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 47 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 >  Last ›
   4601. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4281855)
Now flip.
   4602. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4281857)
I suppose it ultimately comes down to whether you think citizenship is a right, a privilege, or a forced burden...

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.
   4603. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:48 PM (#4281858)
They're not interested in keeping people alive & well, they're interested in keeping people from drinking keeping and growing in power.

FTFY
   4604. spycake Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4281861)
What if the Romney administration proves more likely to interfere in the life of your cat?
   4605. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4281864)
What if the Romney administration proves more likely to interfere in the life of your cat?

Then you would fear for that administration. Never mess with a cat.
   4606. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:56 PM (#4281872)
Employer/Employee relationships. . . .


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?
   4607. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4281875)
I tend to think that the Moderate Romney is closer to his core beliefs than Conservative Romney. To me at least, it seems pretty obvious how much more natural and heartfelt he is when he's playing the former and how awkward and stilted he comes off trying to affect the latter.


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
   4608. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4281880)
On what level can anyone seriously make a claim that employers haven't systematically gained power over their employees in the past 40 years?


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
   4609. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4281881)
What if the Romney administration proves more likely to interfere in the life of your cat?

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.
   4610. BDC Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4281884)
Then you would fear for that administration. Never mess with a cat

Seriously. If the Romney Administration tries to mess with my cat Gobsy, they're going to be running for Band-Aids and peroxide.
   4611. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:03 PM (#4281885)
To the extent that Romney has any core beliefs I suspect you are right-


There's the rub, though. Mitt Romney *has no core beliefs.*
   4612. The District Attorney Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4281891)
I'm a good-natured (why does that have a red misspell line?)
You know why.

(KIDDING)
   4613. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4281892)

Seriously. If the Romney Administration tries to mess with my cat Gobsy, they're going to be running for Band-Aids and peroxide.


Nothing a beach towel and a syringe full of diazepam, ketamine, and acepromazine won't fix.
   4614. zonk Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4281893)

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.


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?
   4615. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:09 PM (#4281896)
In modern warfare, I imagine most infantry would very much prefer to spare themselves the weight and not carry one.

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.
   4616. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:09 PM (#4281898)
On what level can anyone seriously make a claim that employers haven't systematically gained power over their employees in the past 40 years?

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.
   4617. AROM Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4281901)
So, Trump doesn't have news, just a pledge to donate $5 million to charity if Obama releases his college transcripts and passport?


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.
   4618. Danny Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4281909)
Allred's "surprise" is likely nothing, as well, but at least it's more interesting than Trump's.
Mitt Romney LIED under oath when he testified in the divorce of his good friend and screwed the friend's wife out of a lot of money in the process ... so claims the ex-wife of Staples' founder Tom Stemberg.

Multiple sources connected with the divorce tell TMZ ... during Tom's uber nasty divorce case with ex-wife Maureen, Mitt Romney gave a deposition and testified during the trial that Staples was worth virtually nothing. Romney testified that the company was worth very little and Tom was a dreamer and "the dream continues."

Romney characterized the Staples stock as "overvalued," adding, "I didn't place a great deal of credibility in the forecast of the company's future."

Partly as a result of Romney's testimony, Maureen got relatively little in the divorce

   4619. zonk Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:19 PM (#4281912)
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


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.
   4620. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4281916)
Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock on Wednesday insisted his comments about rape and pregnancy were being willfully misinterpreted for political gain even as President Obama’s campaign sought to ensnare Mitt Romney in the growing controversy.

“If there was any interpretation other than what I intended, I really regret that,” Mourdock said in an midday press conference in the Hoosier State. He added: “Anyone who goes to the video tape and views that understands fully what I meant.”

Mourdock’s explanation will likely do little to quiet the national firestorm created by his initial comments at a debate Tuesday night; “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen,” he said. (The full video of Mourdock’s comments is at the bottom of this post.)

In fact, even before Mourdock sought to clarify his comments, President Obama’s campaign was working to hang those remarks around Romney’s ankles.

“This is a reminder that a Republican Congress working with a Republican president Mitt Romney would (feel) that women should not be able to make choices about their own health care,” Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Wednesday morning. To further drive that point home, the Democratic National Committee released a web video splicing Mourdock’s rape comments with Romney’s full-throated endorsement of him.

Romney, sensing danger to his growing momentum and to his attempts to court suburban women, sought to quickly distance himself from Mourdock’s comments.

“Governor Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock’s comments, and they do not reflect his views,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a statement Tuesday night. But on Wednesday, Saul said that Romney would not rescind his endorsement of Mourdock or ask that the recent endorsement ad he cut for the Indiana Republican be removed from the airwaves.

“Richard and I, along with millions of Americans – including even (Mourdock’s Democratic opponent) Joe Donnelly – believe that life is a gift from God,” Cornyn said. “To try and construe his words as anything other than a restatement of that belief is irresponsible and ridiculous.”....

Romney — and Republicans more broadly — have worked hard in recent weeks to push back against Democratic allegations that they are waging a “war on women” because of the policies they pursue. The Mourdock controversy is likely to re-ignite that debate just 13 days before the election.
   4621. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4281920)
Your friend's viewpoint is pretty much the same as what I said a few hundred posts ago. Romney was either going to tank in the polls or rise after the first debate and what would happen had little to do with Obama sleeping or not.

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.
   4622. The Good Face Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:32 PM (#4281923)
In employment at will states employers now have to deal with "protected classes"...
maternity leave, etc.


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.

   4623. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:33 PM (#4281925)
Mourdock’s explanation will likely do little to quiet the national firestorm created by his initial comments at a debate Tuesday night; “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen,” he said. (The full video of Mourdock’s comments is at the bottom of this post.)


Obvious follow-up: are there situations where it is god's will for a man to be raped by another man?
   4624. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:33 PM (#4281926)
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.


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.
   4625. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4281928)
Obvious follow-up: are there situations where it is god's will for a man to be raped by another man?

Obvious answer: God rightly punishes those who don't wear the latest fashion in chastity belts.
   4626. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:40 PM (#4281930)
Mitt Romney LIED under oath when he testified in the divorce of his good friend and screwed the friend's wife out of a lot of money in the process ... so claims the ex-wife of Staples' founder Tom Stemberg.


Shame on these hussies for impinging on Romney's religious freedom.
   4627. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:42 PM (#4281933)
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...

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?"
   4628. DA Baracus Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4281935)
Ohio early voting update

The poll makes clear that there are really two races underway in Ohio. On one hand, the two candidates are locked in a dead heat among Ohioans who have not yet voted but who say they intend to, with 45% of respondents supporting the President and 45% preferring his Republican challenger.

But Obama has clearly received a boost from Ohio’s early voting period, which began on Oct. 2 and runs through November 5. Among respondents who say they have already voted, Obama holds a two-to-one lead over Romney, 60% to 30%.

When those two groups are combined, the TIME poll reveals, Obama leads by five points overall in Ohio.
   4629. Tripon Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4281936)
In employment at will states employers now have to deal with "protected classes"...
maternity leave, etc.


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.


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?

   4630. bunyon Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4281939)
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.
   4631. Steve Treder Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4281940)
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.

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.
   4632. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:52 PM (#4281942)
From 538

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.
   4633. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4281943)
I don't think Romney is "coasting" nor do I think that was Obama's strategy. Romney moved to the center in an attempt to gain undecideds, independents, and dissatisfied moderate democrats. That isn't coasting by any stretch of the imagination. Obama was a running a no mistakes campaign that was/is focused on GOTV. His strategy was to not bleed votes by trying to create a new narrative for the election campaign.
   4634. Ron J2 Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4281944)
Obvious follow-up: are there situations where it is god's will for a man to be raped by another man?


Only if it results in a pregnancy.
   4635. Steve Treder Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4281950)
Romney moved to the center in an attempt to gain undecideds, independents, and dissatisfied moderate democrats. That isn't coasting by any stretch of the imagination.

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.
   4636. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 24, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4281951)
But Obama has clearly received a boost from Ohio’s early voting period, which began on Oct. 2 and runs through November 5. Among respondents who say they have already voted, Obama holds a two-to-one lead over Romney, 60% to 30%.

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.
   4637. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 24, 2012 at 06:04 PM (#4281958)
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.
   4638. BDC Posted: October 24, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4281962)
Mourdock's position is not really like Akin's, though. Akin is monumentally benighted about biology, if he in fact believes what he says. Mourdock isn't, and in that sense he makes a fault line in the anti-choice position very clear. Lots of children are born out of sexual situations that degrade mothers terribly: prostitution, child and involuntarily arranged marriages, sexual trafficking, abusive relationships. Anti-choice politicians don't except these situations, but they have typically carved out the "rape and incest" exception. All Mourdock's really saying is that the Romney (standard) anti-choice position is fence-sitting. If you value the life of a child conceived out of other kinds of abuse (short of forcible rape), then why not the life of the child conceived in rape? It's hard to answer. And to go to the other side of the standard exception, why "life of the mother" but not "integral mental health of the mother?" "ability of the mother to keep above water financially?" "dignity and self-respect of the mother?" The mantra "rape, incest, life of the mother" is a temporizing attitude. It allows the holder not to seem like an out-and-out monster, but still to force childbearing on women who will be traumatized by it, and may have had little effective choice in whether to get pregnant in the first place.
   4639. Tripon Posted: October 24, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4281964)

The question is how employer/employee relations have moved to the left. Not whether it is good or bad.


It might be more progressive, but saying it's 'left' seems to be missing the point.
   4640. Steve Treder Posted: October 24, 2012 at 06:13 PM (#4281967)
# 4638: True, Mourdouck's position is intellectually and morally consistent, as the "rape and incest" exception is something of a cop-out. But by taking the consistent line to its ultimate, it makes plain an underlying disregard for the quality of the lives of women.

   4641. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: October 24, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4281969)
Last time I looked it up, union workers compromised 12% of the work force in the US.
   4642. spike Posted: October 24, 2012 at 06:19 PM (#4281972)
Not sure why that should concern the human rights types.

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.
   4643. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 06:21 PM (#4281973)
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.

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.
   4644. Steve Treder Posted: October 24, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4281986)
His strategy over the last two weeks has been to move towards the center and to pick up those votes in the middle.

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.
   4645. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:04 PM (#4281994)
There's the rub, though. Mitt Romney *has no core beliefs.*


Mitt Romney has one, and only one, core belief: That Mitt Romney should be the President.

Anything else is negotiable.
   4646. Lassus Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:10 PM (#4281998)
drunk driving... on a horse? Yes.

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.
   4647. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:12 PM (#4281999)
if you're riding a horse drunk where there are people?


Maybe you carjacked (rustled? kidnapped?) a police horse in the city?
   4648. Steve Treder Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:19 PM (#4282003)
Living in California, I've been protected from Presidential campaign ads. But right now I'm in Virginia on business, watching the news waiting for the ballgame ... good grief, the saturation of Romney and Obama ads here is just mind-numbing.
   4649. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:23 PM (#4282007)
Have you seen the one where the old man tells George Allen to invest his SS money how he wants but to live his (the old man) money alone?
   4650. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:34 PM (#4282014)
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.

"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.)
   4651. billyshears Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:35 PM (#4282015)
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.


"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.
   4652. Steve Treder Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:35 PM (#4282016)
Have you seen the one where the old man tells George Allen to invest his SS money how he wants but to live his (the old man) money alone?

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.
   4653. Jay Z Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:38 PM (#4282018)
I also wonder whether the multiple versions of Romney is at all disconcerting to those voting for him. I expect not.


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.
   4654. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:40 PM (#4282019)
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.

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.
   4655. Steve Treder Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:44 PM (#4282020)
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.

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?
   4656. Tripon Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:47 PM (#4282023)
Maybe Romney thought the debates as a whole put him in the lead. He's certainly acting like it did.
   4657. Steve Treder Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:48 PM (#4282024)
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.

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.
   4658. Steve Treder Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:50 PM (#4282026)
Maybe Romney thought the debates as a whole put him in the lead. He's certainly acting like it did.

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.)
   4659. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:54 PM (#4282031)

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.
   4660. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:56 PM (#4282036)
I'm not sure how what I said isn't the same thing, besides the spelling mistakes.


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.
   4661. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:57 PM (#4282038)
Again, there just wasn't much Romney could have done differently after the first debate. You can't keep changing your strategy and message or you'll get labeled a flip-flopper and you might even scare off your base. His only real option is to keep trying to appeal to the middle and grab as many undecideds as he can while stealing some moderates as well.
   4662. Steve Treder Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:58 PM (#4282039)
So when he says that Allen can invest his own money on Wall St he's talking about Allen's SS money.

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?
   4663. Steve Treder Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:59 PM (#4282041)
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.

That's how I heard it.
   4664. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 07:59 PM (#4282042)
Maybe Romney thought the debates as a whole put him in the lead. He's certainly acting like it did.


Fake it 'til you make it.
   4665. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 24, 2012 at 08:01 PM (#4282044)
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?

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.
   4666. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 08:01 PM (#4282047)
So why say leave "my SS alone"? The narrator talks about how he worked hard all his life and that he earned his SS and that Allen by wanting to privatize SS is putting his money at risk. He then says if he wants to risk his own money he can but leave his alone. Again, how can Allen risk his own money and give the narrator what he wants. If Allen gets to invest his money how he wants then that means Allen gets to invest the money that was originally earmarked for SS payments how he wants instead of handing it over to SS.
   4667. Steve Treder Posted: October 24, 2012 at 08:02 PM (#4282048)
You can't keep changing your strategy and message or you'll get labeled a flip-flopper and you might even scare off your base.

Wasn't that already done and done?
   4668. Steve Treder Posted: October 24, 2012 at 08:03 PM (#4282051)
Well, Romney is doing better once you get outside the Obama echo chamber.

Silver's model doesn't see it that way.
   4669. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 08:04 PM (#4282053)
I get the distinct feeling, based on what the campaigns are doing, that they both may think Romney is ahead

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.
   4670. Steve Treder Posted: October 24, 2012 at 08:04 PM (#4282054)
If Allen gets to invest his money how he wants then that means Allen gets to invest the money that was originally earmarked for SS payments how he wants instead of handing it over to SS.

Well, all I can say is, I didn't hear that.
   4671. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 24, 2012 at 08:07 PM (#4282056)
But right now I'm in Virginia on business, watching the news waiting for the ballgame ... good grief, the saturation of Romney and Obama ads here is just mind-numbing.

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.
   4672. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 08:08 PM (#4282057)
Wasn't that already done and done?

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.
   4673. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 24, 2012 at 08:09 PM (#4282058)
Nate Silver from today:

"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."
   4674. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 08:09 PM (#4282060)
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.

My only opinion on those is that LaVarr Arrington has gotten fat in his retirement.
   4675. Steve Treder Posted: October 24, 2012 at 08:10 PM (#4282061)
You should also be getting ads for and against the expansion of casino gambling in Maryland.

Haven't seen any of those. Have seen several thousand regarding Allen v. Kaine.
   4676. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 08:11 PM (#4282065)
re 4673

That's just Nate covering his butt for when his liberal media biased keester is exposed as a fraud on election night.
   4677. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 24, 2012 at 09:53 PM (#4282283)
"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.

What about that Colorado model that has had Romney winning all along?
   4678. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:30 PM (#4282431)
Johnny Colorado?
   4679. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:33 PM (#4282436)
   4680. Tripon Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:35 PM (#4282440)
Election is in two weeks. Can we let people vote and not worry about the polls? No? Well, ####.
   4681. bunyon Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4282455)
4680: Yes. The map is not the territory. All the models have some wisdom but are incomplete. Basically, it's really close. Who the #### knows?
   4682. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4282459)
Well, you have to give the authors of that Colorado model credit for sticking their necks out, but you might note two things. First, they don't have any track record in predicting. It's entirely projected hindsight. And second, it's a purely economic model.

Not saying that they might not prove right, but their model doesn't take in nearly as many factors as Nate's.
   4683. Tilden Katz Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:53 PM (#4282523)
That model has Romney winning New Mexico, a state that Obama has led in every poll and neither party is contesting. But somehow has Obama still winning Nevada.
   4684. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: October 24, 2012 at 10:59 PM (#4282542)
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.


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?
   4685. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:01 PM (#4282547)
And second, it's a purely economic model.

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%.
   4686. Tilden Katz Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:07 PM (#4282570)
Add Minnesota to New Mexico as uncontested states that the model has Romney winning. Republicans have not won there since 1972.
   4687. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:08 PM (#4282577)
which suggests that model might be on to something.

Which states does the study say Obama will win?
   4688. Tripon Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:09 PM (#4282583)
The states that love the crackers talking jive?
   4689. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:10 PM (#4282590)
What about that Colorado model that has had Romney winning all along?


Is that the one which claims to have predicted every election correctly sine the Civil War, despite having been created this year?
   4690. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:12 PM (#4282595)
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?


Is this a trick question? The answer is obviously "yes."
   4691. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:15 PM (#4282603)
Is that the one which claims to have predicted every election correctly sine the Civil War, despite having been created this year?

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.
   4692. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:17 PM (#4282610)
What about that Colorado model that has had Romney winning all along?


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?
   4693. Tripon Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:18 PM (#4282615)

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.


...That's not how statistical models work?
   4694. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:21 PM (#4282623)
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.

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.
   4695. Misirlou has S.C.M.O.D.S Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:22 PM (#4282628)
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.


Because Nate has actually predicted something?

   4696. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:25 PM (#4282636)
Joe Kehoskie


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?
   4697. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:30 PM (#4282655)
...That's not how statistical models work?

There are no retrospective statistical models? Aren't claims of global warming based in large part on backward-looking statistical modeling?

***
Because Nate has actually predicted something?

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.
   4698. Tilden Katz Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:31 PM (#4282660)
Nate's model predicted 49 of 50 states correctly in 2008, with the one he missed being a very narrow Obama win in Indiana. The Colorado model has yet to predict anything, and has made predictions in several states that are way out there. If the Colorado model proves to be accurate, they will get the kind of attention Nate got after 2008.
   4699. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:36 PM (#4282676)
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.

Well, that's the whole point -- it's a different theory of predicting election outcomes.
   4700. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 24, 2012 at 11:40 PM (#4282686)
Nate's model predicted 49 of 50 states correctly in 2008, with the one he missed being a very narrow Obama win in Indiana. The Colorado model has yet to predict anything, and has made predictions in several states that are way out there. If the Colorado model proves to be accurate, they will get the kind of attention Nate got after 2008.

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.
Page 47 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 4 OMNICHATTER
(849 - 12:47am, Oct 26)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3811 - 12:24am, Oct 26)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(478 - 12:14am, Oct 26)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(88 - 11:32pm, Oct 25)
Last: Walt Davis

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(521 - 10:56pm, Oct 25)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogDave Dombrowski: Injury worse than expected, Miguel Cabrera 'is as tough as you can possibly be' | MLive.com
(30 - 10:52pm, Oct 25)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogPhils' philospophy beginning to evolve | phillies.com
(14 - 9:05pm, Oct 25)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(396 - 8:40pm, Oct 25)
Last: Tom Cervo, backup catcher

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prospect Deven Marrero enjoying turnaround in Arizona Fall League | MiLB.com
(14 - 7:58pm, Oct 25)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogYost's managerial decisions make for extra-entertaining World Series | FOX Sports
(16 - 7:30pm, Oct 25)
Last: BDC

NewsblogGambling Bochy creature of habit when it comes to pitchers | CSN Bay Area
(5 - 6:56pm, Oct 25)
Last: Bug Selig

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Ballot
(8 - 6:29pm, Oct 25)
Last: Chris Fluit

NewsblogMLB - Royals' Ned Yost keeps managing to win - ESPN
(12 - 6:15pm, Oct 25)
Last: Cat8

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(872 - 6:02pm, Oct 25)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(20 - 4:40pm, Oct 25)
Last: Baldrick

Page rendered in 0.9040 seconds
52 querie(s) executed