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

Saturday, February 01, 2014

OTP - Feb 2014: Politics remains a hurdle for immigration reform

Yet Obama might find his best-chance legislative compromise in an issue that lately has seemed to be on life support: an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws.

Curiously, immigration was an issue the president barely mentioned in this year’s speech. Maybe he does not want to interfere with those Republicans who actually agree with him on the need to bring the nation’s millions of undocumented workers out of the shadows.

Bitter Mouse Posted: February 01, 2014 at 04:01 PM | 3524 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 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 12 of 36 pages ‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >  Last ›
   1101. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:58 AM (#4655437)
You've never heard of a woman getting fat AFTER getting married and having some kids?


And as we know, men don't change physically as they age. Well, not men with "high sexual market value," at least. Not rock-built Adonis like gods such as The Good Face, certainly.

Keep talking, Sparky. You're doing your opponents work for them.
   1102. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 11:59 AM (#4655440)
Or is that also part of SMV? Is it like Fight Club? You can only have positive SMV if you don't talk about your SMV?


I'm pretty sure you can only have SMV if TGF signs your letter of acceptance to the secret handshake club, although I think there's probably a rider that lets you in if Sugarbear gets a chubby while shaking your hand.
   1103. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 12:02 PM (#4655442)
And as we know, men don't change physically as they age.

Hey, I'm the same weight now as I was when I was 20 y.o.

That's the advantage of being a fat bastard when you're young. You don't deteriorate nearly as much.
   1104. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2014 at 12:08 PM (#4655447)
I can't believe I actually thought Good Face couldn't top the Cathedral narrative.

Well, he is a genius.

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

You've never heard of a woman getting fat AFTER getting married and having some kids? Plenty of guys married an attractive woman only to see her gain 100lbs and grow a mustache after a decade of marriage/kids. That can suck for the guy, but isn't necessarily a reflection on his SMV at the time he got married.

Of course true geniuses would run an illustrated background check on any prospective mate.** And naturally they'd also insist upon some sort of a pre-nup that allows for weight gain to be grounds for annulment----at least if they were geniuses.

**("Say, do you have any photos of your mother and grandmothers when they were in their 40's and 50's? Just curious, but both sides of the family, if you don't mind.")
   1105. zonk Posted: February 12, 2014 at 12:14 PM (#4655453)
("Say, do you have any photos of your mother and grandmothers when they were in their 40's and 50's? Just curious, but both sides of the family, if you don't mind.")


I don't know why, but my mind immediately went to an old Seinfeld episode where George queries his mom about family bosom history...
   1106. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 12:18 PM (#4655459)
Hey, I'm the same weight now as I was when I was 20 y.o.


Tell me about your back?
   1107. Lassus Posted: February 12, 2014 at 12:23 PM (#4655462)
I can honestly say that if I had started to go bald in my 30s like my brother or stepbrother (or even now, really), that would have been severely depressing to me, personally. I hit some random genetic lottery there.

And I definitely cast a withering, vain eye in mirrors regarding my weight, mostly as I'm 44 now and was a rail for many many years, and am no longer.
   1108. The Good Face Posted: February 12, 2014 at 12:26 PM (#4655466)
And as we know, men don't change physically as they age.


Course they do. But men aren't as reliant on their looks for their SMV as women are, so even if a guy falls apart physically, he can still score really good looking women if he has other things going for him. Never heard of a trophy wife? You think Jack Nicholson keeps dating his way through a neverending set of models because of his sculpted physique?

Well, not men with "high sexual market value," at least. Not rock-built Adonis like gods such as The Good Face, certainly.


I credit it to my clean livin' and moral upstandingness.
   1109. BDC Posted: February 12, 2014 at 12:29 PM (#4655469)
I'ma start referring to my 1999 Honda Civic as my "SMV."

   1110. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 12:31 PM (#4655471)
You think Jack Nicholson keeps dating his way through a neverending set of models because of his sculpted physique?


You think this is a relevant point. That's why you're hilarious. Not in a laughing-with-you sort of way, of course.
   1111. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 12, 2014 at 12:35 PM (#4655473)
Hey, I'm the same weight now as I was when I was 20 y.o.


I am pretty close. I have been the same weight since my mid thirties. I have been extending my workouts the last few months, in hopes of holding back father time and maybe even improving my disc golf game this summer. Plus 45 minutes of workouts mean I can watch a TV show on my phone, which is more enjoyable than just music (and my work out suffers when I read).

But I am odd in that I really like working out. I like sweating, and the endorphins and the increased appetite and better sleep that comes from it. All that is worth the investment in time for me.

Of course the part that I find really off putting about the GF theory, is it starts and stops with physical attractiveness (and some other shallow markers). The depth of his criteria are paper thin. And he seems to project his own shallowness on the rest of the world. Sure some people are also that shallow, but everyone certainly is not.

I certainly look (hello, still alive here), but I am not truly attracted to a woman until I know her, her intelligence, personality and so on. He keeps using the Kate Upton and Rosie O'Donnell comparison, but since I don't know either I can't really evaluate how attracted I am (would be) to them. If they were equally mentally and emotionally attractive to me I guess Kate would be preferable, but she is young enough and the cultural gap is large enough, even then I might not prefer her. To look at, then yes, shockingly Kate Upton is preferable.

However as my brother put it many years ago, no matter how good looking they are and how hard you try to avoid it, at some point you are going to have to talk to them. Have something to say, and choose someone who also has something to day.
   1112. The Good Face Posted: February 12, 2014 at 12:40 PM (#4655474)
You think this is a relevant point. That's why you're hilarious. Not in a laughing-with-you sort of way, of course.


I must be pretty funny, because this line of conversation has certainly made you hysterical. For a guy who pretends to be a hard materialist nihilist, it sure is easy to give you a case of the vapors by pointing out the ways reality doesn't conform to your fantasies. Poseurs gonna pose I suppose.
   1113. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 12:46 PM (#4655480)
Tell me about your back?

My back's been shot since I broke my ankle when I was 12. Drs. told me I'd nee to do 40 minutes of exercises a day to strengthen my muscles and make my back feel better. I'm not in pain 40 minutes a day, so I said eff it. I'm very good at living with pain. 7 surgeries in 5 years will do that to you.
   1114. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 12:48 PM (#4655481)
I can honestly say that if I had started to go bald in my 30s like my brother or stepbrother (or even now, really), that would have been severely depressing to me, personally. I hit some random genetic lottery there.


Same here (minus the brother & stepbrother part, inapplicable in my case). I was talking about that yesterday at lunch with a co-worker, as it happens, recalling a kid one grade behind me in high school who was visibly balding by the time he was 15 or so. Good lord.

And I definitely cast a withering, vain eye in mirrors regarding my weight, mostly as I'm 44 now and was a rail for many many years, and am no longer.


I remember the trauma of hitting 200, back in the '90s when I was around 35. My god, I've averaged about 5 additional lbs. every year since then. *sigh*
   1115. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:00 PM (#4655495)
For a guy who pretends to be a hard materialist nihilist, it sure is easy to give you a case of the vapors by pointing out the ways reality doesn't conform to your fantasies.


All I've done is mock you for attempting to impose your personal bias onto the world as some sort of natural law. As any good materialist nihilist will explain to you, there is no such thing as natural law. It's just little boys making up reasons to project their penis envy back at the world.
   1116. steagles Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:09 PM (#4655503)
I don't believe even Davis has denied the accuracy of the Dallas Morning News story, although like Zonk she seems to think she's being treated unfairly by being called on the discrepancies. I don't think most folks will agree with that, and she has compounded her problems by playing the victim card, accusing the campaign of her opponent, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, of planting the story (newspaper denies it) and then committing a Biden-level gaffe by saying Abbott "hadn't walked a mile in my shoes". Abbott is a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair.
does anyone else have visions of the big lebowski when reading this?
   1117. BDC Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:11 PM (#4655505)
Nature exists, but the projection of theories about nature onto human social arrangements is usually fraught with all kinds of just-so-stories, wishful thinking, and special pleading. For instance (to go back to one of the incitements for this subthread) polygyny is indeed a theoretically advantageous situation for males, in any species. But actual mating arrangements play out very diversely among primates. And when you get to humans, there is the problem of conscious manipulation of society. Patriarchal societies are sometimes also pastoral. Men who have figured out the advantages to artificially selecting livestock by breeding one sire to many dams then figure they'll consciously replicate that in their own families. It all looks so natural and unconscious, the gaggles of choosy women homing in on the desirable seed of the high-SMV male, but in reality there's a lot of overt coercion by men who spend a lot of time and cultural energy on making that coercion seem natural.
   1118. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4655508)
("Say, do you have any photos of your mother and grandmothers when they were in their 40's and 50's? Just curious, but both sides of the family, if you don't mind.")

I don't know why, but my mind immediately went to an old Seinfeld episode where George queries his mom about family bosom history...


Funny, because as soon as I wrote that comment I also thought of that same scene. I can just picture GoodFace or SugarBear in a stylish new Mansiere.
   1119. formerly dp Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:13 PM (#4655509)
As any good materialist nihilist will explain to you, there is no such thing as natural law.
If we're spectruming here, SMV and IQ seem way closer to the idealists than the materialists.

BDC, very well-said in #1117.
   1120. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:15 PM (#4655511)
You think Jack Nicholson keeps dating his way through a neverending set of models because of his sculpted physique?

I've always thought it was because of his Lakers' courtside tickets.
   1121. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:16 PM (#4655512)
If we're spectruming here, SMV and IQ seem way closer to the idealists than the materialists.


Yes. That's why I mock him. He has this self-image that is contradictory to his actual stated beliefs.
   1122. Delorians Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:17 PM (#4655514)
My cousin and I have a common (maternal) grandfather who went bald really early. Both of our fathers are about 70 and have a full head of hair, and both of our other grandfathers lived past 90 without going bald. We are now around 40, he is almost completely bald and my hairline hasn't even started receding. I'm not very vain about most things, but I don't think I'd handle going bald very well. But there is a lot of luck involved.
   1123. spike Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:22 PM (#4655522)
Looks like this page doesn't have any polling yet - better fix that

Clinton Breaks 50% against GOP Rivals for 2016

Clinton — 52% — leads Paul Ryan — 44% — by 8 percentage points. Four percent are undecided.

Clinton — 53% — is also ahead of Romney — 44% — by single digits. Three percent are undecided.

Against Mike Huckabee, Clinton opens up a double-digit lead. Here, 55% of voters are for Clinton compared with 41% for Huckabee. Four percent are undecided.

Clinton — 56% — has a seventeen percentage point advantage over Ted Cruz — 39%. Five percent are undecided.

Clinton also outpaces Jeb Bush by 20 percentage points. 58% of voters nationally support Clinton compared with 38% for Bush. Four percent are undecided.

When matched against Rand Paul, Clinton leads by 20 percentage points. A majority — 58% — supports Clinton compared with 38% for Paul. Four percent are undecided.

Against Chris Christie, Clinton — 58% — outdistances Christie — 37% — by 21 percentage points. Six percent are undecided.

Nearly six in ten voters — 58% — support Clinton compared with 37% for Marco Rubio. Four percent are undecided.

Against Sarah Palin, Clinton receives 62% to 35% for Palin. Three percent are undecided.

   1124. zonk Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:25 PM (#4655526)

I certainly look (hello, still alive here), but I am not truly attracted to a woman until I know her, her intelligence, personality and so on. He keeps using the Kate Upton and Rosie O'Donnell comparison, but since I don't know either I can't really evaluate how attracted I am (would be) to them. If they were equally mentally and emotionally attractive to me I guess Kate would be preferable, but she is young enough and the cultural gap is large enough, even then I might not prefer her. To look at, then yes, shockingly Kate Upton is preferable.


I don't think one has to deny physical attractiveness to reject something like SMV... The objection is, I think, formulated around presenting it as an outsized factor, presenting it as an absolute, objective quality so easily defined... and if I'm understanding it all correctly - disparities in gender reactions to such a concept.

I mean, surfing for porn -- I doubt anyone just travels linearly through results lists or clicks every pic or video on a page in order... or so I would imagine, not having any experience in that myself :-)

There's certainly raw lust and libido that follows baser rules... but I would just say the overwhelming majority of human beings - across gender lines - move beyond that in choosing even a potential partner for anything more than a one night stand.



   1125. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:25 PM (#4655527)
Against Sarah Palin, Clinton receives 62% to 35% for Palin. Three percent are undecided.


Who is 'undecided' in that matchup?
   1126. The Good Face Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:27 PM (#4655530)
If we're spectruming here, SMV and IQ seem way closer to the idealists than the materialists.


Yeah, that's pretty much exactly backwards. SMV and IQ have explanatory (and predictive power) for describing natural phenomenon. Sam has wishful thinking that doesn't hold up in the actual (material) world.

Yes. That's why I mock him. He has this self-image that is contradictory to his actual stated beliefs.


Start from a false premise and wind up with a false conclusion.
   1127. GregD Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:29 PM (#4655534)
Who is 'undecided' in that matchup?
The people who can't decide which one of them is the representative of the lizard overlords
   1128. OCF Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:31 PM (#4655539)
An interesting number-wonkish post on political geography: cities/exurbs.

What it's got is a map showing all the counties of the U.S. ranked by net change from 1988 to 2012 in D-R presidential vote margin (in total votes, not percentages).

The biggest Democratic gains are in urban counties, with Los Angeles County being the biggest of all. The biggest Republican gains are in exurbs, not suburbs - places like Montgomery County, TX (Conroe, etc.). Suburbs, as distinguished from exurbs, have trended D if they've trended at all. (I'm thinking of things like the non-Chicago parts of Cook County.)

I checked the counties of my youth and my wife's youth. Washington County, OK: while it's broadly within the urban influence of Tulsa, it's never been exurbs; it's a free-standing place. It was Republican way back when statewide Oklahoma was Dixie-Democrat. And it was a place that valued education. Well, all of us educated children of the place don't live there now, and it's a little more R than ever, with a net change of about 2,500. Comal County, TX: when my wife grew up there, it was the center of German Texas. It's grown rapidly, and that rapid growth is as a San Antonio exurb. And it's gone hard R over that span by about 20,000 votes.

California is interesting in that it mostly doesn't really have exurbs, at least not like those Texas cases. Lack of flat land in the right places has something to do with that. And take a look at Orange County: suburb, not exurb. The first thing that anyone things of when they think of Republicans in California. Still votes R, for now. But in 24 years, the R-D margin has swung by about 250,000 towards D, the 11th largest such change in the country. It's not going to take much longer to swing the county into the D column. (The fact that Orange County was only about 61% non-Hispanic white in 2010 has something to do with that.)
   1129. Morty Causa Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:39 PM (#4655547)
Nature exists, but the projection of theories about nature onto human social arrangements is usually fraught with all kinds of just-so-stories, wishful thinking, and special pleading.

Nice post, but it's mostly interesting for what it fatally leaves out. It's got the fact that many of us, at different times in different instances, erroneously (ridiculously erroneously sometimes) extrapolate the effects of nature, but it nevertheless passes over the fact that there has to be a relationship between nature and human relationships. And thus with social arrangements. If not, then what? Error and misuse does not invalidate the overarching principle that conscious manipulation of social institutions still has its matrix in the foregoing biological antecedents. You can't get around that except by reverting to the mystical, to some sort of religious view. You can get what causes what wrong, but something in nature has to have given rise to those social manifestations. As Daniel Dennett says In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, it may be hard to see what crane, or complex of cranes, is doing what, but a reversion to believing in skyhooks is not a satisfying answer. It never has been, and it never will be.

The problem with the rest of the post is that there seems to be an underlying given that at any time in any circumstances women are too stupid to know better--don't they know that they can be just like men? How does the nature of Women play into all that?
   1130. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:39 PM (#4655548)
That map is what I'd expect to see for metro Atlanta. The true metro counties are blueing up. The exurban counties are deep red and growing moreso.
   1131. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:41 PM (#4655549)
More polling updates, 2016 GOP Primaries:
Huckabee 15.0
Christie 13.3
Ryan 11.5
Bush 11.3
Paul 11.2
Rubio 9.2
Cruz 8.2
Walker 5.8
Jindal 3.7

Notes:
The most recent polls include Huckbee, he leads every poll he's included in.
Christie seems to have bottomed out/ ended his fall
Ryan and Bush seem to have been the most affected [negatively] by Hucks' inclusion in the polling
There seems to be slight positive movement for Rubio (and I'm seeing various blogs proclaim that Rubio is gonna be the "establishment's" choice...".
   1132. formerly dp Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:55 PM (#4655562)
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly backwards. SMV and IQ have explanatory (and predictive power) for describing natural phenomenon.
Edit:
   1133. BDC Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:57 PM (#4655564)
"Bush" in that poll is Jeb, right? In Texas we've already moved on to George P :)

   1134. zonk Posted: February 12, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4655565)
There seems to be slight positive movement for Rubio (and I'm seeing various blogs proclaim that Rubio is gonna be the "establishment's" choice...".


Heh, the GOP equivalent of "He did some crazy things, but didn't go crazy enough"...

I do continue to find Huckabee interesting -- and that's the thing, the evangelical vote is his... it's his lock, stock, and barrel if he runs.

Among all the other GOP contenders - he's the only one with a core constituency that simply cannot be won away from him... He can bless it to others, but they simply aren't going to desert him because he's the only guy that's gonna give them what he wants.

15% won't win him the nomination -- but that's a damn nice floor to have, especially when everyone else is fighting for overlapping constituencies.

Heck, one could even say from a GOP perspective that Huckabee's 'soft on immigration' and likewise, plenty of nods towards economic populism would be valuable qualities in a GE... You take your social lumps - but keep the socon base happy.
   1135. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:13 PM (#4655582)
Clinton Breaks 50% against GOP Rivals for 2016

Oh, God.
Please please please let the Dems come up with somebody - anybody - else.
I remember in the 90s talking to politically-minded friends about how the first female President (like the first black president) would have to be pretty conservative. I hated watching it happen with Obama, and I do not want four years of Hillary Clinton and Dems pretending that she simply MUST be more progressive than literally everything she says and does would suggest.

EDIT: actually, six years, because that crap will start during the campaign.
   1136. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:14 PM (#4655584)
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly backwards. SMV and IQ have explanatory (and predictive power) for describing natural phenomenon.


That's pretty much the idealism that informed the 'new psychology' of the late 19th century-- an idealism informed by (quasi) scientific observation that sought the same sort of universalizing categorizations for human behavior as the philosophical idealists had before them. The new psychologists assumed that the scientific instruments and methods they employed were neutral and passive conduits for natural human behaviors. But, like you, they were blind to the fact that those instruments and methods themselves brought with them biases that actively shaped their objects. You're embracing an idealism of science that makes you incapable of acknowledging its material origins.

I can just picture GoodFace scanning the latest issues of Playboy and Phrenology Today, as he goes out bar hopping equipped with his tape measure and scalpel. ("Hey, mister, keep your dirty paws off my forehead! What in the #### do you think you're doing?")
   1137. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4655588)
There seems to be slight positive movement for Rubio (and I'm seeing various blogs proclaim that Rubio is gonna be the "establishment's" choice...".


He would be the fourth consecutive President who has done drugs as a youth!
   1138. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:18 PM (#4655591)
You can get what causes what wrong, but something in nature has to have given rise to those social manifestations. As Daniel Dennett says In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, it may be hard to see what crane, or complex of cranes, is doing what, but a reversion to believing in skyhooks is not a satisfying answer.


There are no cranes. There are no skyhooks. There is no plan. Your mistake is in imagining a narrative arc to evolutionary history, as if it has a beginning, a middle and an end. It doesn't. It's just process without procedure. There is no end game.
   1139. formerly dp Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:20 PM (#4655592)
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly backwards. SMV and IQ have explanatory (and predictive power) for describing natural phenomenon.
Let's try this again, edit ate my edits: You're embracing IQ and SMV as ideals-- as abstractions that exist independent of the instruments you're using to measure them. Materialism acknowledges and confronts the specific origins and biases of rendering mechanisms. As long as you stop short of doing that, you're just embracing an idealism of a different kind.
   1140. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:21 PM (#4655593)
Please please please let the Dems come up with somebody - anybody - else.


The Dems can go with Clinton (if she wants it, obviously) and win, or they can go with someone off of their as-equally-thin-as-the-GOP's bench and hope demographics really is destiny.
   1141. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:23 PM (#4655595)
I don't think one has to deny physical attractiveness to reject something like SMV...


"Sexual market value" is the height of just-so, backwards from the end fact reasoning. It's just GF sitting up on his cockatoo perch proclaiming that he "knows it when he sees it."
   1142. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:26 PM (#4655598)
He would be the fourth consecutive President who has done drugs as a youth!


At this point I'm far more distrustful of anyone who never at least tried some drugs than I am of someone who used. The never user at this point is likely some narrow minded jack ass who believes that his personal POV applies universally.
   1143. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4655601)
The Dems can go with Clinton (if she wants it, obviously) and win, or they can go with someone off of their as-equally-thin-as-the-GOP's bench and hope demographics really is destiny.
Concur. But you know how you beef up the bench? By winning elections.
I do not want four years of Hillary Clinton and Dems pretending that she simply MUST be more progressive than literally everything she says and does would suggest.
I hate to disappoint you, but the Great Progressive Hope does not exist. At the moment, anyway. Ask again in 8 years.
   1144. steagles Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:28 PM (#4655602)
At this point I'm far more distrustful of anyone who never at least tried some drugs than I am of someone who used. The never user at this point is likely some narrow minded jack ass who believes that his personal POV applies universally.
based on the content and the tone of this post, i assume you've never used drugs?
   1145. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:32 PM (#4655610)
The Dems can go with Clinton (if she wants it, obviously) and win, or they can go with someone off of their as-equally-thin-as-the-GOP's bench and hope demographics really is destiny.


I think both benches have a level of quality that matches their respective parties (take that as you will). On the Democratic side a large percentage of the candidates are hanging out, rather than preening and burnishing their credentials, because the HRC freight train has not decided (publically) where it is going.

However, that caveat aside, winning is what I care about. Plus an HRC presidency has some real opportunities for humor value, so long as various conservatives don't have full on strokes.
   1146. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4655611)
Concur. But you know how you beef up the bench? By winning elections.


Unless your next in line wins elections out of sequence. The Dem playbook was "woman/Clinton; black guy/Obama; Latino/???" back in 2008. They can still play that as long as Clinton is in for a couple more cycles and history's claim. I figure she will be. She's done too much to just sit back and let a little age take her out of the game.

I hate to disappoint you, but the Great Progressive Hope does not exist. At the moment, anyway. Ask again in 8 years.


The libs are getting a little antsy and trying to jumpstart a slow process, IMHO. If they really want to lefty-up the nation they need to accept the slow incramentalism at play with Obama and Clinton. Maybe in 2024, assuming they win out 2016 and 2020, Elizabeth Warren's style of left leaning populism can carry a plurality of the national vote. Not in 2016.
   1147. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:36 PM (#4655615)
At this point I'm far more distrustful of anyone who never at least tried some drugs than I am of someone who used. The never user at this point is likely some narrow minded jack ass who believes that his personal POV applies universally.


Hi there. My name is Bitter Mouse and I have never used illegal drugs. I also drink maybe six drinks* in a year (last year was the drinkingest EVER, less than a dozen total drinks). I like to think I am not narrow minded or a jack ass, but YMMV. Drugs just don't appeal to me, but I have plenty of friends that use (and Barry Bonds is one of my favorite BBall players, so there is that).

* EDIT: Alcoholic, duh.
   1148. formerly dp Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:37 PM (#4655618)
My name is Bitter Mouse and I have never used illegal drugs.
Just added another to my 'ignore' list.
   1149. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:41 PM (#4655625)
based on the content and the tone of this post, i assume you've never used drugs?

Zing!

But no, I did try a couple times in school, and except for evolution v. creationism I don't actually believe that my personal POV applies universally. I may despise southern rednecks, but if somehow I magically became the world's overlord they could keep their guns and bizarro version of Christianity.
   1150. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4655626)
Just added another to my 'ignore' list.


Dude you want me as a friend, I don't hog the weed and I am gold as a designated driver.
   1151. Shredder Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4655627)
The most recent polls include Huckbee, he leads every poll he's included in.
Do convicted rapists who have their sentences effectively commuted and then go on to rape again (this time with extra murder!) get to vote? Because if so, that's a valuable constituency for Huckabee.
   1152. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4655630)
At this point I'm far more distrustful of anyone who never at least tried some drugs than I am of someone who used.


I would like to clarify this a bit- I'm distrustful of everyone, users, ex-users, tee-totallers, but the group I least trust (on any issue) are tee-totalling prohibitionists.
   1153. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4655631)
My name is Bitter Mouse and I have never used illegal drugs.


I've never smoked anything. I have a thing about my lungs. That is the extent of my sharing with regard to this topic on the internet.
   1154. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4655636)
The libs are getting a little antsy and trying to jumpstart a slow process, IMHO. If they really want to lefty-up the nation they need to accept the slow incramentalism at play with Obama and Clinton. Maybe in 2024, assuming they win out 2016 and 2020, Elizabeth Warren's style of left leaning populism can carry a plurality of the national vote. Not in 2016.


This. And if liberals ever want a chance at a progressive Congress/White House, they need to start doing better at the state level so they can set the voting and redistricting rules, and build up their bench. The best way to the WH, particularly when Washington is so toxic, is through Governor's mansions, and precious few Dems have been winning those seats.
   1155. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:50 PM (#4655640)
The never user at this point is likely some narrow minded jack ass who believes that his personal POV applies universally.


Gee, thanks. Here I thought I merely was exercising a form of personal judgment not to use (or even try) drugs which can from time to time cause harm to myself or others. It's not meant to be a personal statement against others.

note: I do drink alcohol, is that within your safe harbor exceptions?
   1156. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:53 PM (#4655644)
note: I do drink alcohol, is that within your safe harbor exceptions?


See 1152

   1157. formerly dp Posted: February 12, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4655646)
Dude you want me as a friend, I don't hog the weed and I am gold as a designated driver.
Damn, it is difficult to argue with that logic...
   1158. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:02 PM (#4655653)
This. And if liberals ever want a chance at a progressive Congress/White House, they need to start doing better at the state level so they can set the voting and redistricting rules, and build up their bench. The best way to the WH, particularly when Washington is so toxic, is through Governor's mansions, and precious few Dems have been winning those seats.

I guess one positive result of the Obama Era is that people are finally beginning to see clear distinctions between "Democrats" and "progressives" or "liberals."
(just as one clear negative is that Dems explicitly realize they don't have to do squat for progressives, because "What are they gonna do, vote for the (R) guy? LOL.")
   1159. BDC Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4655657)
The problem with a candidate of a current generation who's never tried drugs is largely one of plausibility. For both Bill C and George W, various denials and evasions just cemented the idea that they were hypocrites. Much, much better to follow the lead of Gore, Kerry or Obama and just say yes, making you seem like the vast majority of the electorate.
   1160. The Good Face Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4655661)
"Sexual market value" is the height of just-so, backwards from the end fact reasoning. It's just GF sitting up on his cockatoo perch proclaiming that he "knows it when he sees it."


I'm reasonably good at seeing it; just like the vast majority of other people. We're all (except for the willfully ideologically blinded) aware that some people are better at attracting members of the opposite sex than other people. And we're also generally aware of the qualities those people possess that make them better (or worse) at it. It's not necessarily a simple equation; almost all people are a mix of qualities that bring both positives and negatives to their SMV, and many of them can be changed by a given individual. Fat people can lose weight, poor people can become more successful, lousy dressers can improve their look, etc.

Why do advertisers directing their ads at men often use young, scantily clad women who look like Victoria's Secret models? If there's really no such thing as SMV, why not use women who look like Madeleine Albright? There are a lot more of them around, and it'd certainly be cheaper. I mean, if there's no difference, everybody should be equally attractive to one another on average, right? You already know the answer, but I'll give it to you anyway. Because reams of research shows that men, on average, prefer to look at (and imagine as sexual partners) women who look like Victoria's Secret models more than women who look like Madeleine Albright.
   1161. Jay Z Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4655663)
As far as women are concerned, the only thing I ever learned is that most guys just need to learn to choose among the limited list of women that will have them.

I have seen stats that 67% of relationships are started by women, and I do think the 8 second rule has validity. Women has historically always been more selective than men.

When I first met my wife, I immediately got the look or gaze from her that I passed the test for her. That's flattering for a guy, especially since we don't need to be as worried about the negative aspects as women do. Her initial interest encouraged my further pursuit of the relationship. I'll admit that I admired her as a person before I lusted or loved her, but since I was looking for a long term partner and mother of my children, the admiration mattered. The other feelings have come in due time, so now the whole package is there.

I'll also admit that I only ever flirted with women to the end of getting a relationship, and my short term hook-up skills are non-existent.
   1162. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4655668)
The problem I had with Rubio's weaselly explanation was this:
If I tell you that I did, then kids will look up to me and say, 'Well, I can smoke marijuana, because look how he made it.'
THAT'S AWFULLY OBTUSE, SENATOR!

Smoking pot does not lead to wasting away one's life through couch lock and daytime TV - and Rubio's career is yet another data point leading to that conclusion.
   1163. spike Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4655670)
They're already prosecuting a baker for failing to recognize gay marriage.

But wait - Tennessee lawmakers have sprung action to protect local cake-makers!

Sen Kelsey introduces "Turn Away The Gays" bill

The person or business would just have to say it was against their religion. For example, if a same-sex couple wanted a cake for their wedding reception, a bakery could refuse to cater to them.

Goddam American as apple pie right there.
   1164. Morty Causa Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:12 PM (#4655672)
Because reams of research shows that men, on average, prefer to look at (and imagine as sexual partners) women who look like Victoria's Secret models more than women who look like Madeleine Albright.

This should go without saying. Half the viewers of Fox News tune in just in case Megan Whatshername decides to cross her legs. When Palin was chosen as vice-presidential running mate, how many of your acquaintances commented on her looks. Tomorrow, a woman doctor can discover the cure for all cancers, and if she's nice-looking, most men will probably think, "I bet she has nice tits."
   1165. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:16 PM (#4655678)
Tomorrow, a woman doctor can discover the cure for all cancers, and if she's nice-looking, most men will probably think, "I bet she has nice tits."


Pics?????
   1166. BDC Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4655682)
if a same-sex couple wanted a cake for their wedding reception, a bakery could refuse to cater to them

What about a low-SMV couple?
   1167. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4655684)
But wait - Tennessee lawmakers have sprung action to protect local cake-makers!

Sen Kelsey introduces "Turn Away The Gays" bill

The person or business would just have to say it was against their religion. For example, if a same-sex couple wanted a cake for their wedding reception, a bakery could refuse to cater to them.



These kind of bills are all pretty much unconstitutional under Windsor right? Or did that only apply to Congressional actions?
   1168. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:21 PM (#4655688)
I also drink maybe six drinks* in a year (last year was the drinkingest EVER, less than a dozen total drinks).


You ####### lush. I don't think I've had a drink in a decade. (Not my choice as much as my digestive system's, of course.)
   1169. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:23 PM (#4655690)
Remember, it was the Tennessee legislature that killed a school vouchers bill in a panic when it was realized Islamic schools would qualify.
   1170. steagles Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:24 PM (#4655691)
i don't often drink alcohol, but when i do, i choose absinthe.
   1171. spike Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:24 PM (#4655692)
Icky people don't need to be thinking they can just walk in and buy stuff just any old place in Tennessee - a system of signs on water fountains, restrooms and the like will make everyone more comfortable.
   1172. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:26 PM (#4655693)
The person or business would just have to say it was against their religion. For example, if a same-sex couple wanted a cake for their wedding reception, a bakery could refuse to cater to them.

There is a case like this now before the Supreme Court, where a photo company (Nevada? Arizona? one of those) refused to be the official wedding photographer for a gay couple. The gay couple sued. This feels like one more great opportunity for Roberts & Co. to limit generations of Commerce Clause cases & legislation.

EDIT: it was in New Mexico.
   1173. Shredder Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4655696)
I've smoked pot a couple times, but I've been pretty drunk each time, so the effect was likely overshadowed by the alcohol. Aside from that, I've never even seen anything stronger in person, let alone sampled of it.
(last year was the drinkingest EVER, less than a dozen total drinks)
Yikes. I'm pretty sure I had a dozen drinks in the 24 hours between 2:00 pm Saturday and 2:00 pm Sunday.
   1174. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4655698)
A federal judge has ruled Kentucky has to recognize out-of-state gay marriages.
   1175. bunyon Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:39 PM (#4655716)
Against Sarah Palin, Clinton receives 62% to 35% for Palin. Three percent are undecided.



Who is 'undecided' in that matchup?


Bill.
   1176. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:40 PM (#4655718)
Yikes.


Well the alcohol bit has to do (somewhat) because of family history. Dad was an alcoholic (killed him). It also killed his father and all but one of his brothers. My step father was an alcoholic also. Doing the risk/reward, it just never made sense to me to go down that road.

The few times I have been tipsy (I have never been full on drunk) I talk fast, talk a bunch, and giggle. So it is best for everyone I keep laying off the booze.
   1177. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:46 PM (#4655728)
Women has historically always been more selective than men.


Not sure this is true, but I was taught in college that human males are pretty much the only mammalian males who show ANY selectivity whatsoever... sperm is cheap.
   1178. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:48 PM (#4655733)
So it is best for everyone I keep laying off the booze.


says you, seems like you have the ability of providing significant entertainment fodder for your friends and family if you got buzzed/tipsy every now and then.

   1179. Delorians Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:48 PM (#4655735)
Interesting map in 1128. I love those kinds of maps.
What is it about Pittsburgh that makes it the lone northeast city to trend redder in the last 24 years? With the exurbs/suburbs I understand that it's sort-of part of appalachia, but even Allegheny county is bright red.

Also, primey for 1175.
   1180. Tilden Katz Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:49 PM (#4655736)
There is a case like this now before the Supreme Court, where a photo company (Nevada? Arizona? one of those) refused to be the official wedding photographer for a gay couple. The gay couple sued. This feels like one more great opportunity for Roberts & Co. to limit generations of Commerce Clause cases & legislation.


I don't think that's correct. Sexual orientation is not a protected class under the CRA's public accommodation law, but New Mexico itself added those protections under its police power. The only way for the photo company to escape liability would be for it to argue its 1st Amendment freedom of religion to prohibit the law. The Commerce Clause won't even come into play.
   1181. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:50 PM (#4655737)
This should go without saying. Half the viewers of Fox News tune in just in case Megan Whatshername decides to cross her legs.


Which says nothing of sexual attractiveness as a natural law. The fact that Botticelli would be denigrated as a "chubby chaser" by the likes of TGF should clue you in to the less than universal nature of visions of beauty and aesthetic perfection.
   1182. spike Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4655739)
A federal judge has ruled Kentucky has to recognize out-of-state gay marriages.

And he referenced Scalia by name and his DOMA dissent in the opinion, LOL
   1183. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4655742)
These kind of bills are all pretty much unconstitutional under Windsor right? Or did that only apply to Congressional actions?


Current reading seems to be that if you're not a religious organization, you have no right to deny service on "religious grounds."
   1184. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 03:59 PM (#4655750)
On the Kansas bill that allows discrimination against gays.

“Discrimination is horrible. It’s hurtful … It has no place in civilized society, and that’s precisely why we’re moving this bill,” he said. “There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that.”


Think about the awful persecution these business owners must face. They must offer goods and services and receive money from gay people! Despite their religious beliefs! WE SHALL OVERCOME!

I wonder if these business owners also serve previously divorced couples? Muslim couples? Atheist couples?
   1185. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 12, 2014 at 04:10 PM (#4655764)
When Palin was chosen as vice-presidential running mate, how many of your acquaintances commented on her looks.


Many did, but there were largely 2 types of comments:

1: Hey she looks like Tina Fey
2: I don't get it what do the drooling wingnuts see in her?
   1186. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4655769)
I had two thoughts when they rolled Palin out nationwide. The first was "she's got some MILF to her." The second, to use Rust Cohle's phraseology, was “With all that dick swagger you can't spot crazy #####?”
   1187. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: February 12, 2014 at 04:21 PM (#4655771)
At this point I'm far more distrustful of anyone who never at least tried some drugs than I am of someone who used.

I was in college at the golden moment when one set of lemmings (AKA grownups) was telling us about how drugs would ruin your life, while at the same time another group of lemmings (most of my friends) was telling me Here Lieth The Way To Universal Salvation and other equally profound BS. The main difference was that it was a lot easier to avoid the hectoring of the former group than the tiresome proselytizing of the latter group, so I wound up just sticking to beer instead. And anyway, at that time in North Carolina, they only served beer in pool rooms.
   1188. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 12, 2014 at 04:25 PM (#4655775)
I was in college at the golden moment when one set of lemmings (AKA grownups) was telling us about how drugs would ruin your life, while at the same time another group of lemmings (most of my friends) was telling me Here Lieth The Way To Universal Salvation and other equally profound BS.


When I was in college your first group of lemmings was still around, your second group, the "lling us about how drugs would ruin your life, while at the same time another group of lemmings (most of my friends) was telling me Here Lieth The Way To Universal Salvation and other equally profound BS" was all but extinct- instead you had a large group of people who'd use occasionally, but who thought that both sets of lemmings were pretty damn silly.
   1189. Delorians Posted: February 12, 2014 at 04:41 PM (#4655790)
2: I don't get it what do the drooling wingnuts see in her?

Tina Fey as Sarah Palin was much more attractive than Sarah Palin, or for that matter, than Tina Fey.
   1190. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: February 12, 2014 at 04:42 PM (#4655791)
Yikes. I'm pretty sure I had a dozen drinks in the 24 hours between 2:00 pm Saturday and 2:00 pm Sunday.
Seconded. Especially if by "pretty sure" you mean "absolutely positive."
   1191. zonk Posted: February 12, 2014 at 05:04 PM (#4655816)
Yikes. I'm pretty sure I had a dozen drinks in the 24 hours between 2:00 pm Saturday and 2:00 pm Sunday.

Seconded. Especially if by "pretty sure" you mean "absolutely positive."


Thirded -- but especially if you mean "to the best of my recollection and next day calculations of bar tabs and dead soldiers on the kitchen table"
   1192. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: February 12, 2014 at 05:20 PM (#4655827)
but especially if you mean "to the best of my recollection and next day calculations of bar tabs and dead soldiers on the kitchen table"
...or the half-full fifth of bourbon that I'm rather certain I was chiefly responsible for.
   1193. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 05:35 PM (#4655835)
Sid Cesar is dead, he once fell into yellow.
   1194. Lassus Posted: February 12, 2014 at 05:58 PM (#4655855)
I think as a never-drinker never-smoker never-drug user, I would - or should - still fall out of Sycophant's area of suspicion.
   1195. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: February 12, 2014 at 06:04 PM (#4655858)
Sid Cesar and Shirley Temple walk into a bar. And die.
   1196. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 12, 2014 at 06:08 PM (#4655862)
Sid Cesar and Shirley Temple walk into a bar. And die.


You suck, McBain!
   1197. steagles Posted: February 12, 2014 at 06:13 PM (#4655865)
You suck, McBain!
that's the joke.
   1198. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: February 12, 2014 at 06:57 PM (#4655886)
Dude you want me as a friend, I don't hog the weed and I am gold as a designated driver.

But how are you as a wingman? Given your past taste in "women", can I expect you to take one for the team, if needed?
   1199. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 12, 2014 at 07:13 PM (#4655898)

Think about the awful persecution these business owners must face. They must offer goods and services and receive money from gay people! Despite their religious beliefs! WE SHALL OVERCOME!


"Choice doesn't matter if I think the choice forced upon them is a beneficial one!" is a complete bullshit argument. It reduces the rights of gay people to enter into consenting relationships from one of free choice to one dependent on whether 51% of people think that "allowing" them the choice is beneficial to them.

In fact, you essentially made an exact parallel to Phil Robertson's rant. He essentially said "boo hoo, these dudes would have to have sex with women. Vaginas are amazing. What a hardship. Whoop de doo." Maybe you and Phil can start the Stop Consenting Adults club. Then you can guys vote on which voluntary associations you feel consenting parties have the right to enter for the rest of society.

The right to choose to enter into a sexual relationship with a consenting party and the right choose to enter into a business relationship with a consenting party come from the identical place - personal freedom to interact with those you choose to. Those that arbitrarily want to stop the latter are in the same group of people to those that arbitrarily want to stop the former.
   1200. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 12, 2014 at 07:16 PM (#4655901)
Flip.
Page 12 of 36 pages ‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(141 - 9:56am, Oct 21)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(843 - 9:56am, Oct 21)
Last: The Good Face

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(275 - 9:56am, Oct 21)
Last: nick swisher hygiene

NewsblogCould the Yankees ever be Royals? Young and athletic K.C. is everything that Bombers are not - NY Daily News
(32 - 9:54am, Oct 21)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(72 - 9:54am, Oct 21)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2788 - 9:51am, Oct 21)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogCalcaterra: So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got?
(94 - 9:49am, Oct 21)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogRoyals’ James Shields passed kidney stone during ALCS but is ready for World Series | The Kansas City Star
(12 - 9:47am, Oct 21)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogHitting coaches blamed for lack of offense - Sports - The Boston Globe
(17 - 9:43am, Oct 21)
Last: AROM

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(36 - 9:35am, Oct 21)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-21-2014
(1 - 9:10am, Oct 21)
Last: Dan Lee is some pumkins

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(98 - 9:04am, Oct 21)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(16 - 5:43am, Oct 21)
Last: vivaelpujols

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8367 - 3:29am, Oct 21)
Last: Randomly Fluctuating Defensive Metric

NewsblogPitch from Zito helped sell Hudson on Giants | MLB.com
(6 - 9:15pm, Oct 20)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

Page rendered in 1.0602 seconds
53 querie(s) executed