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 7 of 36 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >  Last ›
   601. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: February 06, 2014 at 09:41 PM (#4652978)
flip.
   602. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 06, 2014 at 10:37 PM (#4652988)
GA and KY are in play for the Democrats as well at the moment.

Not in Clapper-land. In Clapper-land, all Dem in-play seats will fall and all GOP in-play seats will be held.

It's not impossible for the GOP to lose in Georgia or Kentucky, but it isn't the likely outcome. Georgia is a R+6 state and Kentucky is R+13. If Republicans lose either seat -- absent some very dramatic local issue -- they probably wouldn't be doing nearly as well as nation-wide as they currently hope/expect. Conversely, if the GOP were to pick up 6 or 7 Democratic seats in other states, the political environment generating such a significant gain would not likely be offset by Democrats winning in states as favorable to the GOP as Georgia & Kentucky. Thus, it doesn't seem likely that those two states will be the key to Senate control.
   603. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 06, 2014 at 11:04 PM (#4652991)
So Oregon may be in play, even though its a fairly Dem state because of allegations a Republican is bringing against a third party about a website - an issue that most voters probably won't care about, but Kentucky is probably not in play, even though its sitting Republican Senator has extremely low approval ratings and is the face of what's wrong with Washington.

Okay.
   604. zonk Posted: February 06, 2014 at 11:07 PM (#4652993)
Ahhh...

So now I think we might have some interesting news on the Christie bridge closure... It was always a little odd to just 'punish' Sokolish/Ft Lee with a few days of traffic headaches.

This might be something of a smoking gun... A big Ft Lee development effort was hitting some planning board snags based on, you guessed it, traffic concerns.

So how do you really punish a guy? You torpedo an enormous community development effort by exacerbating the very concern most endangering it.
   605. zonk Posted: February 06, 2014 at 11:08 PM (#4652995)
So Oregon may be in play, even though its a fairly Dem state because of allegations a Republican is bringing against a third party, but Kentucky is probably not in play despite behing fairly GOP, even though its sitting Republican Senator has extremely low approval ratings.

Okay.


Unskewing the polls didn't work, so we'll try unskewing the logic.
   606. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: February 06, 2014 at 11:11 PM (#4652997)
If this was the best storm of the '14 season for SoCal (and we're already WELL into the season) ... we're "proper ######\", as Turkish would say

I'm certainly looking nervous around pigs, that's for sure ...


   607. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: February 06, 2014 at 11:20 PM (#4653001)
   608. OCF Posted: February 06, 2014 at 11:22 PM (#4653003)
I'm looking at the NWS radar sites and the rain basically doesn't even show, so it must be falling from very low in the atmosphere. Long Beach seems to have picked up .13 inch so far, which makes it a little more than the weekend rain.

One of my visible markers of how things are going is the "apparent visible snow line" as seen from Long Beach. At this time of winter, I wouldn't usually be seeing snow on Mt. Wilson and nearby peaks (5700-6100 feet) except very ephemerally after a cold storm. That doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any snow there, but it's not hanging on the tree branches to be seen. But usually there is quite a bit visible on the "back range" - one clump to the left, a higher clump to the right, including Baden-Powell. Seeing snow there can put that apparent visible line at 7000 or 8000. And there should always be some on Baldy - 10000 feet, with bare rock on the top. But that apparent snow line, which should usually be somewhere between 7500 and 9000 and occasionally much lower, has been above 10000 since well before Christmas. "Above 10000" means, "Can't see any, not even on Baldy." I haven't seen the mountains at all since that last little dusting. We'll see what's there over the weekend.

Yeah, we're getting all giddy over a quarter inch of rain in a week. That's how bad it is.
   609. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 06, 2014 at 11:24 PM (#4653005)
So Oregon may be in play, even though its a fairly Dem state because of allegations a Republican is bringing against a third party about a website - an issue that most voters probably won't care about, but Kentucky is probably not in play, even though its sitting Republican Senator has extremely low approval ratings and is the face of what's wrong with Washington.

Okay.


I don't think you get my points. I noted that Oregon might be in play, although normally a D+5 state would be difficult for a GOP candidate, because it had a particularly bad ObamaCare rollout -- the state website still isn't working -- and there are now allegations that state officials produced fake website info to con the Feds out of more money. There isn't a similar national/local issue in either Georgia or Kentucky that I'm aware of. So, if Democrats win either state, they are probably doing so well in the rest of the country that they won't need to win in Georgia or Kentucky to control the Senate. Conversely, if Democrats lose 6 or more seats in other states, it seems unlikely they'd rebound in Georgia or Kentucky while losing in more favorable states.
   610. OCF Posted: February 06, 2014 at 11:27 PM (#4653006)
There isn't a similar national/local issue in either Georgia or Kentucky that I'm aware of.

Except for the fact that Obamacare - er "KYNECT" - is working in Kentucky, and the governor seems to be very popular.
   611. zonk Posted: February 06, 2014 at 11:31 PM (#4653010)

Except for the fact that Obamacare - er "KYNECT" - is working in Kentucky, and the governor seems to be very popular.


Yeah, but you have accounted for the +10 Democratic logic lean...
   612. tshipman Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:08 AM (#4653017)
I don't think you get my points. I noted that Oregon might be in play, although normally a D+5 state would be difficult for a GOP candidate, because it had a particularly bad ObamaCare rollout -- the state website still isn't working -- and there are now allegations that state officials produced fake website info to con the Feds out of more money. There isn't a similar national/local issue in either Georgia or Kentucky that I'm aware of. So, if Democrats win either state, they are probably doing so well in the rest of the country that they won't need to win in Georgia or Kentucky to control the Senate. Conversely, if Democrats lose 6 or more seats in other states, it seems unlikely they'd rebound in Georgia or Kentucky while losing in more favorable states.


TYC, you seem to be ignoring candidate quality. McConnell has terrible numbers, much worse than Merkeley. Moreover, your whole point about Merkeley is based off one poll released from a partisan polling company who purposefully oversampled Romney voters and did not ask any head to head questions.

By comparison, multiple pulls have shown Grimes leading or within MOE in KY. Further, McConnell is one of the two most prominent national Republicans currently in congress, so he gets to reap all of the negative energy.

I think that Grimes winning is unlikely--something like a 30-40% shot. But it's much more likely than Oregon being in play.

Edit: For instance, here's this note from PPP [url=http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2013/12/republican_pollster_says_surve.html]from December:
[/url]

Merkley's seen a more dramatic improvement in his standing. On our last poll he was at just a +3 approval spread (37/34) but now he's improved 12 points to +15 (44/29). Those are the best approval numbers we've found for him since he took office.


It'd be pretty surprising for that to have turned around, and you'd expect there to be more polling in the field before making the case that Oregon is in play.
   613. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:10 AM (#4653018)
Long Beach seems to have picked up .13 inch so far, which makes it a little more than the weekend rain.


"Ze Germans", bro ...
   614. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:31 AM (#4653020)
"Ze Germans", bro ...
have you seen lock stock and two smoking barrels yet?
   615. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:40 AM (#4653023)
I ####### hate pikeys!
   616. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:43 AM (#4653025)
Periwinkle blue???
   617. Howie Menckel Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:49 AM (#4653026)

good news for fat World Cup fans

http://www.nj.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/02/world_cup_will_provide_special_seats_for_obese_fans.html#incart_river_default

   618. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:49 AM (#4653027)
I think that Grimes winning is unlikely--something like a 30-40% shot. But it's much more likely than Oregon being in play.

Well, I said Oregon might be in play. And since both of us expect McConnell to win (although I'd put his chances closer to 75-80%), we really don't disagree that much!
   619. BrianBrianson Posted: February 07, 2014 at 05:33 AM (#4653047)
What's with the China on the environment hate? The same viewpoint doesn't appear all that strong in British media (where I live now). When I was living in Beijing, the air pollution was pretty bad if it wasn't windy; a friend of mine compared it when he was a teenager in LA (I'm not sure exactly how old he is, but I'd say he probably meant early 70s?) Of course, California emission on cars (and other measures) have gone a long way in reducing it. Same size as the United States, with four times as many people, there's (of course) a lot of pollution. But people aren't too old to remember rivers catching fire, or eagles crushing their own eggs, or ...
   620. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 07, 2014 at 08:37 AM (#4653057)
"Ze Germans", bro ...
have you seen lock stock and two smoking barrels yet?


Am I remembering correctly that this is the movie that features notorious bare-knuckle boxer Lenny McLean in it?
   621. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 07, 2014 at 10:07 AM (#4653090)
“There may be reasons I don’t run, but there’s no obvious reason for me why I think I should not run,” Biden told CNN’s “New Day” program.


Never change Joe, never change. Joe Biden might be the politician I would enjoy just hanging out with.
   622. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: February 07, 2014 at 10:14 AM (#4653095)
   623. tshipman Posted: February 07, 2014 at 10:56 AM (#4653127)
There's something weird going on with the labor reports.

The last two months have been really odd, with December adding 75K jobs (revised up from 74K), and January adding 113K. These are both numbers that should be below the natural labor force replenishment rate.

However, during this time frame, the headline unemployment rate has dropped to 6.6%, a fairly significant drop from 7.0 in January. Ordinarily, you would think that this would lead to an easy explanation: that the labor force has declined (something that has happened with some regularity). However, LFPR is steady at 63% from where it was in November.

So somehow we've had a relatively large drop in the unemployment rate despite not adding enough jobs to keep up with population growth and not losing workforce as a percentage of the population. The explanations that I have left are measurement error (always a strong possibility) and a bunch of immigration.
   624. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: February 07, 2014 at 11:04 AM (#4653132)
If you think Oregon is going Republican anytime soon, you should probably have been a character in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
   625. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 07, 2014 at 11:13 AM (#4653139)
There's something weird going on with the labor reports.


In the long run they work out, but individual reports can often be really goofy. You would not think these things are tough to measure in 2014, with the NSA already knowing every breath you take, but it does seem to be hard.

In net I suspect the economy is continuing its slow but sure improvement, while still leaving the less fortunate behind - long term unemployed and underemployed.
   626. zonk Posted: February 07, 2014 at 11:26 AM (#4653148)

In the long run they work out, but individual reports can often be really goofy. You would not think these things are tough to measure in 2014, with the NSA already knowing every breath you take, but it does seem to be hard.

In net I suspect the economy is continuing its slow but sure improvement, while still leaving the less fortunate behind - long term unemployed and underemployed.


I know there's some smoothing that happens in regards to our aging population, right? Is that an underlying part of the jaddedness of month-to-month reports that gets smoothed better over time?

I.e., people don't always just retire on their 65th/67th/whatever birthday... I know a few people in their 60s who were RIF'ed out of jobs at the end of last year -- folks in their 60s... One of them told me he was going to look, but not hard... Another said that she and her husband were going to just cut back and wait a year until they could go full retirement account tapping and full SS benefits... and a 3rd said that she and her husband were just going to make do on her husband's salary.

Does the BLS publish any microversions of the reports? I.e., it would be interesting to see the numbers - both snapshot and over time - if we could break them down by age group.
   627. just plain joe Posted: February 07, 2014 at 11:29 AM (#4653153)
Never change Joe, never change. Joe Biden might be the politician I would enjoy just hanging out with.


Well, there's Rob Ford; he would probably be interesting to hang with, at least for awhile. If you were out with Ford you could at least be pretty sure that no matter how badly you ###### up, he would #### up worse.
   628. zonk Posted: February 07, 2014 at 11:40 AM (#4653158)

Well, there's Rob Ford; he would probably be interesting to hang with, at least for awhile. If you were out with Ford you could at least be pretty sure that no matter how badly you ###### up, he would #### up worse.


Also, drinks and steaks... and hookers and blow... I mean, if you know when to say when - I imagine he's a fantastic party guide.
   629. zonk Posted: February 07, 2014 at 11:47 AM (#4653161)
Agree with Josh that AIPAC backing down on Iran sanctions vote is a pretty big deal... It's an inside politics, in the weeds, two steps removed big deal -- and it's only giving the current efforts with Iran a chance to proceed, not guaranteeing success...

But - since the Politicos and Cablenewses of the world don't care about covering the actual happeneings as much as the horserace and 'what does it mean for X' -- this constitutes a pretty damn big win by the administration.
   630. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 07, 2014 at 11:49 AM (#4653162)
Well, there's Rob Ford; he would probably be interesting to hang with, at least for awhile.


I am pretty much a square, so I suspect Rob is not my speed (so to speak). Pelosi is another person I would love to talk with. Maybe Gingrich on the GOP side (we could talk moon bases).
   631. spike Posted: February 07, 2014 at 11:52 AM (#4653164)
A little primer on why Georgia might be in play - the primary runoff rules guarantees one of the nuts will make it through, and the following primary election is so low turnout that the True Believers could easily sway the outcome.
   632. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:01 PM (#4653171)
Well, I said Oregon might be in play. And since both of us expect McConnell to win (although I'd put his chances closer to 75-80%), we really don't disagree that much!


Your logic boils down to:

1. Obama has negative approval ratings.
2. In a vacuum, negative approval ratings means bad midterm results for the President's party.
3. Therefore we should expect a wave election in favor of Republicans in 2014.

When presented with counter evidence, you ignore it and repeat your assumptions. For example, some have responded:

1. It's hard to draw straight historical analogies to 2014 because "in a vacuum" is doing a lot of work for you here. While historical trends are worth noting, it's also notable that the GOP's approval ratings are even lower than the President's.

To which you reply "in a vacuum, negative approval ratings means bad midterm results for the President's party," etc, et al.

Or, another response might go:

1. While the POTUS has negative approval ratings, they seem to have bottomed out and aren't notably worse than generic disapproval of every major player in Washington; it's quite possible that we'll see a "throw them all out" scenario where all incumbents are in danger.

You ignore this as equally as you ignore the previous example.

Then, on top of all of that, you have begun arguing your conclusion as a given assumption now. You now take your starting point as:

1. We are going to have a wave election.

Then you work from there. You're now begging the question entirely (mostly because you've hand waved away any counter point presented to you, because it would get in the way of your jolly good vibes about hating Obama.

So NOW when people present you with individual state races where the local polling suggests the incumbent GOP might be in some danger, you hand wave THAT away by referring to your assumed conclusion about a wave election.

You're so deep up your own bunghole you can't tell #### from shinola any more.
   633. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:05 PM (#4653173)
I know there's some smoothing that happens in regards to our aging population, right? Is that an underlying part of the jaddedness of month-to-month reports that gets smoothed better over time?


The last few months have been terrible for weather, which usually tends to play havoc with jobs reports. Granted, it tends to depress the numbers not inflate them. There's also the rather popular recent talking point about how the ACA is impacting job seekers. Depending on who you ask you have 500K to 2M workers opting out of the labor market due to the fact that they no longer need to hold a job in order to access reliable health insurance. That would play havoc with the matchup of "growth" to "unemployment rate."
   634. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:16 PM (#4653177)
...
   635. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:18 PM (#4653178)
I agree with #632, though I do think 2014 could be bad for Team Blue.

Negatives: Bad Obama ratings, plenty of GOP money, non presidential elections turnout patterns favor the GOP, and of course the Senate landscape is brutal.

Positives: Bad GOP ratings - bad everyone ratings in fact, and Obama has bottomed out and there is time to move up. The GOP money is uncoordinated and focused on spending money on TV. Team Blue seems to recognize the need to motivate the base and is focused on just that, which may mitigate the normal pattern. And of course there is a brutal landscape, but the teaper contingent seems determined to nominate the fringiest candidate in every race, which has bit them in the past and may bite them now.

What does it mean? I suspect mild gains in the house for the GOP. Gains in the Senate, but less than they "should get". Some losses in GOP state governors, but not huge either way. In other words some gains, but not a wave or mandate or anything. But 2016 better live up to my hopes, because the field reverses badly then, unless ... well why bother repeating all that.

   636. bunyon Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:19 PM (#4653179)
I am pretty much a square, so I suspect Rob is not my speed (so to speak). Pelosi is another person I would love to talk with. Maybe Gingrich on the GOP side (we could talk moon bases).

If you want to consider him a current politician, Gingrich would have to be near the top of people to have dinner with. Lots of expertise, present for a lot of recent history and pretty engaging. I heard a guy once say that Gingrich should in no way ever be close to being president but that any president would do well to have him sit in the corner throughout the presidency just spitting out ideas. You'd end up ignoring most of it but the good stuff would be great. I'd go further. You should do that with both Gingrich and Clinton. Get them a secluded office, provide a steady supply of interns and listen to them when they get serious.
   637. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:28 PM (#4653188)
Regarding wave elections, 2010-
The Generic Congressional polls were hovering around Repub +2 to +4 most of 12/09 through May 2010, the polls even ed out for 2 months, then began cutting for the GOP in July 2010, by September the GOP was running abut 7 points ahead in the Polls, maxing out around 9-10 points, before winning the popular vote by about 6.8.

2006: Basically the Dems were continuously up 6-12 points starting in January 2005 to the election in November 2006.

The dynamic in 2006 was unpopular sitting dead duck President, President's party running Congress.
The Dynamic in 2010: Teaper Revolt gaining steam, huge surge in off year turnout as Teaper base was supremely motivated.

2014?
1: Unpopular dead duck president, check, but I don't see that he was as unpopular as Dubya was at the analogous time.
2: VERY unpopular Congress- and despite the Dems nominally controlling the Senate, I think the general perception is that the GOP either runs Congress or sets the Congressional agenda.

My opinion if any one cares, sure the electorate could break GOP like it did in 2010, but from here it looks a lot like, "meh" no wave for anyone, the GOP will again seats in the Senate- but that's more a function of the Dem's defending seats in not very liberal states (States they picked up in a wave election in the first place).

My TYC style partisan prognostication: The GOP "base" will completely misread the 2014 results, they will see the gain of Senate seats as a vindication of Ted Cruz and others like him- that will lead to another series of Congressional Showdowns with Obama in 2015/16.
2016 is of course structurally a bad year for the GOP in the Senate- defending several swing state seats, it will also be a Presidential election year coming off two years of teaper rhetoric front and center in politics, 2016 will be a wave year, it will be a Dem wave year, like 2006/08 only more so.

   638. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:33 PM (#4653191)
Gingrich would have to be near the top of people to have dinner with.


I spent a good five minutes going through GOP types before I could find anyone, and then Newt popped out. After that the cupboard seems pretty bare though. Might be ideological leanings, but yuck.

Is Bob Dole still alive? He might be OK. Arnold maybe? I want someone smart, a bit offbeat, honest, talkative and not a raging #######.
   639. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:38 PM (#4653196)
My TYC style partisan prognostication: The GOP "base" will completely misread the 2014 results, they will see the gain of Senate seats as a vindication of Ted Cruz and others like him- that will lead to another series of Congressional Showdowns with Obama in 2015/16.
2016 is of course structurally a bad year for the GOP in the Senate- defending several swing state seats, it will also be a Presidential election year coming off two years of teaper rhetoric front and center in politics, 2016 will be a wave year, it will be a Dem wave year, like 2006/08 only more so.


I could have written this (well, other than it is better written than my usual), and so I high five agree with it, so long as I can add a demographic trends continue in Team Blue's direction codicil.
   640. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:39 PM (#4653197)
I agree with #632, though I do think 2014 could be bad for Team Blue


A point I've stipulated repeatedly. Midterms. More Dem seats in play than GOP seats. General disdain for Washington.
   641. Lassus Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:39 PM (#4653198)
634. Rickey! don't wanna die in a Super 8 motel... Posted: February 07, 2014 at 11:16 AM (#4653177)
...

That seems bizarrely mis-titled. Really more Muad'dib & Hobbes.

I've always had a love/hate relationship with those books. Love the universe, the characters, hated the second two books as a failure of trying too hard, which, when he stopped doing so, everyone hated the results because it wasn't as dour and navel-gazingly spiritual. I'll cop to total subjectivity.
   642. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:52 PM (#4653212)
I couldn't get through the first one.
   643. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 07, 2014 at 12:53 PM (#4653213)
I spent a good five minutes going through GOP types before I could find anyone, and then Newt popped out. After that the cupboard seems pretty bare though. Might be ideological leanings, but yuck.

Is Bob Dole still alive? He might be OK. Arnold maybe? I want someone smart, a bit offbeat, honest, talkative and not a raging #######.


Gingrich seems to embody the worst of Obama's personal traits - professorial, thinks he is the smartest in the room, tends to lecture. Dole was the first Republican that popped in my head as he has a great sense of humor and would probably have some terrific Senate stories. Poppy Bush might be fun to talk to (especially about baseball). For someone still somewhat active in politics, maybe Jon Huntsman? Hard to think of anyone that interesting that's not a hack.

My opinion if any one cares, sure the electorate could break GOP like it did in 2010, but from here it looks a lot like, "meh" no wave for anyone,


I don't see a wave for anyone. Probably slight pickups in both houses for the GOP. The Dems will probably do a bit better in statehouses than they have in the recent past. They just picked up the VA Senate, and the GOP has a lot of tough Gubernatorial races to defend in 2014 in FL, ME, MI, OH, and PA - and possibly even places like IA and KS. AR and maybe CO and IL would be the only tough races for Dems to defend.
   644. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 07, 2014 at 01:01 PM (#4653224)
I couldn't get through the first one.


Dune manages to be a good, seminal, and interesting book that is crazy overrated and influential way past its actual value. I read the first three books and liked the third one the best despite it not being close to the best of the lot - it had fewer moments of me wanting to throw the book against the wall.

Dune trivia. Without looking, guess what book it shared the Hugo for best novel with in 1966?

Hint: The author of the joint winner won another and was nominated twice more.
   645. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 07, 2014 at 01:11 PM (#4653234)
Dune trivia. Without looking, guess what book it shared the Hugo for best novel with in 1966?


Something by Zelazny? Maybe This Immortal? I used to know all the Hugo winners up through around the time I stopped paying attention to the field, so 1980ish.

Otherwise, like Sam, I couldn't finish Dune. Could barely start it, even; I think I lasted till maybe page 30, tops.
   646. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 07, 2014 at 01:17 PM (#4653238)
Something by Zelazny? Maybe This Immortal?


Correct, though it was called "And call me Conrad" at the time (which is a clearly worse name). Very good book, could be an entertaining movie, but sadly is gone from current thought. Unlike Dune with seems evergreen, despite (IMO) being much more dated.
   647. BrianBrianson Posted: February 07, 2014 at 01:24 PM (#4653244)
Also, drinks and steaks... and hookers and blow... I mean, if you know when to say when - I imagine he's a fantastic party guide.


Ford skips Pride Parade, so not really, no.
   648. Lassus Posted: February 07, 2014 at 01:30 PM (#4653249)
I've hung out with hookers and coke users just fine, and hanging out with Ford sounds like a nightmare.
   649. Greg K Posted: February 07, 2014 at 01:40 PM (#4653256)
I've hung out with hookers and coke users just fine, and hanging out with Ford sounds like a nightmare.

Yeah Ford doesn't strike me as a fun time party guy. More like an obnoxious, aggressive party jerk.

I absolutely loved Dune as a kid, and still read it every now and then with great enjoyment. Books two and three were fun too, though I'm not sure I ever felt the need to re-read them. 4-6 were just plain wonky and seemed to move away from what I liked about the first one.
   650. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 07, 2014 at 01:45 PM (#4653260)
Can't really remember anything about This Immortal, other than not being particularly impressed by it when I read it around '77. Only thing of Zelazny's I've ever found memorable is Damnation Alley, which obviously is far more action-oriented than most of his oeuvre.
   651. Mefisto Posted: February 07, 2014 at 01:56 PM (#4653269)
I liked Dune quite a bit, but never could read the sequels.
   652. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: February 07, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4653271)
I want someone smart, a bit offbeat, honest, talkative and not a raging #######.


Alan Simpson.
   653. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: February 07, 2014 at 02:01 PM (#4653273)
4-6 were just plain wonky and seemed to move away from what I liked about the first one.


Not only did I read all of them, but also the Brian Herbert prequels. Yes, they were awful, and strayed way, way from canon. But the were fun
   654. Lassus Posted: February 07, 2014 at 02:07 PM (#4653277)
Not only did I read all of them, but also the Brian Herbert prequels. Yes, they were awful, and strayed way, way from canon. But they were fun.

Lord yes. Perhaps even somewhat as an antidote to the positively ponderous worship of the first three books, I found the ancient 10,000 years-prior Dune Legends prequel series to be some of the more satisfying space opera I'd read in a long time - I loved it. (The immediate prequels were really pretty blah, though.)

Whoa - checking Wiki, he's really milked that whole thing. Good for him.
   655. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 07, 2014 at 02:10 PM (#4653278)
Dole was the first Republican that popped in my head as he has a great sense of humor and would probably have some terrific Senate stories.

Dole won me over with that crack he made about a meeting of ex-Presidents Carter, Ford and Nixon. He described it as a meeting of "see no evil, hear no evil-----and evil".
   656. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 07, 2014 at 02:13 PM (#4653281)
Dole won me over with that crack he made about a meeting of ex-Presidents Carter, Ford and Nixon. He described it as a meeting of "see no evil, hear no evil-----and evil".


I came perilously close to a spittake. And this just after a slapstick incident involving a pop can, laptop, computer mouse and kneeling chair (which I am glad no one but my dog witnessed.
   657. Morty Causa Posted: February 07, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4653290)
Dole would never have won the '92 election, but I always sincerely and deeply regretted that he allowed himself to be domesticated as campaigner. He was witty and funny--and often quite sensible, even cogent, in the way he expressed himself.
   658. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: February 07, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4653291)
which I am glad no one but my dog witnessed


Is it safe for mice to keep dogs?
   659. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 07, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4653296)
Is it safe for mice to keep dogs?


I am an allegorical Mouse. And I am too Bitter for him to chew (plus I feed and walk him, and he is no dummy). So I am safe, though now he has another embarrasing moment to hold over me.
   660. Shibal Posted: February 07, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4653312)
Dole would never have won the '92 election, but I always sincerely and deeply regretted that he allowed himself to be domesticated as campaigner. He was witty and funny--and often quite sensible, even cogent, in the way he expressed himself.


He would have won in 1988 had he beaten Bush in the primary. Dukakis was an awful candidate and didn't have a shot. As an incumbent in 1992, the attitude that might have turned some off wouldn't have the same bite after people saw it first hand for four years. And Clinton wouldn't have been the nominee either. More than a few elite tier Dems passed on the race because they though Bush was unbeatable. No one would ever think that about Dole.

Clinton would have licked his wounds in 1992, ran for David Pryor's senate seat in 1996 and maybe run again for president in 2000 or 2004.

   661. Morty Causa Posted: February 07, 2014 at 02:51 PM (#4653314)
Sorry, I meant the '96 election. I'm sure that was confusing.
   662. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: February 07, 2014 at 03:04 PM (#4653318)
Is it safe for mice to keep dogs?

I am an allegorical Mouse. And I am too Bitter for him to chew (plus I feed and walk him, and he is no dummy). So I am safe, though now he has another embarrasing moment to hold over me.


Allegorical, schmallegorical. If a mongoose can keep cats -- 5 of them, no less -- I'm sure a mouse is safe with a canine.
   663. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: February 07, 2014 at 03:04 PM (#4653319)
'who the hell ate my peanut butter? nobody eats bob dole's peanut butter without asking. you wanna chip in, that's a different story. otherwise, keep your grubby hands out of bob dole's peanut butter.'
   664. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 07, 2014 at 03:04 PM (#4653321)
Dole would never have won the '92 election, but I always sincerely and deeply regretted that he allowed himself to be domesticated as campaigner. He was witty and funny--and often quite sensible, even cogent, in the way he expressed himself.


Al Gore to a lesser extent as well. Years from now, we'll find out Mitt Romney is a filthy and hilarious joke-teller.

More than a few elite tier Dems passed on the race because they though Bush was unbeatable. No one would ever think that about Dole.


They thought Bush was unbeatable because we were riding high after the Gulf War. I don't see how that equation changes with Dole.
   665. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 07, 2014 at 03:23 PM (#4653333)
While the POTUS has negative approval ratings, they seem to have bottomed out and aren't notably worse than generic disapproval of every major player in Washington; it's quite possible that we'll see a "throw them all out" scenario where all incumbents are in danger. You ignore this as equally as you ignore the previous example.

Then, on top of all of that, you have begun arguing your conclusion as a given assumption now. You now take your starting point as: 1. We are going to have a wave election.

As I've said before, Presidential Job Approval Ratings correlate highly with the success of the President's party in mid-term elections. I have not "ignored" the various polls indicating dissatisfaction with Congress, but neither party is doing well in those polls, and more importantly, Congressional popularity polls have NOT been shown to correlate with mid-term election results - a point I have noted several times. Americans have a long history of disparaging Congress - see Will Rogers - but mostly re-electing their own Congressperson. It is not impossible for 2014 to be a referendum on Congress rather than the President - a point I've also conceded - but it would be unprecedented for a mid-term election.

Furthermore, I don't believe I've ever said that 2014 would be a "wave election". Strictly speaking, I don't think the term applies when the party benefiting from the expected wave already controls the House by a comfortable margin. The GOP picked up 64 House seats in 2010, a huge wave that left them with a bigger majority in the House than they had at anytime in the 1995-2007 period. They only lost 8 seats in 2012, even though Obama won the presidency. While redistricting shuffled a few seats between and within states since 2010, those 8 seats probably approximate the GOP minimum goal for 2014. They can't get too much above that without running into pretty safe Democratic seats, so I'd think a ~15 seat GOP gain is pretty close to their ceiling.

I have said that conditions appear favorable for the GOP gaining control of the Senate. If Obama's approval ratings continue to be below what they were in 2010, I don't see why anyone would expect a more favorable result. Yet, whenever I post information on these highly informative polls, some people here loudly object. Then they accuse me of "ignoring" stuff.
   666. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 07, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4653334)
Hey YC, I know it is away from your pollish sweet spot, but any politicians you would enjoy hanging out with? And what are your thoughts on Dune?

Branch out a bit man.
   667. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 07, 2014 at 03:30 PM (#4653336)
Both parties need to impose term limits on Congressional leadership positions. Having John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi as the face of your party for a decade drags down your party, not to mention, provides stale leadership after awhile. Keep them around in some capacity if you must, for their technical expertise, but let someone else be the face of your party.
   668. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 07, 2014 at 03:33 PM (#4653339)
Having John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi as the face of your party for a decade drags down your party


I love Nancy. She is great. A solid leader (especially compared to Tan Man) and I am not convinced he has hurt the party much. I am not even convinced she is the face of the party, I think that is some scary Nigerian socialist.
   669. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: February 07, 2014 at 03:39 PM (#4653344)
To be clear, if Romney wins in a polling environment that resembles what we are seeing today, I don't think the problem would be Nate's model so much as the large number of state polls that appear to be oversampling Democrats. I have a gut feeling that the huge number of non-responders doesn't break evenly along partisan lines. Curmudgeonly conservatives, media suspicious Republicans and those with heightened privacy concerns may make up a disproportionate number of the non-responders, tilting the remaining pool toward the Democrats. Folks on the left may be more inclined to give out personal info - remember how many here contributed to the ass wiping thread.

I'd be curious where Nate's model would come out if he adjusted those polls to 2008 and 2004 partisan splits.
   670. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 07, 2014 at 03:40 PM (#4653345)
Having John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi as the face of your party for a decade drags down your party


There's nothing wrong with Pelosi (from a political POV), any Dem House leader would be/ will be demonized by the right, and once demonized by the right used as a marketing tool by them- if it wasn't her it'd be someone else.

Boehner has an impossible job given his caucus.

I don't think either being a face of their party has negatively impacted their respective parties- the stuff around them that negatively impacts or appears to negatively impact their parties- is not their doing and would almost certainly would have occurred to any generic pol holding their respective leadership posts.
   671. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 07, 2014 at 03:52 PM (#4653353)
Re: 669, yep back in 10/12 TYC drank the unskewed koolaid (The polls are wrong because pollsters are over sampling Dems, if you adjust the partisan splits...)

Joe K was relentless on that topic, even as he claimed he didn't follow the unskewed guy (Dean Chambers) who was a wacko, I don't think Joe K ever realized that Joe's preferred theory as to why the pols were wrong was the same as unskweed's... of course math comprehension was not Joe K's strong point
   672. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 07, 2014 at 03:54 PM (#4653354)
Both parties need to impose term limits on Congressional leadership positions.


I don't know that mandatory retirement for the most senior sausage makers who know all of the ins and outs of the various sausage making plants and workers is the best tactic for making sausage.
   673. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 07, 2014 at 04:03 PM (#4653360)
Both parties need to impose term limits on Congressional leadership positions.

If you think this is important, you should vote Republican, since the House GOP has imposed a six-year term limit on service as a Committee Chair or Ranking Minority Member (with rare waivers). Democrats follow seniority more strictly and allow Committee Chairs and Ranking Minority Members to serve without limit.
   674. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 07, 2014 at 04:04 PM (#4653363)
I don't know that mandatory retirement for the most senior sausage makers who know all of the ins and outs of the various sausage making plants and workers is the best tactic for making sausage.


They don't have to be out of the loop, just demote them to Whip or something. No one wants to see Mitch McConnell on TV anymore.
   675. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 07, 2014 at 04:10 PM (#4653367)
They don't have to be out of the loop, just demote them to Whip or something. No one wants to see Mitch McConnell on TV anymore.


We don't need governing (not the same as campaigning or politics) to be more media friendly, we need it to be more effective, or at least not less effective. Seeing Senator such-and-so on TV is the last of our worries, but if you are concerned about that talk to the schedulers for Sunday Morning TV. I tis the same cast of characters as it was 20 years ago, with the occasional death enforced change.
   676. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 07, 2014 at 04:18 PM (#4653371)
If you think this is important, you should vote Republican


Shocking.

No one wants to see Mitch McConnell on TV anymore.


What the hell does television popularity have to do with governing?
   677. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 07, 2014 at 04:32 PM (#4653378)
We don't need governing (not the same as campaigning or politics) to be more media friendly, we need it to be more effective, or at least not less effective. Seeing Senator such-and-so on TV is the last of our worries,


We need both. I'm not saying this is a high priority, but it should be a priority. There is also the issue of party leadership becoming stale or non-responsive to their party. Sure, the party could vote leadership out, but that's easier said than done with the carrots and sticks leadership has at their disposal. Maybe 8 year leadership term limits.

What the hell does television popularity have to do with governing?


If you have unpopular faces pushing your legislation, you're going to have trouble building public support for that legislation.
   678. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 07, 2014 at 05:46 PM (#4653405)
There is also the issue of party leadership becoming stale or non-responsive to their party.


The parties are never unresponsive to the party. They may occasionally be unresponsive to the people. Totally different.

If you have unpopular faces pushing your legislation, you're going to have trouble building public support for that legislation.


It is not the quarterback's job to be pretty and sell jerseys. It is the quarterback's job to move the football down the field.
   679. Joe Kehoskie Posted: February 07, 2014 at 06:13 PM (#4653416)
671. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 07, 2014 at 02:52 PM (#4653353)

Re: 669, yep back in 10/12 TYC drank the unskewed koolaid (The polls are wrong because pollsters are over sampling Dems, if you adjust the partisan splits...)

Joe K was relentless on that topic, even as he claimed he didn't follow the unskewed guy (Dean Chambers) who was a wacko, I don't think Joe K ever realized that Joe's preferred theory as to why the pols were wrong was the same as unskweed's... of course math comprehension was not Joe K's strong point

I see Johnny Sycophant hasn't gotten any more honest during my months away from BBTF.

As has been explained to Johnny what seems like a hundred times, the so-called "Unskewed Guy" didn't come up with the idea that the polls might be off in 2012. He was a random guy who noticed prominent people on the right proffering such theories and then attempted to cash in by launching a website — a website I learned about here at BBTF, visited exactly one time for approx. 20 seconds, and never cited a single time in any comment here during the discussion of the 2012 election. (Also, the belief that the polls might be off in 2012 was a political science error, not a math error. Other than all of this, Johnny really nailed it.)

Speaking of Johnny Sycophant, did he ever get around to retracting his utterly false claim that the Republicans recently had a bigamist in Congress, or is his obsession with "fact-checking" — to use the phrase in the loosest possible sense — only limited to comments posted by others?


As a side note, hope everyone is doing well — including, I guess, Sam. I have far less free time now, so I'll be back to (mostly) lurking after this comment. Hope you guys have a good 2014 (except politically, if you're a liberal).
   680. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 07, 2014 at 06:17 PM (#4653418)
As a side note, hope everyone is doing well — including, I guess, Sam. I have far less free time now, so I'll be back to (mostly) lurking after this comment. Hope you guys have a good 2014 (except politically, if you're a liberal).


Welcome back JoeK. I know what you mean about free time - I am a creator* now, so my time is much less. But hey as you find time comment away. I am doing very well - 2014 is shaping up to be a good year (we'll see about politically, I am not optimistic).


* I started my own company (S-corp to be exact) and hired an employee - me. Mostly for tax and other financial purposes, but there you have it, I am a small business owner. I can feel myself hating taxes and wanting to oppress unions even as I type this.
   681. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: February 07, 2014 at 06:21 PM (#4653421)
(Also, the belief that the polls might be off in 2012 was a political science error, not a math error
i wonder if that statement may be applicable to other recent discussions here.
   682. zonk Posted: February 07, 2014 at 06:21 PM (#4653423)
The perfect exemplar of Republican cowardice in all its glory...

This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with our country.

The answer to a comment like this is NOT to cower over potentially looking 'weak' - the answer is to say shame on you. The answer is to say you need to take a step back from politics.

This is not difficult.

If you are a supposed LEADER - someone occupying one of just 538 federally elected positions in this country - and someone says in a public forum that the President should be executed as an enemy combatant, you do not keep cordially chatting with them. I don't care if you call said person an outright whackjob who needs to find a different hobby than politics, or, if you have the patience to calmly ask that they take a breath and reassess what s/he is saying.

The same goes would go for a Democratic facing a left-leaning audience.

Shame on Congressman Bridestine for either lacking the spine to say that or for being so far gone he belongs in a backwoods cabin reading manifestos.
   683. Joe Kehoskie Posted: February 07, 2014 at 06:29 PM (#4653428)
* I started my own company (S-corp to be exact) and hired an employee - me. Mostly for tax and other financial purposes, but there you have it, I am a small business owner. I can feel myself hating taxes and wanting to oppress unions even as I type this.

In other words, not only do you live in a lily-white neighborhood, but you employ a lily-white staff. Tsk, tsk.

(Couldn't resist. Good luck with your business.)
   684. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: February 07, 2014 at 06:29 PM (#4653429)
My alma mater once again outdoes itself. Sigh.
   685. spike Posted: February 07, 2014 at 06:50 PM (#4653439)
senior sausage makers

The Dole retrospective today made this article about another tenured Kansas senator seem quite poignant. The willingness to shed their political compass to keep the gig and avoid being "Lugared" ironically validates one of the Tea Partiers' complaints: a willingness to proclaim previous allies or positions as detrimental to the state with a straight face merely to retain power is the essence of venality.
   686. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 07, 2014 at 06:57 PM (#4653442)
I see Johnny Sycophant hasn't gotten any more honest during my months away from BBTF.

As has been explained to Johnny what seems like a hundred times...

Speaking of Johnny Sycophant


Hi Joe, where you been? Did you ever escape Syracuse?
   687. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 07, 2014 at 07:07 PM (#4653445)
As has been explained to Johnny what seems like a hundred times


As was explained to Joe K what seems like a dozen time, what Mr. Unskewed was doing to unskew the polls was based upon the exact same reasoning that Joe K kept proffering for why the polls were wrong- if you want to call that a political science error fine, but you two were essentially peddling the exact same argument, it's not important whether you copied him or he you, or you both got the same (false) idea from the same sources (most likely).

Speaking of Johnny Sycophant, did he ever get around to retracting his utterly false claim that the Republicans recently had a bigamist in Congress

He was my Congressmen, he was known as a bigamist then and he's known to this day in the distract as that bigamist congressman, whether he was technically/legally one is of no moment- Bill Clinton wasn't convicted of perjury either, but I'm not calling out anyone who says he was a perjurer.
   688. Tilden Katz Posted: February 07, 2014 at 07:10 PM (#4653447)
This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with our country.

The answer to a comment like this is NOT to cower over potentially looking 'weak' - the answer is to say shame on you. The answer is to say you need to take a step back from politics.

This is not difficult.

If you are a supposed LEADER - someone occupying one of just 538 federally elected positions in this country - and someone says in a public forum that the President should be executed as an enemy combatant, you do not keep cordially chatting with them. I don't care if you call said person an outright whackjob who needs to find a different hobby than politics, or, if you have the patience to calmly ask that they take a breath and reassess what s/he is saying.

The same goes would go for a Democratic facing a left-leaning audience.

Shame on Congressman Bridestine for either lacking the spine to say that or for being so far gone he belongs in a backwoods cabin reading manifestos.


I also learned from that video that Colorado is now the organized crime capital of the world.
   689. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 07, 2014 at 07:21 PM (#4653455)
This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with our country.

The answer to a comment like this is NOT to cower over potentially looking 'weak' - the answer is to say shame on you. The answer is to say you need to take a step back from politics.


Not just our country

In Gordon Brown's last year in office, he was doing some meet and greet campaigning when he was buttonholed by some purported Labour Party supporter, they seemingly exchanged pleasantries, but as he left to get in his car a reporter's microphone caught him referring to her as a "bigoted women." (apparently she was a 60 something conservative who was convinced that the country was being ruined by brownskin types immigrating and collecting welfare- we Americans know the type, Fox News followers)

Well, he apologized profusely, trouble was, the people who wanted him to apologize weren't the type to either accept the apology or vote for him, his potential supporters on the left were pissed off that he didn't hold to his guns

   690. bunyon Posted: February 07, 2014 at 07:24 PM (#4653458)

I don't know that mandatory retirement for the most senior sausage makers who know all of the ins and outs of the various sausage making plants and workers is the best tactic for making sausage.


But it only takes that insider knowledge to keep making sausage because the same people control the kitchen. Toss 'em all out and try making sausage a different way.

Not that there has been a lot of sausage getting made anyway. I don't doubt that governing is hard. But the current crop are failing and should be gone. The trouble is, no one seems to think their rep is the problem. Well, they are. All of you, vote against the incumbent.
   691. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 07, 2014 at 07:26 PM (#4653461)
This, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with our country

Perhaps, but if that is so, it's been the case for a while. But unlike George W. Bush, no one has written a book, or a play, or made a movie fictionalizing Obama's assassination. And of course, there were the comments right here on BBTF.
   692. bunyon Posted: February 07, 2014 at 07:36 PM (#4653468)
Yeah, talking about killing the executive is an old tradition. And, really, if you believe the president is an enemy agent, you should be trying to kill him rather than making a fortune by ginning up anger.
   693. Tilden Katz Posted: February 07, 2014 at 07:39 PM (#4653470)
Perhaps, but if that is so, it's been the case for a while. But unlike George W. Bush, no one has written a book, or a play, or made a movie fictionalizing Obama's assassination. And of course, there were the comments right here on BBTF.


Which Congressmen saw that play or movie and said nothing? Hilary Clinton, among others, sharply criticized the movie (which was Canadian by the way). I guess she has more courage than Brindestine. Please point out some comments here calling for Bush to assassinated.
   694. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 07, 2014 at 07:52 PM (#4653473)
Perhaps, but if that is so, it's been the case for a while. But unlike George W. Bush, no one has written a book, or a play, or made a movie fictionalizing Obama's assassination. And of course, there were the comments right here on BBTF.


I knew about a book portraying a coup against Obama which ends with Obama's "execution," tried Google, couldn't fond it again, but came across Dave Hodges of the Commonsense Show... How did I not know about this nutjob before?
   695. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 07, 2014 at 10:00 PM (#4653515)
So much for fair & balanced - James Carville to Join Fox News:
Fox News Channel says it has hired Democratic strategist James Carville as a contributor. The channel said Thursday he will offer commentary during appearances on various Fox News Channel programs.

   696. Howie Menckel Posted: February 07, 2014 at 10:16 PM (#4653518)

that reminds me

http://www.kulturekritic.com/2014/02/news/msnbcs-joy-reid-can-just-bash-republicans/

MSNBC pundit Joy Ann Reid revealed that her new another show won't be another show where Democrats bash Republicans....

"With regard to whether her show will just be another Republican bashing show, Reid cautioned people against jumping to conclusions, saying she wants “to have a really interesting conversation with our audience. I’m not on there to do an hour of why Republicans suck, I don’t think I have to do that, I think what MSNBC does really well is to have a really smart conversation both with the left, and the right."

   697. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 07, 2014 at 10:45 PM (#4653520)
I don't have a proverbial horse as I detest both parties equally, but I read that as "of course it's going to be a Republican bashing show."
   698. Lassus Posted: February 07, 2014 at 11:04 PM (#4653527)
Hi Joe, where you been? Did you ever escape Syracuse?

He's actually Jim Boeheim.


If you have unpopular faces pushing your legislation, you're going to have trouble building public support for that legislation.

It is not the quarterback's job to be pretty and sell jerseys. It is the quarterback's job to move the football down the field.

For someone with a purportedly cynical and clear head, this is a very weirdly naive statement.
   699. Lassus Posted: February 07, 2014 at 11:13 PM (#4653529)
or made a movie fictionalizing Obama's assassination.

I looked it up, and there's an actress in the film who's name is Chavez Ravine.
   700. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: February 07, 2014 at 11:15 PM (#4653530)
I don't have a proverbial horse as I detest both parties equally, but I read that as "of course it's going to be a Republican bashing show."


Oh, of course. The viewing public has not historically shown much of an interest in watching sincere, open conversations in which all sides get a full airing. We demand blood! Ideally, the blood of our hated opponents. Meanwhile, our hated opponents can watch the other channel where they can watch our side's blood getting spilled.
Page 7 of 36 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-1
(1 - 6:47pm, Aug 01)
Last: Ulysses S. Fairsmith

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(17 - 6:38pm, Aug 01)
Last: cmd600

NewsblogMike Carp designated for assignment, Mookie Betts called up - Over the Monster
(1 - 6:36pm, Aug 01)
Last: Batman

NewsblogNeyer: The Jim Johnson Gambit fails
(8 - 6:24pm, Aug 01)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(176 - 6:23pm, Aug 01)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogYankees land infielders Stephen Drew, Martin Prado at Deadline
(38 - 6:18pm, Aug 01)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogMariners notebook: Zduriencik fires back at critics | Mariners Insider - The News Tribune
(27 - 6:15pm, Aug 01)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogGiants Designate Dan Uggla, Tyler Colvin
(10 - 6:12pm, Aug 01)
Last: dr. scott

NewsblogJose Bautista, Casey Janssen “frustrated” and “disappointed” by Jays’ lack of deadline activity
(4 - 5:51pm, Aug 01)
Last: Daniel in Toronto

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(577 - 5:46pm, Aug 01)
Last: puck

NewsblogJim Bowden Caught Stealing From Fake Twitter Account, Deletes Everything
(27 - 5:46pm, Aug 01)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-1-2014
(8 - 5:26pm, Aug 01)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogDiamondbacks call up former elite prospect Andy Marte
(9 - 5:24pm, Aug 01)
Last: bfan

NewsblogRosendo ‘Rusty’ Torres found guilty of 5 counts of sex abuse, acquitted of 3 other charges
(10 - 5:15pm, Aug 01)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogGeorge "The Animal" Steele Mangles A Baseball
(159 - 4:38pm, Aug 01)
Last: Dock Ellis on Acid

Page rendered in 0.8735 seconds
53 querie(s) executed