonight with at least 50 of your greatest hits — if I wanted to.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend. Go Cougars!


(The last 24 hours here have been astonishing. Sad state of affairs. It's like middle school, but with 30-, 40- and 50-year-olds. After a year of these threads, I thought we could get through the election, but it hardly seems worth the hassle anymore.)
   3639. Dr. Vaux Posted: October 21, 2012 at 10:52 PM (#4278639)
Since I'm anonymous--though even if I wasn't, I don't expect that any potential employers would object to this statement--I'll just say that I think university faculty members are just about the least likely people in the universe to need help understanding "diverse perspectives on things like race, sexuality, gender, disability, ect [sic]."
   3640. formerly dp Posted: October 21, 2012 at 10:58 PM (#4278641)
No, I'm definitely not "asserting the worthlessness of diversity officials as a group" "because of this one case." I was laughing at the whole "diversity" racket long before this Gallaudet case arose.


Apparently, without knowing what the folks you're mocking actually do on a daily basis that's actually mock-worthy.

This isn't about ideology-- you've had a range of people who have worked in large-scale institutions explaining the value diversity officials at their institutions serve. You've disregarded it. I'm not sure why.

Thanks to the miracle of Google, it literally took me three minutes to figure out who you are.


Well, it's not rocket surgery. I've volunteered my geography, my field, and my profession.

And thanks to the fine folks at Google Documents, I could have a page online later tonight with at least 50 of your greatest hits


Your time is your time, I'm not going to tell you how to use it.

And since you think you know where I teach, you might understand why we're particularly sensitive about diversity-related issues here.
   3641. formerly dp Posted: October 21, 2012 at 11:00 PM (#4278642)
I'll just say that I think university faculty members are just about the least likely people in the universe to need help understanding "diverse perspectives on things like race, sexuality, gender, disability, ect [sic]."

I dunno about this-- in some areas, that's very likely true. But when it comes to transgendered and disabled students, I've heard some real horror stories.
   3642. Jose Molina wants a nickname like "A-Rod" Posted: October 21, 2012 at 11:01 PM (#4278643)
1. I googled you since you mentioned somewhere on the thread that you worked in baseball. I was simply curious as to who you were. I brought the fact to BBTF that you used an alias on wikipedia, which was germaine to the conversation.

2. Revealing formerly dp's identity is absolutely not germain to the conversation. Moreover, he has chosen to use an alias whereas you haven't.

Only in your weird ass universe, could 2 be considered fair turnabout for 1. They are two very, very different things.
   3643. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 21, 2012 at 11:02 PM (#4278644)
This isn't about ideology-- you've had a range of people who have worked in large-scale institutions explaining the value diversity officials at their institutions serve. You've disregarded it. I'm not sure why.

I haven't seen any non-liberals endorse the need for diversity officials.

Again, I'm all for cultural sensitivity and accommodating the disabled. But to the extent "diversity" is a positive goal, it seems like something that should slot in as an assistant to an assistant, not the No. 3 or No. 4 person at a major university.
   3644. formerly dp Posted: October 21, 2012 at 11:04 PM (#4278646)
I haven't seen any non-liberals endorse the need for diversity officials.

Unlike robin, I don't have a great memory for mapping the politics of various posters on this board, but I'm pretty sure that's not true.
I'm all for cultural sensitivity and accommodating the disabled

Unless it means creating a position for the person tasked with ensuring this happens?
But to the extent "diversity" is a positive goal, it seems like something that should slot in as an assistant to an assistant, not the No. 3 or No. 4 person at a major university.

So the beef is with their ranking in an org chart?
   3645. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 21, 2012 at 11:08 PM (#4278649)
1. I googled you since you mentioned somewhere on the thread that you worked in baseball. I was simply curious as to who you were.

Whether or not I used an alias at Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion here. I didn't bash "formerly dp" for using an alias; I bashed "formerly dp" for launching personal attacks while hiding behind an alias. Big difference.

Anyway, I don't ever recall seeing your alias before today. It's strange that this was the issue that brought you out of the woodwork.
   3646. rr Posted: October 21, 2012 at 11:12 PM (#4278652)
Most lefties were and are scared shitless that Romney will win.


Going only on anecdotal stuff/personal interaction, I think that is pretty much on-target, at least since the debate.
   3647. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 21, 2012 at 11:22 PM (#4278656)
This is demonstrated very easily by looking at you, actually: while you are as hardcore righty as he is, you are not getting hassled, because you don't post stuff like he does, in terms of either style or, for the most part, content

Actually, I'm a moderate. However, if I have gotten off lightly here I suspect it is because I only dabble in the politics thread; if I posted as often as Joe K, I'm not sure I'd be treated any better. When I merely suggested that polls using D+9 samples might have some accuracy issues, I was called names and it was suggested that I lacked the knowledge to understand the issue. Really?

Folks here could have responded to Joe K on substance. They chose not to. Perhaps it was beyond their abilities. So we get endless name calling, folks bringing up his business (. . . be a shame if anything happened to it . . . ) and Wikipedia edits. Not BBTF's finest hour.



   3648. bobm Posted: October 21, 2012 at 11:22 PM (#4278657)
[3619]
Just to beat a dead horse:
Minimum safe distance for AC-130s:
25mm-400-500m
40mm-300-500m
105mm-600-650m


Just for fun: what's the blast radius of a Hellfire missile?
   3649. rr Posted: October 21, 2012 at 11:35 PM (#4278659)
However, if I have gotten off lightly here I suspect it is because I only dabble in the politics thread; if I posted as often as Joe K, I'm not sure I'd be treated any better


Disagree. You are partisan but mostly avoid the type of stuff that triggers heavy snark, as I detailed. One more time: you get what you give, generally speaking. That is evident every day on the board. Guys like BDC and BM who make an effort to be civil get bashed far less than those who don't.

They chose not to


Cuts both ways, like I said. That's what you are not acknowledging, and if you actually read the responses, as one example, to the diversity stuff, people most certainly are "engaging him on substance"--along with the snark.

And on the election issue, Kehoskie has a point. There was some liberal trashtalking going on before the first debate. I didn't do it myself, but some guys did.
   3650. McCoy Posted: October 21, 2012 at 11:45 PM (#4278662)
Just for fun: what's the blast radius of a Hellfire missile?

The manual gave it a N/A. Another I found listed the danger zone to be over 3000 by 3000 meters with different configurations and launch points expanding the danger zone but no luck finding an absolute MSD which I doubt exists.
   3651. DA Baracus Posted: October 21, 2012 at 11:49 PM (#4278663)
Taxes go up next year, no matter who's president

President Barack Obama isn't talking about it and neither is Mitt Romney. But come January, 163 million workers can expect to feel the pinch of a big tax increase regardless of who wins the election.

A temporary reduction in Social Security payroll taxes is due to expire at the end of the year and hardly anyone in Washington is pushing to extend it. Neither Obama nor Romney has proposed an extension, and it probably wouldn't get through Congress anyway, with lawmakers in both parties down on the idea.

Even Republicans who have sworn off tax increases have little appetite to prevent one that will cost a typical worker about $1,000 a year, and two-earner family with six-figure incomes as much as $4,500.


Social Security is funded by a 12.4 percent tax on wages up to $110,100, rising to $113,700 in 2013. Half is paid by employers and the other half is paid by workers. For 2011 and 2012, Congress and Obama cut the share paid by workers from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent.

A worker making $50,000 saved $1,000 a year, or a little more than $19 a week. A worker making $100,000 saved $2,000 a year.
   3652. McCoy Posted: October 21, 2012 at 11:52 PM (#4278665)
Folks here could have responded to Joe K on substance.

This is a statement that is either ignorant of the history of these conversations or willfully blind as to what is happening. This isn't people's first rodeo with JoeK. Joe is a troll. He does not care about substance. He isn't interested in it. He just wants to have someone to argue with. People have tried to actually have real discussions about real topics with JoeK. They don't get anywhere and it always lead to name calling and focusing on JoeK himself.
   3653. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 21, 2012 at 11:55 PM (#4278668)
When I am a dick to Face or DiPerna or whoever, they are generally dicks back and vice versa.


I am?
   3654. tshipman Posted: October 21, 2012 at 11:55 PM (#4278669)
Folks here could have responded to Joe K on substance.


The first response to Joe's points has typically been substantive. People respond negatively to the fourth or fifth time that Joe moves the goalposts or shifts his argument or picks nits with something minor you said.
   3655. rr Posted: October 21, 2012 at 11:59 PM (#4278671)
It wasn't a putdown, Ray. My exp with you is that mostly we are either mutually civil or mutually snarky. YMMV.

Unless you were making a funny.
   3656. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:03 AM (#4278674)
This is a statement that is either ignorant of the history of these conversations or willfully blind as to what is happening. This isn't people's first rodeo with JoeK. Joe is a troll.

This really deserves an LOL coming from McCoy, who spent much of the last four months obsessively replying to everything I say here. It's obvious he's been trying to bait me into a flame war that draws Mr. Furtado to intercede (again), and the fact I haven't taken the bait apparently infuriates him.

I'll never understand why people put people on "ignore" — as Sam, McCoy, and Treder have all claimed to have done with me — and then proceed to expend all kinds of energy talking about the people they put on "ignore." It's very strange.

As for Ray, I can't ever recall him being a d*** to anyone, and I doubt anyone here would be more justified in going all-out nasty than him. Barely a week ago, someone told Ray to kill himself over a disagreement about the infield-fly rule. Crazy.
   3657. rr Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:13 AM (#4278676)
As for Ray, I can't ever recall him being a d*** to anyone, and I doubt anyone here would be more justified in going all-out nasty than him.


Ray pretty much gets what he gives, as I said earlier, and what you seem to miss is that there are many ways to be snarky, rude, and disrepectful, and to thereby draw snarky repsonses, that don't involve the type of thing that you label as "personal attacks."

   3658. Spahn Insane Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:16 AM (#4278677)
Since I'm anonymous--though even if I wasn't, I don't expect that any potential employers would object to this statement--I'll just say that I think university faculty members are just about the least likely people in the universe to need help understanding "diverse perspectives on things like race, sexuality, gender, disability, ect [sic]."

I'd say that depends, and I'd largely disagree with you on the disability part. Professionally (and this stuff is highly relevant to a lot of the work I've done), I've encountered a number of faculty who treat their classrooms as their own personal fiefdoms, and who are resistant to implement accommodations that the university has agreed to provide, or object to the notion that students should be accommodated at all if it conflicts with their own personal notion of what a reasonable accommodation is (or whether it fundamentally alters their course--which, naturally, pretty much everything does, in their view). (Got nothing against profs, mind you; my dear ol' dad's a retired prof. I'm making a general comment on a lot of what I've seen, and while I'm not suggesting that all or even most profs think this way, I certainly don't think of profs as the "least likely people in the universe" to have misconceptions of what the law requires them to do.)

In any event, I'd say that a position dedicated to ensuring compliance with the discrimination statutes is hardly a waste of time (or "racket," or whatever other pejorative one prefers), because it's simply not true that one's obligations are always intuitive, or that because an institution has a non-discrimination policy, everyone on campus just knows what that means in practice.
   3659. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:17 AM (#4278678)
One more time: you get what you give, generally speaking. That is evident every day on the board.

I agree. The only question though is the old chicken and egg one about "who started it?" And then the whole question of what constitutes an over-the-line personal attack as opposed to heavy sarcasm about a political position. And then the problem of placating the literalminded and those who get offended by things that nobody else seems to. If all this were easy to sort out we'd never be having these discussions to begin with.

   3660. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:20 AM (#4278679)
I leave for a while and I learn some folks don't know much about the military (or play too many video games), that slaughtering civilians wholesale is OK so long as you are trying to do something other than slaughter them, and about Joe K's wikipedia page.

So not much.

For the record I still think the Romney campaign has been a train wreck other than one debate (and I guess OK in the second). Other than that not so much. In fact I asked folks what they had done well and got no answer (before the first debate). Well now that it is fashionable to like the campaign again I'll ask again - other than the debates what has the campaign done well (and no beating the collection of losers in the primary does not impress me).

I still think Obama is very likely to win. For a week or so I was starting to think it was super likely, but I am back to 65/35 in favor.

And I have tried to engage Joe on substance. Really. And I pick on him very little (he's is much harder on me than I am on him - he seems to spend much time embarrassed for me, maybe he likes me, but I don't swing that way I am sorry to say). I plan on continuing to engage with him (though I will be pretty busy the next few weeks, so I may not post as much here.

Regarding the diversity officer - if all she did was sign an anti-gay marriage petition the school should not fire her. You can be against gay marriage and not be against gay people. Many people who are against gay marriage are bigots, but not all by any stretch. Half the nation are not bigots, even if I disagree with them and think they are on the wrong side of history.
   3661. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:22 AM (#4278680)
As for Ray, I can't ever recall him being a d*** to anyone, and I doubt anyone here would be more justified in going all-out nasty than him.

Ray's a good guy and never gets personally nasty, but he has a habit of throwing around accusations of "dishonesty" as if it were a stutter or a nervous tic. He's hardly the only one around here who way overuses that inflammatory word, but if he were to eliminate it from his arsenal I think about 90% of the flaming against him would come to a halt.
   3662. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:25 AM (#4278681)
Ray pretty much gets what he gives, as I said earlier, and what you seem to miss is that there are many ways to be snarky, rude, and disrepectful, and to thereby draw snarky repsonses, that don't involve the type of thing that you label as "personal attacks."

OK, so Ray gets what he gives, and I get what I give, and you and "formerly dp" get what you give. So what's the problem?

It's comical that I've somehow become the Black Bart of BBTF's politics threads despite never using profanity, never threatening violence, never bringing outside info. to BBTF, etc., etc. I've had plenty of snark aimed in my direction, and I upped my use of snark in response — i.e., the infamous BBTF house style. I've repeatedly challenged people to find some of the noxious personal attacks I've allegedly authored here, and no one ever comes up with any. As far as I can tell, my two biggest crimes here are being a conservative and refusing to be shouted down or chased away.

Even if I concede being a snarky jerk just for the sake of argument, I'm quite sure I haven't become a much snarkier jerk in the past few days. It's clear that a lot of the liberals who thought the election was in the bag are getting nervous and lashing out.
   3663. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:29 AM (#4278684)
I still think Obama is very likely to win. For a week or so I was starting to think it was super likely, but I am back to 65/35 in favor.

I guess great minds think alike. Nate's got it now at 67.6% and Intrade says 61.4%. Personally I like for my favorite sports teams to be a 61% favorite, but I'd be a lot more comfortable if Obama were more like 99%.
   3664. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:31 AM (#4278686)
It's comical that I've somehow become the Black Bart of BBTF's politics threads despite never using profanity, never threatening violence, never bringing outside info. to BBTF, etc., etc. I've had plenty of snark aimed in my direction, and I upped my use of snark in response. I've repeatedly challenged people to find some of the noxious personal attacks I've allegedly authored here, and no one ever comes up with any. As far as I can tell, my two biggest crimes here are being a conservative and refusing to be shouted down or chased away.

Joe, AFAIC your one and only crime is animal cruelty, as in dead horse beating. Other than that I don't have any particular complaint against you.
   3665. rr Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:39 AM (#4278688)
So what's the problem?


I don't have one, Joe. That is why I keep coming here.

Your exp is different than mine, so you will see it differently, of course. But in reviewing my own behavior, when people bag on me, I am almost always in part at fault. But not entirely.

Anyway, I will make an effort to be more civil to you if we engage here in the future.
   3666. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 12:44 AM (#4278690)
And I have tried to engage Joe on substance. Really. And I pick on him very little (he's is much harder on me than I am on him

Political differences aside, you seem like a nice guy. My only problem with you is the same one that 'Good Face' and Ray have mentioned, which is that there often seems to be a gulf between what you write and what you think you wrote.

maybe he likes me, but I don't swing that way I am sorry to say).

Not that there's anything wrong with that! (But don't worry, as rodents go, I'm more of a Minnie Mouse fan.)
   3667. Jay Z Posted: October 22, 2012 at 01:31 AM (#4278697)
Anyone here familiar with the work of the lateChalmers Johnson, who was critical of the continutation of the post-Soviet USA armament, as far as I understand? I think I'm going to check out some of his work.
   3668. Greg K Posted: October 22, 2012 at 03:37 AM (#4278709)
Anyone here familiar with the work of the lateChalmers Johnson, who was critical of the continutation of the post-Soviet USA armament, as far as I understand? I think I'm going to check out some of his work.

I was once assigned Sorrows of Empire for a class on Latin American Imperialism from the 16th century to the present. It was somewhat interesting though at times just ended up being a list of overseas military installations.

Is Gwen Dyer read much in the States? I actually haven't read anything of his, but I've heard him speak 2 or 3 times...he's usually, at the very least, engaging on foreign policy stuff.
   3669. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 22, 2012 at 08:13 AM (#4278738)
Gwynne Dyer.
   3670. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 22, 2012 at 08:30 AM (#4278744)
Ray pretty much gets what he gives, as I said earlier, and what you seem to miss is that there are many ways to be snarky, rude, and disrepectful, and to thereby draw snarky repsonses, that don't involve the type of thing that you label as "personal attacks."


Disconcur. Kehoskie and Kneepants get what they deserve, more or less, but Ray is often misread by people who can't fathom that he's being earnest with some of the things he says.
   3671. The District Attorney Posted: October 22, 2012 at 08:53 AM (#4278750)
David Frum points out that if the swing states go

Obama: OH, FL, NH, WI
Romney: CO, VA, IA, NV

-- none of which is inherently implausible -- then:
What you then get is a 269-269 tie.

The contest is then tossed into the House of Representatives, where presumably Romney wins.

Now consider this: what if Obama has a lead in the popular vote? This moves us beyond Bush v. Gore territory into someplace even more contested and more frightening. And whereas 2000 was a low-intensity election involving a Democratic not hugely beloved by his own party base, a House contest in 2012 would unleash every passion in the American political system
I personally don't think it'd be as bad as Bush v. Gore, because the system to determine the winner is simple and is already in place. What really pisses people off is when you make up the rules as you go. But he's at least right that Obama inspires more passion among his voters than Gore did, and there's no doubt that millions of people would be utterly flipping out. (It'd be cool to see Obama court Ron Paul or do whatever else he could think of to try to win the House vote, but given any Repub House majority, I can't imagine any of them would ever break file on that vote.)
   3672. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 22, 2012 at 08:55 AM (#4278751)
My only problem with you is the same one that 'Good Face' and Ray have mentioned, which is that there often seems to be a gulf between what you write and what you think you wrote.


I would credit this more if in response to this confusion I got honest direct questions from you three as oppossed to "are you crazy for saying ..." when that isn't what I am saying at all. Posts with the keywords of delusional, pathetic, and embarrassing also suggest a post that is not really confused by what I (or others) are trying to say.

In other words (to be clear) if there were follow ups trying to get at what I am saying rather than the rush to deride the comment, but maybe that is just me. It is also a bit suspicious that in general only the libertarian-conservative wing that doesn't understand, but I admit I might be "aiming" at libeals, or using common terminology, or maybe people just agree with like sentiments, and only those oppossed can be truly (properly) critical of a thought.

Anyway you take the good with the bad, and yeah I am not as clear as I would like.
   3673. McCoy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 09:01 AM (#4278757)
Obama: OH, FL, NH, WI
Romney: CO, VA, IA, NV

-- none of which is inherently implausible -- then:


There is a possibility of a tie but I don't see Iowa and Nevada both going for Romney and Obama still doing well enough elsewhere to result in a tie. If Romney wins those states then Obama is doing rather poorly and is likely to get 269 electoral votes.

As for what a tie would do to the country I would think it would be a lot bigger deal than it was in 2000. I doubt we would have riots but I do think it would send a lot of America over the edge and it might very well be the beginning of the end for America.
   3674. formerly dp Posted: October 22, 2012 at 09:08 AM (#4278763)
retro:
who are resistant to implement accommodations that the university has agreed to provide, or object to the notion that students should be accommodated at all

In the spirit of your post: faculty are legally obligated to accommodate disabilities, and the parameters of that obligation are not theirs to determine, because they're not trained in evaluating disabilities and understanding the particulars of how to accommodate them. I think it's really important to be humble in this area and allow the experts at your institution to be experts, but unfortunately not everyone does so. Once you get into learning disabilities and mental health issues, this stuff gets even harder to assess without training, which is why that's not part of a faculty member's job.
==
I apologize in advance to everyone who is bored with this for continuing the meta discussion, but I want to get it out of the way and move on:
As far as I can tell, my two biggest crimes here are being a conservative and refusing to be shouted down or chased away.

Blanket insults directed at liberals are still insults. You can keep doing it if you want, but when people react strongly against you, don't be surprised. Also, you have a habit here of attributing positions held by one liberal or a set of liberals on this board to all liberals. If you disagree with a person on this board, or several people, be specific in doing so. As a way to dismiss my arguments, you've lumped me in with the "liberals in the tank for Obama" in spite of the fact that I've repeatedly said I'm not voting for him, and repeatedly articulated my reasons for this position. Some of which, I'll add, we agree on. This is frustrating, because it's an accusation of intellectual dishonesty.

In terms of your threat above: I didn't bring your anonymous authorship on Wikipedia into the conversation. I responded to it once you started discussing it, and quoted Wiki in reply to claims you made. Threatening to take actions intended to harm my professional reputation seems an inappropriate response to the actions of another poster. "My anonymous buddies" are not me. I had not heard of JoMo until he posted in this thread-- linking his words to mine is the sort of broad-brush stuff that I think you'd be better off avoiding. You are of course free to follow through with your threat, if you feel that taking an action intended to harm the career of a fellow BTF member would benefit your standing on this board. But it may well have the opposite effect.

In terms of posting under an alias: I think for someone like you, who works in baseball, and posts about politics to a baseball site frequented by professionals in your field, it might be advisable to do so. Contrary to Yankee Clapper's insinuation above, this is not any sort of implied threat-- it's a piece of career advice, and others from across the ideological spectrum have echoed it in this discussion. Of course, I have no horse in this race-- I gain nothing if you start posting under an alias, and lose nothing if you decide to keep posting as yourself. So it is advice offered in good faith, as it was in the initial discussion.
   3675. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 22, 2012 at 09:14 AM (#4278765)
I apologize in advance to everyone who is bored with this for continuing the meta discussion, but I want to get it out of the way and move on:


It's either this or Kehoskie's ####### Wiki page. So go with this. Someone has to win the NL Central.

As far as I can tell, my two biggest crimes here are being a conservative and refusing to be shouted down or chased away.


Joe Kehoskie is not conservative in any rational definition of the term. He's a second year sophomore who thinks "relativism" means changing your argument every time you get caught in a mistake or lie.
   3676. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 22, 2012 at 09:17 AM (#4278770)
In terms of your threat above: I didn't bring your anonymous authorship on Wikipedia into the conversation. I responded to it once you started discussing it, and quoted Wiki in reply to claims you made. Threatening to take actions intended to harm my professional reputation seems an inappropriate response to the actions of another poster. "My anonymous buddies" are not me.


Joe doesn't distinguish. You're either with him, or your against him. This is the same behavior we see in his constant insulting of "liberals" while hiding behind the skirts of "I never insulted you directly!" A real man would at least have the courage of his convictions.
   3677. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 09:21 AM (#4278771)
I doubt we would have riots but I do think it would send a lot of America over the edge and it might very well be the beginning of the end for America.


Well, if we did have riots, just gun them all down, problem solved.
   3678. McCoy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 09:21 AM (#4278772)
Wait, JoeK threatened to run to an employer over BTF? Is that what I missed by putting him on ignore? How is that not getting bigger play?
   3679. McCoy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 09:23 AM (#4278774)

Well, if we did have riots, just gun them all down, problem solved.


Is that a rally?

I don't know, do they look like liberals or conservatives?

They look a little dingy.

Liberals then. It's a riot.

Gentlemen, prepare to fire.
   3680. formerly dp Posted: October 22, 2012 at 09:34 AM (#4278781)
Wait, JoeK threatened to run to an employer over BTF?

That wasn't the threat. It's not a mountain-worthy molehill.
   3681. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 22, 2012 at 09:58 AM (#4278790)
Well, if we did have riots, just gun them all down, problem solved.


In play (Runs)
   3682. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:14 AM (#4278802)
There is a possibility of a tie but I don't see Iowa and Nevada both going for Romney and Obama still doing well enough elsewhere to result in a tie. If Romney wins those states then Obama is doing rather poorly and is likely to get 269 electoral votes.

As for what a tie would do to the country I would think it would be a lot bigger deal than it was in 2000. I doubt we would have riots but I do think it would send a lot of America over the edge and it might very well be the beginning of the end for America.


I had an idea for this back in the 2000 election aftermath that everyone seemed to like, so I'll propose it here:

Constitutional amendment passed that does the following:
-eliminates the mechanics for a tie and
-mandates that the state with a population such that it would fall closest to "half" an electoral vote receives an extra an elector with a half-vote.

In other words, ties are no longer possible. And the state that has the "half" would change every ten years.
   3683. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:23 AM (#4278808)
I had an idea for this back in the 2000 election aftermath that everyone seemed to like, so I'll propose it here:


Alternately, we could just kill the electoral college and stop pretending that we need to wait for horses to travel to Philadelphia in order to tally votes.
   3684. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:26 AM (#4278814)
Alternately, we could just kill the electoral college and stop pretending that we need to wait for horses to travel to Philadelphia in order to tally votes.


I don't disagree, but don't pretend that it would have made the 2000 election any cleaner. Gore beat Bush by 0.5%. In 2000, we would have had the Florida fiasco multiplied by 51.
   3685. GregD Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:31 AM (#4278822)
Yes it's hard to see that particular tie scenario coming about. Not only because Obama losing those states would portend a bad night for him, but also because it's hard to see Obama winning both Florida and Ohio without doing well among the kinds of voters that are also going to propel him elsehwere.

In terms of instability, the crucial question would be length of time, and this could get messier than 2000. The problem is that the Electoral College meets on Dec 17. So for six weeks there would be nothing but rumors. What if an elector flipped, etc.? That's a lot of uncertainty.

Then only once you get the Electoral College vote for a tie do you really start the clock on Congress intervening. And that happens, I believe, on January 6. With the newly elected House. So you'd have a lot of little mini-dramas as the exact composition of the new House was determined in the weeks after the November election. Even if Democrats won the House--unlikely--they almost certainly would not win a majority of the state delegations. But there would be a lot of things up in the air. Could there be enough split delegations to keep Republicans to 25 majority delegations, etc. Ron Paul couldn't make a difference as Texas is going to be heavy Republican majority, but that's where you could get trickery.

Anyway, the outcome is pretty foreordained--the House would elect Romney--but the but the length of time matters a lot in terms of creating instability and uncertainty. For order you want a seemingly fair process--our process may be odd but is fair in the sense that it is agreed upon beforehand--but you also want to have the process be moving all the time, so people keep their eyes on it, not on being in the street.

You also have the possibility of the Senate electing Biden immediately, and that creating scenarios of the House failing entirely to elect a president by Jan 20, and Biden stepping in.

All hugely unlikely, but the problem is the amount of time for strange scenarios to play out and the number of moving parts.
   3686. Morty Causa Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:39 AM (#4278831)


3684

That is an interesting objection, but, no, I don't think that would happen to nearly that extent. Especially after the first election. To begin with, in most states the vote wouldn't be close enough to warrant it. Besides, who would the parties contest this with? The states, to start with, anyway, right? And I would bet the Supreme Court (and Congress) would decree some ground rules, one of which would be that the state and the state's process is due great deference.
   3687. flournoy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:40 AM (#4278833)
Also, flournoy [...] made a good point about it


This seems pretty unlikely, as it would be the first good point I've ever made in a political thread.
   3688. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:42 AM (#4278835)
To begin with, in most states the vote wouldn't be close enough to warrant it.


What does that have to do with anything? If you elect on a popular vote, a single R vote in Vermont is just as important as an R vote in Utah.

edit: On the flip side, a popular vote may cause an avoidance of a Flordia 2000 type situation. If one guy wins by 3 mil, it doesn't matter if in a certain state the margin is less than 0.1%.
   3689. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:43 AM (#4278836)
don't disagree, but don't pretend that it would have made the 2000 election any cleaner. Gore beat Bush by 0.5%. In 2000, we would have had the Florida fiasco multiplied by 51.


Sure. I don't support the elimination of the EC in order to "clean up" 2000 or any other election. I support the elimination of the EC because it's a stupid anachronism that has no rational place in modern electoral process.
   3690. McCoy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:44 AM (#4278838)
re 3685

A tie could result in a sort of game of Diplomacy type experience for the country. Would be pretty cool to watch as an outsider.
   3691. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:47 AM (#4278843)
I've never attempted to create a page. However, several years ago when I was a Wikipedia noob, I innocently attempted to correct a few detail errors and add a few new substantive points on the page of my semi-famous sister-in-law (Claudia Kolb). Within -- I don't know if it was minutes, but it was definitely within an hour or two -- my changes were deleted and I got an email telling me that I was doing it all wrong, and to stop being such a doofus (or words to that effect).


I've made exactly one Wikipedia entry edit (baseball player)
the next day someone added a cite to what I had added, the next day after that someone rewrote what I'd written- basically the substance was the same, but someone didn't like my grammar or something... and felt the need to air out Roget's and substitute some synonyms for the words I had used...


A couple of years ago my firm was dealing with a really obnoxious plaintiff's lawyer, and for some reason we Googled him... his firm had a really cheesy website, at the bottom of the first page was nonsense, a series of unrelated words- apparently his site was set up to print "hot" search terms at the bottom of the homepage in an attempt to get his site to show up on search engines, anyway, about the 3rd or 4th Google hit for this guy was his very own Wikipedia page.. which was pretty obviously a ######## Ad. for him and his firm...

and checking- it's still up there, my guess is that no one has flagged it for deletion, because it's about a topic no one gives 2 shits about
   3692. The District Attorney Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:49 AM (#4278846)
it's hard to see Obama winning both Florida and Ohio without doing well among the kinds of voters that are also going to propel him elsehwere.
I'm sorry, I misstated the scenario. Romney does win FL in the scenario. So:

Obama: OH, NH, WI
Romney: FL, CO, VA, IA, NV

No offense, but I don't think arbitrarily choosing a state to be the "tiebreaker" would decrease controversy :) I'm sure that the aftermath would be a lot more people advocating more strongly for the abolition of the Electoral College. Probably nothing would ultimately change, since that's what usually happens.

Like I said, I don't think it'd be as bad as Bush v. Gore because these are the well-established rules. But plenty of folks would absolutely go nuts -- the flipside of the scenario being less esoteric than Bush v. Gore is that it would be more understandable and dramatic to the average person -- and I wouldn't totally rule out serious upheaval.
   3693. McCoy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM (#4278847)
I think I tried to edit only one Wiki page in my entire life. When Rod Beck died I added his DoD to his wikipage but it got deleted and then the page got locked as everybody was adding the date but his death hadn't been confirmed yet.
   3694. Morty Causa Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:51 AM (#4278848)
What does that have to do with anything? If you elect on a popular vote, a single R vote in Vermont is just as important as an R vote in Utah.


Yes, but in ever national election I ever heard of, you would still have needed more than a single vote change to win. You'd still have to deal with states and state systems, you still be challenging state elections, and that's fifty state systems and processes you would be challenging. I would think,and I think experience shows, that the spread of votes between the two sides plays in part in whether an election is worthy of being contested. The bigger the spread to more unlikely a recount is going to result in your favor.

Of course there will be problems at the outset, and maybe (haha) Congress will simply nationalize the process and set up ground rules. It can do that. But there will be a learning curve, yes.
   3695. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:54 AM (#4278852)
I'm sorry, I misstated the scenario. Romney does win FL in the scenario. So:

Obama: OH, NH, WI
Romney: FL, CO, VA, IA, NV


Hmmmm. I'm gonna say "if Obama wins OH, Obama wins IA and CO or NV."
   3696. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:56 AM (#4278855)
I still think Obama is very likely to win. For a week or so I was starting to think it was super likely, but I am back to 65/35 in favor.

I guess great minds think alike. Nate's got it now at 67.6% and Intrade says 61.4%. Personally I like for my favorite sports teams to be a 61% favorite, but I'd be a lot more comfortable if Obama were more like 99%.


I still see it as 50/50, I was briefly moved to think it was maybe 60/40 Obama before the first debate...

Also the recovery is still weak, but it's still a recovery, apparently we avoided double dipping- that would have doomed Obama 100%
   3697. The District Attorney Posted: October 22, 2012 at 10:59 AM (#4278863)
Hmmmm. I'm gonna say "if Obama wins OH, Obama wins IA and CO or NV."
There are a lot of Mormons in Nevada; if it comes down to "get out the vote", it's easy to envision that factor winning out.

Despite having a panel of judges who ruled in favor of gay marriage, I certainly think of Iowa as erring on the side of conservatism. But I dunno offhand what their Presidential vote history is.

Colorado, I suspect you're right about that. (But I don't think it's all that similar a state to Ohio. If anything, Colorado Republicans may have wanted more of a social conservative than Romney, and that might be the factor.)
   3698. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:05 AM (#4278866)
Personally I think it's pretty much a tossup at this point, with Obama holding maybe a microscopic edge in the swing states, and that along with the ground games, tonight's debate might help decide the race one way or the other. I'd say both candidates tonight had better not try overreaching or it could backfire on them big time, especially Romney, who might consider that Charles Krauthammer and Jennifer Rubin aren't necessarily representative of America's swing voters.
   3699. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:07 AM (#4278868)
I've never run into someone so persistent in his illogic, so willing to change the entire argument just so he. can. be. right.


Some lawyers are like that, because they think they are supposed to be like that, only it's not so they can be right, its so their clients can be always right. But as I said, only some lawyers are like that, most lawyers pick aside so to speak, you rarely see someone act as a plaintiff's personal injury a lawyer and an insurance defense lawyer at the same times for instance.

And, obviously, some "talent" agents are like that- you don't think an agent won't make an argument that an Ichiro type player is more valuable than Giambi type player when trying to get Ichiro a contract, won't then turn around and argue the exact opposite when trying to get Giambi a contract?

Then their are your political flacks/consultants, no matter what the news is they will always spin it in favor of their side..

and finally, you have CHILDREN
   3700. Morty Causa Posted: October 22, 2012 at 11:12 AM (#4278878)
The trial attorney's mentality is shaped by the essential nature of the adversarial process. It's not a lawyer's role to see all sides, much less give all sides their due. The joke is that an attorney doesn't know what he believes until you first tell him which side he's on.
Page 37 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Ray (RDP)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1009 - 4:08am, Nov 24)
Last: sardonic

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4242 - 3:05am, Nov 24)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogRed Sox trying for mega-free agent double play: Panda and Hanley - CBSSports.com
(78 - 2:48am, Nov 24)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(30 - 1:16am, Nov 24)
Last: akrasian

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(57 - 12:31am, Nov 24)
Last: Rowland Office Supplies

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8650 - 11:54pm, Nov 23)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogAstros interested in Robertson: source | New York Post
(18 - 11:31pm, Nov 23)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(36 - 11:16pm, Nov 23)
Last: spike

NewsblogMatthews: Cashman sleeps on the street, says all is quiet on the free-agent front
(24 - 10:50pm, Nov 23)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogPirates DFA Ike Davis, clear path for Pedro Alvarez - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(21 - 10:13pm, Nov 23)
Last: zonk

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2014 Ballot
(10 - 9:09pm, Nov 23)
Last: MrC

NewsblogPablo Sandoval leaning toward Red Sox, to decide next week — Padres have highest offer, all offers on table (including SF Giants’) - John Shea
(32 - 9:04pm, Nov 23)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(31 - 6:53pm, Nov 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(451 - 6:43pm, Nov 23)
Last: JuanGone..except1game

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(22 - 6:14pm, Nov 23)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

Page rendered in 1.0357 seconds
52 querie(s) executed