User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6687 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Depends on the context. "Citizenship" is too wide an umbrella. And once you consider citizenship an excuse to take away rights, you're simply empowering your opponents to argue the same thing. If citizenship can be an excuse to limit free speech or financial freedom, it can also be an excuse to take away sexual freedom or due process under the law. "Suck it up, buttercup, it's the price you pay for the citizenship contract" (not that you yourself have said anything like this, but some here have) can be argued by your opponents just as righteously as by your friends.
keeping people from drinkingkeeping and growing in power.FTFY
Then you would fear for that administration. Never mess with a cat.
I don't see how this hasn't moved to the left.
Tell that to the unions who've seen their membership shrivel since the 70's. Tell that to the workers whose unions have been forced to make one wage and benefits concession after another. On what level can anyone seriously make a claim that employers haven't systematically gained power over their employees in the past 40 years?
To the extent that Romney has any core beliefs I suspect you are right-
I also suspect that a President Romney with a Dem Senate is not going to lead to the type of governance that the Rightwing wants- a President Romney with a Dem House and Senate would lead to an overall Government to the Left of Clinton's 1994-2000 triangulation period... and leave Rightwingers/Teapers frothing with rage methinks...
On lefty sites like LGM you see the claim that MAss Romney is irrelevant because Romney would only become President in a scenario with the GOP keeping the House and retaking the Senate- well if the election were held to day, Romney might very well win, the Dems would hold the Senate and pick up 8-10 House seats
The Dems have had a slight 0 to 1.0% generic Congressional lead on RCP for about 2 months now- the Obama slide/Romney surge has had no effect it seems
strange election
In employment at will states employers now have to deal with "protected classes"...
maternity leave, etc.
ask Dave- this really is his area of true expertise
Bah, you guys act like I'm the only person to have cats! I'm a good-natured (why does that have a red misspell line?) fellow, but you don't want to be in the shoes of someone who would cause harm to one of my cats.
Seriously. If the Romney Administration tries to mess with my cat Gobsy, they're going to be running for Band-Aids and peroxide.
There's the rub, though. Mitt Romney *has no core beliefs.*
(KIDDING)
Nothing a beach towel and a syringe full of diazepam, ketamine, and acepromazine won't fix.
Granted, but it's always going to be 'too wide' because inevitably, the constructs of 'citizenship' are going to change over time and a 100% agreement to said changes isn't really feasible. I don't want to rehash the natural rights vs government-secured rights again, but at a generic level --
I think it's fair to say that you absolutely give up some manner of autonomy (which, I suppose, one can argue is quite different from 'freedom') by being the citizen of any nation, at any point in human history... Obviously, beyond a few edge cases in history - thus has it always been.
The fundamental question is whether - if it were a choice - you would choose to cede undefined autonomy to a government in exchange for the benefits (and I think even the most sovereign among us would say that there are benefits) of citizenship?
I'm a little late to the debate, but a bayonet can still come in handy. Didn't some "human rights group" produce a report indicating GaddafI was dispatched by a bayonet up his butt? Not sure why that should concern the human rights types. Next they will be claiming Mussolini got a raw deal.
In employment at will states employers now have to deal with "protected classes"...
maternity leave, etc.
With unions crippled, workers have little power to maintain their standard of living compared to what they would (and had) with union contracts. What's the percentage of union jobs today compared to 40 years ago. You can blame it on globalism if you wish, but that doesn't change the bottom line. And of course one of the main reasons that Obamacare in some form was necessary was because of the stripping away of employer furnished pensions and health care benefits.
The one area you might make a claim of greater employee power is in the public sector---for now.
Even by Trump's standards, this is so weak. I wasn't expecting him to come out with anything truthful or relevant, but can't he at least come up with something interesting?
But if the Donald is reading this, I'll make an offer:
For only 1 million dollars, I'll send you my college transcripts, yearbooks, any papers or textbooks still in my possession, and a copy of my passport. That's a great deal Donald - 80% off!
Edit: Oh, and my charity will be for The Human Fund, of which I am the director and sole beneficiary.
To some extent -- but a couple of Dem Senate candidates -- Kaine and Warren come to mind, surged into narrow leads that coincide almost exactly with Obama's September bump into a clear, but small lead in the polls. Both Warren and Kaine seem to have largely maintained. It should be noted, too, that Bob Casey -- though still looking safe -- has seen his lead fall into single digits as PA looked less "Safe Obama" following the first debate.
Nelson down in Florida, too -- while still with a clear lead -- isn't on autopilot anymore as Obama has slipped into a tie/slightly behind there.
I am starting to get less nervous generally -- there's seems to be a small, but measurable drift back towards Obama and in particular, he got a couple of really good polls from Ohio, plus another handful of good numbers in Nevada and New Hampshire.
Was trading e-mails with a buddy today -- lamenting that if only Obama hadn't come out flat in debate #1, he'd be cruising and we could be focusing down ballot, but my friend had a different interesting take...
To wit - even if Obama had done well in the first debate, there was precious little he could do about Romney having a good first debate, too (setting aside a more aggressive Obama managing more forcefully push the "were you lying then or are you lying now?" and the possibility of Romney getting off his game)... With a muddled economy, the 'undecideds' and persuadables already knew Obama. To the Obama campaign's credit, they had done an exceptional job defining Romney -- hence, as long as Romney came off as something beyond the caricature of himself, it was inevitable that a lot of those people who were leaning against Obama were going to coalesce around the alternative once they saw he might actually be human.
I'm not sure I wholly buy that -- I think Obama could have probably put this thing away with a better first debate -- but I do think it has merit.
Sure, I'm partisan - so take it with a grain of salt - but I do think Romney made a mistake in 3rd debate (and to a lesser extent, in the 2nd debate) by believing his 1st debate was essentially all he needed and that he could just coast to a win... The first debate win picked up some ground - but not enough to win the election. He still needs more votes - and I think he's wrong if he thinks he can just coast to the remainder of them. But... like I said, I am partisan - so frankly, I hope he does continue to think his work is essentially done and was done during the first debate.
I think Obama went into the first debate correctly assuming that the debate wouldn't mean much to his numbers but didn't realize that the nation wide audience for Romeny would be a big trial by fire for Romney that could be good or bad for Romney depending on how he did. Obama from the second or third debate in the first debate wasn't goig to stop Romney's bounce. It might have kept it from soaring as high as it did but we'd still be right where we currently are.
Yep. At this point, the overwhelming majority of the workforce is a member of one or more protected classes.
Plus there's the various types of mandated leave, employer obligations to make reasonable accomodations, the ongoing explosion in non-exempt classification lawsuits, etc.
Obvious follow-up: are there situations where it is god's will for a man to be raped by another man?
To wit - even if Obama had done well in the first debate, there was precious little he could do about Romney having a good first debate, too (setting aside a more aggressive Obama managing more forcefully push the "were you lying then or are you lying now?" and the possibility of Romney getting off his game)... With a muddled economy, the 'undecideds' and persuadables already knew Obama. To the Obama campaign's credit, they had done an exceptional job defining Romney -- hence, as long as Romney came off as something beyond the caricature of himself, it was inevitable that a lot of those people who were leaning against Obama were going to coalesce around the alternative once they saw he might actually be human.
I'm not sure I wholly buy that -- I think Obama could have probably put this thing away with a better first debate -- but I do think it has merit.
I think the question is whether by responding to Romney's BS more forcefully in that first debate, Obama might have been able to knock Romney off his axis in the manner he did during the next two debates. Of course the disappearing Lehrer didn't exactly help, but it seemed clear from debates 2 and 3 that Romney's "presidential" air was at least partly in inverse proportion to Obama's ability to not let Romney's BS go unopposed.
And if Obama winds up winning, I'm beginning to think that the first debate might actually have been a blessing in disguise, as it stripped both Obama and his followers of the conceit that they were going to be able to win by just running out the clock. In that respect, that first debate was a good and necessary wakeup call.
Obvious answer: God rightly punishes those who don't wear the latest fashion in chastity belts.
Shame on these hussies for impinging on Romney's religious freedom.
A President Romney with solid Dem control of both House and Senate might be the best thing to happen for civil liberties in the US in a long time.
I just picture Democrats waking up the first Wednesday in November going, "Wait, the President can do WHAT, now?"
This is a pretty silly discussion. You want women who are almost due to work and cause unneeded stress on themselves and their unborn child? And you want them to be separated from the raising of that child moments after giving birth?
The question is how employer/employee relations have moved to the left. Not whether it is good or bad.
I agree. While it was proven to be a bad idea for Obama to try and run out the clock and just play a cautious "no mistakes" game as early as the first debate, it's looking to be an equally bad idea for Romney to do so since the first debate. Romney gained serious ground after that debate, but all he did was go from far behind to more closely behind.
The volume of battleground state polling was light on Tuesday, and what polls there were require a few cautions. For instance, an Old Dominion University poll of Virginia put Mr. Obama seven points ahead there – but the poll had an extremely long field period, having been started in September, with about two-thirds of its interviews coming before the first presidential debate in Denver. It thus receives little weight in the forecast
Just wanted to put that out there in case someone might wish to argue that the only time Nate "explains away" a poll is when it favors Romney.
Only if it results in a pregnancy.
Sure, but he performed that startling pivot in the first debate. He hasn't done anything to counter Obama's calling him on it since.
It's better to have more early votes than fewer, of course. But when even exit polls aren't performing reliably, these "initial snapshots" should be labelled For Entertainment Purposes Only - Card Subject to Change.
I just picture Democrats waking up the first Wednesday in November going, "Wait, the President can do WHAT, now?"
This.
It might be more progressive, but saying it's 'left' seems to be missing the point.
Because "human rights types" believe morality applies to the entire human race, and that torturing/killing someone is wrong regardless of who they are or what they've done. Crazy, but there you have it.
What's he supposed to do next? Pivot back? His strategy over the last two weeks has been to move towards the center and to pick up those votes in the middle. We're not playing a video game where we can make one decision and then sim the next two weeks and then enter a new decision. In the real world you make a decision and then you have to go out there and implement it. Then you got to keep on hammering at it day in and day out.
Yes, but he had to anticipate that following the first debate, Obama would hammer him on the blatant inconsistency the pivot revealed, and Obama did just that in debates 2 and 3. Romney has showed no further plan to deal with that beyond "hunker down and take it."
I'll grant that you have a point that it isn't obvious what else he can do, and that means I'm backing off on what I said in # 4631. But still: he threw a long bomb in the first debate, and completed it for a long gain. But it still hasn't gotten him into the red zone, and it isn't clear what else he might have in the playbook to get to the end zone.
Mitt Romney has one, and only one, core belief: That Mitt Romney should be the President.
Anything else is negotiable.
I don't think anyone's going to give you a ticket along a wooded trail where.... no one is, but if you're riding a horse drunk where there are people? (I dunno, the State Fair? A show? A reasonably populated park?) I really don't want you careening around drunk on a 1300-pound living creature. I can't be against that kind of ticket.
Maybe you carjacked (rustled? kidnapped?) a police horse in the city?
"It's a very unique case," said Chief Deputy Allen Peel. "But he could have swerved into a car, causing danger to himself and others."
I don't have enough experience around horses to know... you're riding alongside the road, and a car's coming, and you're all, GIDDYAP! and try to make the horse "swerve" into the car. Would a horse just do that? Or would its own self-preservation instinct kick in?
(also, yes, a sudden drop in blood sugar can screw up a breathalyzer test. Lots of things can screw up a breath test. Dude should've insisted on a blood draw instead.)
"Do it better" is not a real answer, but it's really the only answer. Romney can only criticize Obama from the right, but there just isn't much opening to criticize Obama from the right (which is an indication how far right Obama is on foreign policy). So Romney's only argument in the debate was basically "I agree, but say it LOUDER" and "OMFG, we have so few ships!!!". If Romney had a better criticism, he could have been more effective. I don't know if there was a more effective right/center criticism of Obama's foreign policy to be made, but to the extent Romney failed in the third debate, it was a failure of ideas, rather than strategy.
About four times in half an hour. But he doesn't say that. He says, George Allen can invest his own money on Wall Street, but please don't invest mine.
They're disconcerting to me, but I'm not voting for him. Though I suppose if he flaps in the breeze, it's better for me than someone committed to policies I oppose.
Many people supposedly care about unemployment, so it would be nice if his veep didn't want to remove the Fed mandate to fight unemployment since he's so worried about all the inflation we have today. Not that the Fed helps with employment much anyway, but still. Not that the Rs ever really care about UE, but still.
Romney has basically promised everything to everyone at this point. I find that hard to respect.
I'm not sure how what I said isn't the same thing, besides the spelling mistakes. If George Allen invests his SS money on Wall St then the narrator either gets nothing or he gets something like $50 a week or whatever he put into SS in 1979. The only way the narrator can get his money is if George Allen doesn't invest his money how he wants to and thus pays for the narrator's SS.
I guess this is what's bugging me. Romney had a spirited and surprising approach to debate #1. In debates 2 and 3, he had no additional surprises, nothing new at all.
Perhaps I'm expecting too much, but you're the challenger, and you've had, you know, months if not years to prepare for this. That's all you got following the strategic pivot in the first debate? The first debate was terrific for you, but it didn't put you in the lead. What do you think it is that will put you in the lead?
Maybe I mis-heard the ad (trust me, I didn't listen closely), but I didn't hear "George Allen can invest his SS money on Wall Street." I heard "George Allen can invest his money on Wall Street."
Perhaps the ad I'm seeing is different from the one you're seeing. They cut these things a gazillion different ways.
Well, that was what I was talking about way up above. And to the extent Romney thought that, as far as I can tell, the poll data never supported the notion that Romney ever took the lead. (Unless one believes the Gallup poll is the one-and-only.)
Maybe I mis-heard the ad (trust me, I didn't listen closely), but I didn't hear "George Allen can invest his SS money on Wall Street." I heard "George Allen can invest his money on Wall Street."
The point of the ad was that the old man was against George Allen's position of privatizing SS. So when he says that Allen can invest his own money on Wall St he's talking about Allen's SS money.
He's saying that George Allen has lots of money of his own to invest on Wall Street if he's interested in making investments, and that he shouldn't gamble anyone's Social Security money there.
In 2006, CNN estimated Allen's personal net worth at between $1.8M and $3.8M, so yeah, he's got some money to play with if he wants without dipping into Social Security's wallet.
Uh ... why? This was the first time I ever saw the ad, and my immediate interpretation was he was talking about Allen investing his own private money. Why is it necessarily Allen investing his SS money? What am I missing?
That's how I heard it.
Fake it 'til you make it.
Well, Romney is doing better once you get outside the Obama echo chamber. I get the distinct feeling, based on what the campaigns are doing, that they both may think Romney is ahead. That business of Obama overnighting on Air Force One (where is the staff going to sleep?) has a distinct whiff of Jimmy Carter's 1980 travels, flying west on election day even, desperately looking for voters where the polls were open.
Wasn't that already done and done?
Silver's model doesn't see it that way.
I think it is quite possible that both sides think the election is incredibly close and that getting every vote they can in the swing states is very important.
Well, all I can say is, I didn't hear that.
You should also be getting ads for and against the expansion of casino gambling in Maryland. Pay attention, that one may be trickier than it seems.
Romney switched positions during the first debate. At that point the base is committed to you almost regardless of what you say. Now if you keep careening to the left on a daily basis or say some really crazy stuff every day you run the risk of them staying home on the election night. Romney's flip happened once and for the most part his flip was the first time a large chunk of the population had ever heard his message directly from him so for a lot of people it wasn't a flip. Now if he came out in the 2nd debate and acted like Republican primary Romney then a large of that audience would think he is flip-flopping and would be drawn away from him. He told 80 million his message in the first debate and so now he has to sell it to them. You don't do that by constantly changing your message each time you appear on millions of televisions.
"The FiveThirtyEight model is sometimes perceived as being incredibly bold for having Mr. Obama as a two-to-one favorite despite what is certainly very close polling, but the few other models that seek to frame the election in probabilistic terms tend to give Mr. Obama an even clearer advantage, putting his odds at between 80 and 95 percent.
I would be happy to engage those other forecasters in a (good-natured) argument about why I think their models are considerably too confident about Mr. Obama’s chances. But if the FiveThirtyEight model is thought of as “Obama-leaning” relative to the conventional wisdom, it is “Romney-leaning” relative to the other models that use a similar approach based on state polling data."
My only opinion on those is that LaVarr Arrington has gotten fat in his retirement.
Haven't seen any of those. Have seen several thousand regarding Allen v. Kaine.
That's just Nate covering his butt for when his liberal media biased keester is exposed as a fraud on election night.
What about that Colorado model that has had Romney winning all along?
Updated election forecasting model still points to Romney win, University of Colorado study says
Not saying that they might not prove right, but their model doesn't take in nearly as many factors as Nate's.
Well, unless the right wants to claim the above position, and I doubt they do, it really isn't a question of left or right. Did the country move to the left when we stopped lynching black people?
There's a recent poll asking what voters consider the top issue to be. 37% say the Economy, 26% Unemployment & 12% the Federal Budget Deficit. That's 75% opting for an issue related to the economy, which suggests that model might be on to something. Also potentially not good news for Obama, the 4th issue is Dissatisfaction with Government, 9%.
Which states does the study say Obama will win?
Is that the one which claims to have predicted every election correctly sine the Civil War, despite having been created this year?
Is this a trick question? The answer is obviously "yes."
Everyone defends Nate by saying that he'd be nuts to allow his bias to affect his model. Why wouldn't the same apply to the Colorado professors? Unless the claim is that they rigged their model to fit the results of the last 8 elections just so they could predict a Romney win, it seems the same defense of Nate would apply to these professors.
Is that the one which claims to have predicted every election correctly sine the Civil War,
Nah, only going back to 1980.
despite having been created this year?
Go away, boy, who let you in here?
...That's not how statistical models work?
Nobody's said that the Colorado profs are politically biased. It's just that their model is based on one overarching factor alone, the economy. They're either going to look like ####### Nostradamus on November 7th or they're going to be just one more pair of geniuses who got their 15 minutes worth of fame on the internet. The sports world is littered with corpses of swamis like that.
Because Nate has actually predicted something?
Since as an admin I'm probably obligated to ask, even though it goes against my better judgment...
Joe, are you any of the accounts and/or IP addresses commenting on the AFD on the article about you?
There are no retrospective statistical models? Aren't claims of global warming based in large part on backward-looking statistical modeling?
***
Nobody was worried about this in 2008, when Nate went from baseball stats guy to famous poll expert in a matter of about two months.
Well, that's the whole point -- it's a different theory of predicting election outcomes.
Nate was getting national attention long before his Nov. 2008 projections proved accurate. I can't recall ever seeing someone go from political unknown to political rock star as quickly as Nate did in mid-2008.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main