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 9 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >  Last ›
   801. booond Posted: October 05, 2012 at 10:07 AM (#4254975)
Another Republican rooting against America.
   802. spike Posted: October 05, 2012 at 10:11 AM (#4254979)
I doubt it'll affect the race

I am quite sure it will - I am pretty sure Nate's forecast model weights economic events like this pretty heavily, and for good reason.
   803. McCoy Posted: October 05, 2012 at 10:19 AM (#4254984)
I am quite sure it will

I'm more on the doubt it will side. At this point the only economic numbers that are really going to move the needle are really good or really bad numbers. These economic numbers don't change the narrative of the election.

So I guess it will affect the race in that the numbers won't tank the election for Obama nor sweep him into office.
   804. GregD Posted: October 05, 2012 at 10:19 AM (#4254985)
This late in the game? I thought the consensus was that economic numbers matter a lot in the spring and summer but tail off toward the end?
   805. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 05, 2012 at 10:21 AM (#4254989)
I am pretty sure Nate's forecast model weights economic events like this pretty heavily


I believe the impact of economic events decreases as we get closer to the election though (allowing the polls to predominate). So I think it will have impact (on Nate's analysis), but I am not sure how much.

I think the election is back to 65/35 (from worse), because the Romney campaign has shown a sign of competence and has a bit more "juice" and enthusiasm now. The debate will likely delay the flight of money down ballot.

So yeah - Cokes as needed.
   806. Kiko Sakata Posted: October 05, 2012 at 10:24 AM (#4254993)
I am quite sure it will - I am pretty sure Nate's forecast model weights economic events like this pretty heavily, and for good reason.


I have no doubt that the actual state of the economy affects the race a lot (although, I also have no doubt that GregD is right in #798 that Presidents get far more blame/credit for the unemployment rate than they deserve). But - somewhat in response to the link in #800 - I've always wondered how much effect the actual literal announcement that the unemployment is 7.8% matters. I always assumed that people judged the economy based on the personal economic situation of themselves and their acquaintances, so that (a) the effect of lower unemployment in September is already baked into the numbers (and, indeed, September was a very good month of polling for President Obama), and (b) there's very little to be gained by "cooking the books" because if the government says there are fewer unemployed people, but everybody you know who's out of work is still having trouble finding a job, who are you going to believe, the reality in which you live or government numbers?
   807. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 05, 2012 at 10:25 AM (#4254995)
This late in the game? I thought the consensus was that economic numbers matter a lot in the spring and summer but tail off toward the end?

Correct. And BTW Nate's take on the debate is that it's likely to shift the polls towards Romney, but we won't know just how much for at least another 2 or 3 days, when the first tracking polls begin to show up with interviews conducted only after the debate. The "Who won the debate?" insta-polls have mixed results as to how much they matter, as anyone can see by comparing the past post-debate insta-polls with the next series of actual election polls.
   808. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 05, 2012 at 10:31 AM (#4254998)
As an aside the poll truther stuff is really funny. How stupid would you have to be to try and cook those numbers? I know let's involve a bunch of staffers in cooking a statistic that has limited election consequences. If we don't get caught we help gain a news cycle, if we do get caught we lose the election. Great trade off.

I can't think of any campaign less likely to do this. They rarely base strategy around changing the news cycle, they are really boring when it comes to scandals, and they are winning right now.
   809. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 10:34 AM (#4255003)
This late in the game? I thought the consensus was that economic numbers matter a lot in the spring and summer but tail off toward the end?

Yup. Late good news didn't help Bush 1.
   810. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 05, 2012 at 10:37 AM (#4255008)
Yup. Late good news didn't help Bush 1.


Liberal media bias, I'm sure. Actually, I'm pretty sure Bush 1 won that election, but the media just refused to report it.
   811. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 05, 2012 at 10:37 AM (#4255011)
The top-line number today probably affects the race not at all. The revisions of the past year of job growth, though, suggest that Obama's position was stronger all along than we thought it was.
   812. Lassus Posted: October 05, 2012 at 10:58 AM (#4255033)
I think "probably" carries a lot more weight in what is perceived as a close election.
   813. The District Attorney Posted: October 05, 2012 at 11:04 AM (#4255044)
The revisions of the past year of job growth, though, suggest that Obama's position was stronger all along than we thought it was.
Does this matter if no one knew it? :)
   814. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 05, 2012 at 11:07 AM (#4255050)
- I've always wondered how much effect the actual literal announcement that the unemployment is 7.8% matters.


very little I assume

if more people individually think their prospects have improved compared to ahow many people, individually, think their prospects have declined, then sure, it'll help the incumbent and vice-versa

but if the rate is dropping because

a: the decline is caused by more people retiring/giving up looking for work than actual new jobs, a unemployment rate number saying unemployment is down isn't going to help;

b: if the decline is "real," but based upon correcting past jobs numbers (meaning the reported rate in prior months was probably too high) then it's probably already baked into the polling;

c: someone's cooking the books (I know I know, but the righty-verse is all atwitter over this)

With regard to timing, the rightsphere is going nuts- but

1: It was scheduled to come out now, it would have been trickery to move the date
2: The predictions ahead of time have often been wrong, earlier this year there were expectations that it was going down and instead it went up by a point.
   815. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 05, 2012 at 11:15 AM (#4255056)
And all of THAT said, I am persuaded by the argument (made, e.g., by Rick Santorum) that once you can marry a person of the same sex, you can marry five people, you can marry your sister, you can marry your grandmother, you can marry your dog, you can marry your couch. Because once gay marriage is permitted, you have redefined the word out of existence. To deny that is really silly.

It's not silly. Santorum's nonsense is silly.

Here's how you break the "slippery slope": "Marriage is between two human beings."

Next.

Once you break through the "man and woman" definition, then pretty much anything goes. It has to, logically. Because there is nowhere to draw the line after that. If we've redefined marriage once, why shouldn't we do it again and again? How can I sit here and tell five people they can't marry, or a brother and a sister they can't marry, once I've supported same-sex marriage? What is the argument?

This is preposterously silly. The laws against bigamy and incest weren't enacted because marriage was limited to two people of different sexes and aren't in any way logically dependent on marriage being between two people of different sexes.
   816. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 05, 2012 at 11:17 AM (#4255059)
With regard to timing, the rightsphere is going nuts- but

1: It was scheduled to come out now, it would have been trickery to move the date


But the calendar is just part of the plot!
   817. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 05, 2012 at 11:25 AM (#4255067)
This is preposterously silly.


It's not silly, it's stupid. Silly and stupid can be related of course, but not the same thing.
   818. Shredder Posted: October 05, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4255069)
Does this matter if no one knew it? :)
It does if people felt it. To take a hypothetical, if the economy is strong, a bunch of economists and news sources saying it isn't strong doesn't make it not strong. If 200,000 jobs were created in a give month, then an estimate that 100,000 jobs were created doesn't mean those other 100,000 people aren't employed. Right now, the estimates are the best things we have to relay what we think the facts are, but the actual facts themselves don't change, even if the estimates are wrong.
   819. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 05, 2012 at 11:35 AM (#4255073)
the actual facts themselves don't change, even if the estimates are wrong.


Do the actual jobs drive things or is it the second hand job figures? I suspect it is a combination of both. People with jobs or out of work have friends and such and so there is an accumulation of knowledge about the job market. Then the report comes out and either provides support for what you are seeing, or tells you it is not as bad as you think.
   820. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 05, 2012 at 11:35 AM (#4255075)
FWIW Rasmussen's latest 3-day tracking poll is unchanged from the past few days, with Obama still at +2. Of course only a third of those responses would have been from polling conducted after the debate, so we'd really have to wait until Sunday to see any real trends.
   821. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 11:40 AM (#4255079)
Here's how you break the "slippery slope": "Marriage is between two human beings."


That's not breaking the slippery slope; it's just redrawing the line based on whim.
   822. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 11:44 AM (#4255085)
Re: [814], Andrew Leonard over at Salon:


In a remarkable development sure to give the debate-debacle battered Obama campaign a big morale boost, the government reported that the unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent in September– its lowest mark since January 2009. The government also reported that the economy added 114,000 jobs, and revised the jobs numbers for July and August upwards.

The 114,000 number nailed the pre-report economist consensus, and normally, would not be considered enough to justify such a sharp drop in the unemployment rate. In some quarters, the news was immediately greeted with suspicion. Former GE CEO Jack Welch for example immediately tweeted: “Unbelievable jobs numbers… these Chicago guys will do anything…can’t debate so change numbers.”

But the mystery clears up when you look closer. The monthly government labor report is actually based on two separate surveys — the household survey, which generates the unemployment rate, and the establishment survey, which generates the gross jobs totals. In the past few years, sharp drops in the unemployment rate have often been explained by household survey numbers reporting that that Americans have simply given up looking for jobs, thus shrinking the overall size of the labor force. That’s generally not a sign of a healthy economy.


This time around, however, because the household survey indicated that total employment rose by a whopping 873,000 in September. The employment to population ratio jumped by 0.4 percentage points — which might not sound like much, but in an economy the size of the U.S. is actually massive — and hugely encouraging.

...

Average hours worked per week and hourly wages also both rose — two other important indicators of a healthier labor market.

   823. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 05, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4255087)
That's not breaking the slippery slope; it's just redrawing the line based on whim.

It's an iron bulwark terminating the slippery slope and it doesn't really even redraw the line. Marriage was between two human beings both before and after. The state's interaction with marriage requires no change, and is not changed an iota, because the two people marrying can be of the same-sex.
   824. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 11:46 AM (#4255089)
Ah, it's good to hear from Scott Brown's favorite Supreme:


Antonin Scalia isn’t sweating it. At a book reading and lecture at Washington, D.C.’s American Enterprise Institute this week, the 76-year-old Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and self-described “textualist” entertained the crowd by rattling off a litany of his top judicial no-brainers.

“The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion,” he said. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”
   825. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 05, 2012 at 11:48 AM (#4255090)
Anyway... I did an informal poll of the Republicans in my office -all 5 of them :-)

They all but one watched the debate, they were all extremely pleased that Romney beat Obama

.... and they all admitted that Romney "lied through his teeth"

and they are Republicans.
(the funny thing was- they didn't have any strong recollection of Obama's performance- they were focused on Mitt- not one said Obama seemed confused- which is what a lot of liberals are saying...
   826. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 05, 2012 at 11:50 AM (#4255092)
I have never understood the attraction of most "slippery slope" arguments. It is very (small c) Conservative in that it claims at its base that a change (pretty much any change) can lead and in fact will lead to other related changes in a never ending cycle - extrapolate to the end and look how terrible it is.

The whole thing is so fallacious. Change happens all the time. It is part of life. We must (and do) evaluate every change independently (but in context). And then decide what to do. Bleating about every change leading to people marrying their vibrator (or whatever) is odd, but I guess emotionally fulfilling for some.
   827. booond Posted: October 05, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4255097)
I'm a recruiter. There is a sharp contrast to what our work load was like last year. I'm drowning in jobs, and my hires are at a record high...


This is a quote from a friend of a friend on Facebook as we were discussing the new jobs report.
   828. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:00 PM (#4255100)
Too much of the decline in the unemployment rate came from lower workforce participation to really make it good news for Obama. If labor force participation had held steady since January (when it was 8.3%), the jobless rate would be 8.4 percent. If the job participation rate were the same as when Obama took office, the rate would be 10.7%. Still, he's better off than if there'd been an increase in the basic unemployment rate.
   829. McCoy Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4255101)
I was walking around the Dupont Circle area yesterday and saw a help wanted sign in probably every third restaurant window.

At some point next year there should also be a sizable uptick in service jobs as various hotels get ready to come online in DC.
   830. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:02 PM (#4255103)
UE under 8% is a good talking point for Team O that should help a bit. +114,000 jobs is a total nothing number that won't have an effect either way.

But the TIMING of this good news might be significant here. If it steps on Romney's convention bounce by diverting the narrative, then it's a big win for the President. The report already wiped out Romney's debate bounce on intrade.

We'll just have to see.
   831. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:02 PM (#4255104)
It's an iron bulwark terminating the slippery slope and it doesn't really even redraw the line. Marriage was between two human beings both before and after. The state's interaction with marriage requires no change, and is not changed an iota, because the two people marrying can be of the same-sex.


Marriage used to be between a man and a woman. If it no longer means that, then we go down the slippery slope where any "bulwark termination" of the slippery slope is based on fancy.
   832. McCoy Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:03 PM (#4255106)
Forget it, he's rolling.
   833. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:04 PM (#4255107)
I have never understood the attraction of most "slippery slope" arguments.


Not shocking. Like Andy, you are guided by whimsy rather than principles. So any slippery-slope arguments go over your head.
   834. Kiko Sakata Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:07 PM (#4255111)
If the job participation rate were the same as when Obama took office


The job participation rate was never going to be as high as when Obama took office, regardless of what the economy was doing, because of retiring Baby Boomers. The company that does macro-economic forecasts that I use in my work (IHS Global Insight) has been predicting (for years) that private employment as a percentage of the population isn't going to pass where it was in early 2009 for at least the next ten years (if ever), not because the economy is stagnant (they predict a (somewhat slow) long-run downward trend in the unemployment rate), but just because of the demographics.

Edit to add: "Too much of the decline in the unemployment rate came from lower workforce participation to really make it good news for Obama." Talking about September specifically, relative to August, none of the decline in the unemployment rate came from lower workforce participation. As noted above, the labor force participation rate increased from August to September.
   835. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:09 PM (#4255114)
Marriage used to be between a man and a woman.
Marriage used to be an economic-political arrangement in which the right to control a woman's economic activity (as well as many other forms of activity) was transferred from her father to her husband, or perhaps transferred from the woman to her husband.

The shift in marriage under which women still retained their full economic and political rights after becoming married was a far, far larger change in the evolution of marriage than the removal of sex discrimination.
   836. Answer Guy Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:20 PM (#4255120)
Marriage used to be between a man and a woman. If it no longer means that, then we go down the slippery slope where any "bulwark termination" of the slippery slope is based on fancy.


The difference between "one male human" and "one female human" is simply not greater than the difference between "one male human" and "non-human animal," or the difference between "male human" and "plural number of humans."
   837. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:20 PM (#4255121)
Marriage used to be between a man and a woman. If it no longer means that, then we go down the slippery slope where any "bulwark termination" of the slippery slope is based on fancy.
Ray's right. It is for exactly this reason that all these years after blacks and women gained the right to vote, today we're in the ridiculous situation of couches and dogs having the right to vote, and people are agitating that potted plants be enfranchised as well.
   838. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:21 PM (#4255122)
Like Andy


Look out Andy, I have joined you in the inner circle of 'scorned by Ray'. Might I dream to bump you out and be the barometer? I fear not. Alas.

But seriously though Ray, are you "All in" on your comment or not? Do you Own it?
   839. Eddo Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4255123)
Marriage used to be between a man and a woman. If it no longer means that, then we go down the slippery slope where any "bulwark termination" of the slippery slope is based on fancy.

So why didn't marriage between men and women lead down the slippery slope towards incest (between male and female relatives), polygamy (between one man and multiple women), and beastiality (between a male human and a female goat)? I fail to see why same-sex marriage is the type of marriage that opens the door to the others.

EDIT: Cokes to Answer Guy and Benji Gil Gamesh Rises.
   840. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4255124)
I have never understood the attraction of most "slippery slope" arguments.
Law works based on precedent. When you create, e.g., an exception to the first amendment, then the very existence of that exception is used as a justification for further exceptions. (Look at how many people mindlessly, without understanding the quote, say, "Well, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, so..." Or, "Well, you agree we can ban ownership of nuclear weapons, right? So therefore we can ban hunting rifles.")
   841. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:22 PM (#4255125)
Marriage used to be between a man and a woman.


Factually incorrect. You're just wrapping up your psychological discomfort with homosexuality in a silly internet argument sock. Stop being stupid.
   842. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:23 PM (#4255127)
A word once changed its meaning. Now all words are constantly changing their meaning and chaos reigns. When will it plourg?
   843. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:23 PM (#4255129)
Marriage used to be between a man and a woman. If it no longer means that, then we go down the slippery slope where any "bulwark termination" of the slippery slope is based on fancy.


Since you are still peddling the "slippery slope" stuff, I'll you ask the same question I did last night that you might have missed/ignored bfore:

What is it about "marriage [is] between a man and a woman" that stops a brother and a sister from marrying, but when switched to "marriage is between two people" suddenly opens up a "slippery slope" to allowing a brother and a sister to marry?

Explain that to me, since you believe that slippery-slope arguments go over people's heads.

Edit: It seems I have to get some change for the pop machine to get more Cokes to hand out.
   844. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4255130)
Marriage used to be an economic-political arrangement in which the right to control a woman's economic activity (as well as many other forms of activity) was transferred from her father to her husband, or perhaps transferred from the woman to her husband.


Hell, the early Catholic church performed marriage rights on same sex couples - usually men in the clergy or Crusaders heading off to war - when they were deemed to be properly bonded by love.

History is not what the simpletons want it to be.
   845. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:31 PM (#4255136)
Like Andy


Look out Andy, I have joined you in the inner circle of 'scorned by Ray'. Might I dream to bump you out and be the barometer? I fear not. Alas.

If I had one of Romney's Cayman Islands accountants, I could probably figure out a way to claim Ray as a dependent on my income tax return. With luck, maybe you can, too.
   846. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:40 PM (#4255148)
Law works based on precedent. When you create, e.g., an exception to the first amendment, then the very existence of that exception is used as a justification for further exceptions. (Look at how many people mindlessly, without understanding the quote, say, "Well, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, so..." Or, "Well, you agree we can ban ownership of nuclear weapons, right? So therefore we can ban hunting rifles.")


I think you misunderstand those debates. The fact that private citizens cannot own nuclear weapons proves that the Second Amendment is not absolute. But of course it's not absolute, like most things in human life, it's context-dependent. That doesn't mean that we can, or should, ban hunting rifles, but it does mean that it is a legitimate object of debate. Having a debate doesn't mean we slide down the slippery slope to tyranny. Debate is good.
   847. GregD Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:40 PM (#4255149)
Most modern societies emerged from cultures that practiced polygamy. The religions most Americans follow have a root in a society that talked open, in its holy books, about polygamy. Forget about gotcha games against Mitt Romney, I don't see how any person who takes the Old Testament seriously can say that traditional marriage has always been between one man and one woman.
   848. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:44 PM (#4255153)
Marriage used to be between a man and a woman. If it no longer means that, then we go down the slippery slope where any "bulwark termination" of the slippery slope is based on fancy.

A slippery slope presupposes a slope. The change in marriage doesn't even create a slope. There are plenty of androgynous names out there. Let's take "Pat." Where, at any stage of the lead-up to the marriage or administration/courts/bureaucracy after the marriage does it matter -- does, for example, any bureaucrat, court clerk, or judge have to even know -- whether "Pat Jones" on a marriage certificate is male or female? Are there literally any?
   849. booond Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:46 PM (#4255156)
We need to do a better job teaching science.

Yes, he and Todd Akin are on the Science Committee.
   850. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:46 PM (#4255160)
We need to do a better job teaching science.

Yes, he and Todd Akin are on the Science Committee.
Oh, deer!
   851. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4255166)
A slippery slope presupposes a slope.


There is a slope. And when you go from "a man and a woman" to "two human beings," you've started down that slope.
   852. Lassus Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4255169)
There is a slope. And when you go from "a man and a woman" to "two human beings," you've started down that slope.

Ray, those robot jokes? They go here.
   853. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:52 PM (#4255171)
There is a slope. And when you go from "a man and a woman" to "two human beings," you've started down that slope.

No, you don't. There's no slope. I've explained why.

   854. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:52 PM (#4255172)

What is it about "marriage [is] between a man and a woman" that stops a brother and a sister from marrying,


In ancient Egypt, brothers and sisters married frequently, particularly among the upper classes.
   855. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4255174)
Marriage used to be between a man and a woman.


And before that, it was between a man and several women.
   856. GregD Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4255175)
egad
   857. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:54 PM (#4255177)
We need to do a better job teaching science.

Yes, he and Todd Akin are on the Science Committee.


To be fair, conservatives only hate science because they hate America.
   858. formerly dp Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4255179)
There is a slope. And when you go from "a man and a woman" to "two human beings," you've started down that slope.


Why are you starting from this arbitrary point of "a man and a woman"? For someone who ####### about pulling endpoints out of the air at random, you seem to have no problem doing that on this subject. Your ignorance on the history of marriage has been exposed, and when presented with new evidence that has to modify your thesis, you just ignore it.

Or are you just hoping that someday it'll be legal for people to marry androids?
   859. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:58 PM (#4255183)
"There is a slope."

Racist.
   860. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 05, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4255185)
Guys, it's perfectly simple. Ray is concerned about the meaning of the word "marriage". Keeping that meaning from changing is more important than anything, even letting gay people have the same rights as straight people. If a gay man is dying in a hospital, it's all right with Ray if his monogamous partner isn't allowed to see him on his deathbed as long as the meaning of a word never changes.

You have to have priorities.
   861. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4255187)
Or are you just hoping that someday it'll be legal for people to marry androids?


Either that, or this is a Lars and the Real Girl sorta situation ...
   862. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4255188)
Guys, it's perfectly simple. Ray is concerned about the meaning of the word "marriage". Keeping that meaning from changing is more important than anything, even letting gay people have the same rights as straight people.


Liar. I've said repeatedly that I'm fine with changing it. Specifically because it makes the people who want to marry each other happy. That's been at the core of my position.
   863. McCoy Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4255189)
Shouldn't Ray have to change his name? Or is he a flatfish with winglike pectoral fins or a beam of light? Wait, that is more than one definition. Oh dear.
   864. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:12 PM (#4255194)
This space intentionally left blank.
   865. Lassus Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:13 PM (#4255195)
The "Ray Marriage" thread is played out.

I'm more anticipating Joe's reaction to the employment numbers. I'm going with a.) False and b.) Not good enough.
   866. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:17 PM (#4255196)
I see that Ray still won't explain how changing from "man and woman" to "two people" somehow allows brother/sister marriages, even though he insists it creates a slippery slope towards that.
   867. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4255202)
"Analysis" of a jobs report that STARTS with how it affects the President's re-election chances... just makes me want to punch somebody.
   868. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:21 PM (#4255203)

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - The Turkish military returned fire after a mortar bomb fired from Syria landed in countryside in southern Turkey, the state-run Anatolian news agency reported the governor of Hatay province as saying on Friday.

Turkish artillery bombarded Syrian military targets on Wednesday and Thursday in response to shelling by Syrian forces that killed five Turkish civilians further east along the border.


Well, that's not good.
   869. booond Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4255208)
"Analysis" of a jobs report that STARTS with how it affects the President's re-election chances... just makes me want to punch somebody.


Seek help.
   870. Tilden Katz Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4255210)
We need to do a better job teaching science.


That guy is a doctor and doesn't believe in embryology. And of course the guy who came up what would be later known as the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest. Though calling the Roman Catholic Church an instrument of Satan is nothing new for people of Broun's ilk.
   871. spike Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4255215)
ahem.

"However, the FiveThirtyEight economic index, which accounts for the payrolls numbers along with six other economic data series, would project a narrow re-election for Mr. Obama by about 3 percentage points — similar to Mr. Bush’s margin over John Kerry in 2004. Especially with the Friday jobs report, the economic numbers now seem just strong enough to make the incumbent a favorite for re-election, based on the way the public has evaluated their presidents historically."
   872. GregD Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4255216)
That guy is a doctor and doesn't believe in embryology. And of course the guy who came up what would be later known as the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest. Though calling the Roman Catholic Church an instrument of Satan is nothing new for people of Broun's ilk.
Yes the problem can't be solved through Whiggish faith in more teaching. He has a BA in Chemistry and an MD. He was exposed to science; he just rejected it. It's alluring but I think unlikely that more or better education would have worked better. He didn't arrive at this position because of a lack of exposure; he arrived at it because he was immersed in a powerful anti-science subculture.

It'd be nice to say it proves we need to elect sane people. But it's a democracy, and I don't especially doubt that he represents his constituents' views, at least many of them. Certainly he would represent many of the people who live in the area where I grew up, in a different part of the South. Democracy isn't well equipped to deliver congressmen who are better than their constituents.

How to change the constituents? I don't know. Increased exposure to evolution increased the backlash against evolution in the South in the mid-century.
   873. spike Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4255217)
Cokes.
   874. McCoy Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4255221)
ahem.

I'm not sure what the "ahem" is supposed to mean. The job report didn't change the trajectory of the election. The numbers heading into the job report seemed to be just strong enough for Obama to win and after the job report the numbers seem just strong enough for an Obama election.
   875. booond Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4255225)
The job report didn't change the trajectory of the election.


Shouldn't we wait for actual numbers or can Nate call this from his mom's basement? I hope for the latter. Actually, I hope Nate's out of his mom's basement.
   876. spike Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4255230)
The job report didn't change the trajectory of the election.

I am not going down the rabbit hole of picayune deconstruction any further, but my contention was that it would "impact the race" - being a vital part of the trajectory staying in the same direction would seem to meet that - and and that they are incorporated in the forecast model.

In any event, I'll be happy to concede the point. It's meaningless.
   877. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4255231)
Liar. I've said repeatedly that I'm fine with changing it.


I only dip into these threads occasionally and was reacting to your posts on this page. I cheerfully retract my snark.
   878. Steve Treder Posted: October 05, 2012 at 01:54 PM (#4255232)
Actually, I hope Nate's out of his mom's basement.

He's been making rather frequent appearances on radio and TV lately. No offense to our good friend Nate, but he comes across far better on the radio than on TV.
   879. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4255238)
That's not breaking the slippery slope; it's just redrawing the line based on whim.


Once again, since Ray seemed to ignore it. Marriage is a contract. You of all people should know that you cannot contract with a minor, and animal, or an inanimate object. Ergo, one cannot legally or logically marry those entities.

You, and to a lesser extent, David, are only taking this ridiculous approach because you are being Ray. You know that as a good libertarian you should, and probably do support gay marriage. But since it is an issue that is supported by liberals, it makes you feel icky. Thus, in order to feel better, you need to fling some mud back. David did a similar thing in the last thread WRT abortion
   880. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:07 PM (#4255242)
I only dip into these threads occasionally and was reacting to your posts on this page. I cheerfully retract my snark.


We really should start an OTP drinking game where everyone has to take a shot when Ray calls someone a liar.
   881. JL Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4255246)
Once again, since Ray seemed to ignore it. Marriage is a contract. You of all people should know that you cannot contract with a minor, and animal, or an inanimate object. Ergo, one cannot legally or logically marry those entities.

Well, there used to be a time when a married woman could not enter into a contract on her own. We removed that and look where things have gone since.
   882. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:13 PM (#4255248)
So the unemployment rate is back to what it was the month Obama took office.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Cue Joe telling you that the real rate is much higher than that (without making the corresponding adjustment for past numbers of course).

If you need me to tell you that, you're in big trouble.

We already knew this administration is absolutely shameless, but today is further proof. How in the hell could a measly 114,000 jobs translate into a 0.3-point drop in the unemployment rate when 114,000 jobs doesn't even cover population growth? The only way these numbers work is if an additional ~750,000 people stopped looking for work since last month. It's nuts. Anyone who believes these numbers is an economic illiterate.
   883. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:13 PM (#4255249)
whim/(h)wim/
Noun:
A sudden desire or change of mind, esp. one that is unusual or unexplained.

Synonyms:
caprice - fancy - vagary - whimsy - quirk - fad


How legalizing Gay Marriage is somehow now a whim, flies in the face of what the word actually means.

In other Gay News, the Boy Scouts (the organization not all the individuals) continue to be truly horrible on their treatment of Gays.

I will happily continue to not support them in every way possible.

EDIT: Them = Boy Scouts Organization above. I happily support many GLBTQ folk.
   884. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4255251)
We already knew this administration is absolutely shameless, but today is further proof.


Does this make you a truther on the subject?

I have not dug into the numbers, but I suspect the big adjustment on the small growth has a fair bit to do with the fact that previous months were adjusted upwards (part of the conspiracy no doubt).
   885. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4255253)
Especially with the Friday jobs report, the economic numbers now seem just strong enough to make the incumbent a favorite for re-election, based on the way the public has evaluated their presidents historically."

Anyone who believes Nate is a down-the-middle observer need only read this piece of fiction and they'll get a rude awakening. A stats expert would laugh at today's jobs report, not blindly accept it as a valid data point in furtherance of his model's election prediction. If he'll take 2+2=5 and plug it into his model, his model is a sham.
   886. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:23 PM (#4255257)
I have not dug into the numbers, but I suspect the big adjustment on the small growth has a fair bit to do with the fact that previous months were adjusted upwards (part of the conspiracy no doubt).

The last two months were adjusted upward by a total of 86,000 jobs, which isn't enough to cover a 0.1-point drop, let alone a 0.3-point drop.
   887. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:24 PM (#4255260)
One more post before I head out camping (brrr) and so will be gone until Sunday.

Looking at how the states might vote in November, there is no scenario in which Mitt Romney benefits from the inclusion of noncitizens in the Electoral College calculation, but there are several in which Obama could gain three to five Electoral College votes, thus deciding a close election.


Really cool article on the impact of non-citizens on the electoral college and how it benefits Obama.
   888. booond Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4255266)
Ezra Klein article on the math

800,000 more people said they had jobs. Over 500,000 of these are part-time jobs which seems to happen every September.
   889. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4255269)
Romney campaign spox ducking the truthers' argument.

Really puts Mitt in a bind. Either he has to say: 1. the employment picture is improving; or, 2. the BLS is crooked.
   890. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:37 PM (#4255272)
Does this make you a truther on the subject?


Joe, I assume? Of course he is.
   891. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4255274)
In other Gay News, the Boy Scouts (the organization not all the individuals) continue to be truly horrible on their treatment of Gays.


But that's okay, because they continue to make up for it by sexually assaulting young boys and covering up for it later.
   892. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4255275)
Ezra Klein article on the math

Ezra Klein is a dope. The BLS numbers are seasonally adjusted. Without explicitly saying so, he's stripping out the seasonal adjustment and then explaining the mathematically impossible 0.3-point drop by theorizing re: seasonal hiring. Anything for Team Obama, I guess.
   893. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:43 PM (#4255276)
Just so I understand this correctly:

When the numbers are bad for Obama/Democrats, then it's perfectly legit and should be trumpeted repeatedly so everyone knows about them.

When the numbers are good for Obama/Democrats, then it's definitely fraudulent and should be ignored and scorned as a conspiracy theory.

This is the same thing that happens with the CBO, right?
   894. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:44 PM (#4255278)
Anything for Team Obama, I guess.

The most dangerous thing in the world is a little knowledge.
   895. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:44 PM (#4255279)
Joe, I assume? Of course he is.


Of course
JoeK says that the Polls are wrong (he ducks whether or not they are being deliberately skewed)
If he'll take 2+2=5 and plug it into his model, his model is a sham.


JoeK JoeK JoeK
you demonstrated with your impressive display of mathematical incompetence earlier in this thread that you are the ONLY one here who could ever be fooled into plugging 2+2=5 into any model.
   896. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:47 PM (#4255283)
Just so I understand this correctly:

When the numbers are bad for Obama/Democrats, then it's perfectly legit and should be trumpeted repeatedly so everyone knows about them.

When the numbers are good for Obama/Democrats, then it's definitely fraudulent and should be ignored and scorned as a conspiracy theory.


Now you get it.

JoeK used to be a high level troll, but now he's slipping, you'd think after Romney's debate performance he'd be less frantic about disputing/spinning EVERYTHING, but I guess that's not in his nature.

   897. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:47 PM (#4255285)
"Analysis" of a jobs report that STARTS with how it affects the President's re-election chances... just makes me want to punch somebody.

Seek help.

Got it! Sort of!
Second paragraph from the link you just posted: "Let’s take a deep breath. Jobs reports are about the economy, not about the election. Confusing the two leads to very bad analysis." So at least Ezra Klein's with me.

EDIT: I have no idea whether Klein's analysis is accurate, but I'm glad to see somebody talking about a jobs report as though it were a jobs report.
   898. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:49 PM (#4255287)
I'm finally starting to see some lawn signs and such, even some bumper stickers, but none for Obama or Romney though- from that perspective this is the lowest key election season I can ever remember seeing.
   899. booond Posted: October 05, 2012 at 02:51 PM (#4255291)
I was talking about punching someone.
   900. JL Posted: October 05, 2012 at 03:00 PM (#4255300)
I'm finally starting to see some lawn signs and such, even some bumper stickers, but none for Obama or Romney though- from that perspective this is the lowest key election season I can ever remember seeing.


A neighbor down the street has a yard sign for Obama, while two signs taped to the door and window are for Romney, including one that says Women for Romney. I laugh (as does my wife), because if it had been that way in my house, my candidate would have been the harder to see sign in the window, while my wife would have made sure her sign was in the yard where everyone could see it.
Page 9 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
aleskel
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogJosh Lueke Is A Rapist, You Say? Keep Saying It.
(215 - 6:26am, Apr 24)
Last: Ben Broussard Ramjet

NewsblogKeri: Slump City: Why Does the 2014 MLB Season Suddenly Feel Like 1968?
(17 - 6:01am, Apr 24)
Last: RMc's desperate, often sordid world

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(2398 - 5:14am, Apr 24)
Last: BrianBrianson

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(188 - 4:32am, Apr 24)
Last: SouthSideRyan

NewsblogDoyel: How was Gerrit Cole not suspended? He basically started the brawl
(28 - 2:44am, Apr 24)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogMichael Pineda ejected from Red Sox game after pine tar discovered on neck
(32 - 1:56am, Apr 24)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogJonah Keri Extended Interview | Video | Late Night with Seth Meyers | NBC
(8 - 1:54am, Apr 24)
Last: Jim (jimmuscomp)

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(226 - 1:39am, Apr 24)
Last: Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad!

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for 4/23/2014
(179 - 1:34am, Apr 24)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogColiseum Authority accuses Athletics of not paying rent
(12 - 1:12am, Apr 24)
Last: greenback likes millwall, they don't care

NewsblogMorosi: Diamondbacks' growing gloom might mean doom for manager or GM
(12 - 1:11am, Apr 24)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-23-2014
(14 - 12:44am, Apr 24)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(498 - 12:39am, Apr 24)
Last: NJ in DC (Now unemployed!)

Newsblog4 balls, you’re out!
(57 - 11:31pm, Apr 23)
Last: Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere

NewsblogESPN: W. P. Kinsella: Where It Began: “Shoeless Joe”
(98 - 10:45pm, Apr 23)
Last: OsunaSakata

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.0021 seconds
52 querie(s) executed