User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7909 seconds
51 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
That's moocher talk.
There could be states at some risk of internal disintegration, as actually happened to Virginia in 1861. Florida is near the top of that list, with North Florida (red, and contiguous with the red block) versus South Florida (blue, and communicates by air and sea) and who knows what happens to Tampa/Orlando.
Whoever loses the war.
I wish that somewhere, there existed a guide one could use to determine when the concept of our state borders were of utmost important and when it isn't.
...or - I could just go with "When the argument makes a Democrat-leaning case, state borders don't matter."
I say the blues do because they have control of most of the coast and they have most of the industrial infrastructure, a majority of the population, and the vast majority of the technocracy, which you need to fight a modern war.
Not to mention that most of the leaders of the Red State armies would quickly have a civil war of their own to contend with, given the nature of what the Red States would likely be picking a fight about.
And they'd have to worry about citizens in their own backyard who don't agree with secession.
If it stays conventional and becomes a war where the winning side actually wants to keep the losing side actually intact to reintegrate them - then I think it's pretty much a repeat of 1861-5.
The Blue states hold the entire west coast, with a relatively natural defensive border at the Rockies. They've also got a stranglehold on the Northeast and the Great Lakes area... The south has the gulf coast and se coast - but who are they going to trade with? Europe, Latin America, and South America almost certainly ally - or at least, don't raise a stink if the blues blockade the red. Alaska has the oil reserves, but no real way to refine it -- much less ship it. Together with blue control of the west coast - I imagine they strike first at Alaska.
Blue armies would be wise to strike first, hammering through the plains states to take the breadbasket (the blues also have the advantage of California alone being capable of virtually feeding the entire blue army on its own). Blue navies and air forces bottle the south up in dixie -- I wouldn't even bother dealing with the mountain states - beyond maybe defending Colorado for some its military assets... but then, the only armies of any size would be coming up through Texas and I'm already pushing south through the plains at the word go.
Sign a secret agreement with Mexico to give 'em back part of Texas or maybe all of Arizona and we can invade from the north and south, squeezing the big prize.
Then, what do they have left? Swamps and bayou down south? Mountains around Appalachia and the Rockies? I suppose they could fight a guerrilla war for years under such a scenario, but at some point - I decide clearing the mountains isn't worth the cost in blood, issue an ultimatum, and if its rejected, lay waste to them from the air.
And they'd have to worry about citizens in their own backyard who don't agree with secession.
Which is exactly what I mean. I'm sure that all those Mexican Americans in Texas and blacks in Alabama would be totally loyal to their Tea Party and redneck leaders. (/sarcasm)
Well, to be fair - California would have some real problems deciding whether to intern the whole of Orange County or not, too...
Ah, I thought you meant more like the states themselves wouldn't be as unified as they were the first time around. Which would be another factor.
Not just that, a significant portion of populations in the major cities would not be behind it either, which would be crippling.
Bah... so in your remake of Patton, the German bomber actually nails him and the film is over shortly after he arrives in Africa?
Probably only the 55% of the population who voted for either Romney, Gary Johnson or Roseanne Barr. They could stuff them all in Santa Catalina and ring the island with gunboats, and give them enough guns so that they'd eventually just kill themselves.
(Of course, this would be wrong.)
The real base for the hard right is in the roughly U-shaped area that begins in WV, runs down through KY and TN, across through AR, and up through the Great Plains. That's not a country; there isn't even ocean access unless LA goes along.
The other thing is, the welfare states aren't economically viable now. That's why they're welfare states. They couldn't exist on their own, even if we don't account for global warming. As global warming kicks in, the Great Plains are likely to dry out and the South will become Amazonia North.
Contemporary weaponry but it stays conventional. The red states might have the missile silos but that's nullified by the blues having the nuclear submarines, and most of the manufacturing facilities for additional thermonuclear devices. So that would discourage any use of nukes. The wild card is biological weapons. If those are used, chalk up a big advantage for the blue states. The entire pharmaceutical industry and most of the R&D is in the blue states.
I would guess that both Ohio and Florida remain blue. They both went for Obama in the last two election cycles and, if not for gerrymandering would present blue congressional delegations. The real tossup state would be North Carolina, which has Camp Lajeune, Fort Bragg, Cherry Point and Seymour Johnson Air Force base. NC is tough to figure. It has both very red and very blue areas. It is trending towards blue but hasn't quite gotten there yet.
the location of military bases would be most problematic for the blue states. The red states have most of the military facilities. But the facilities themselves would lose some of their value with the mass defections of blue state personnel.
I agree with whoever said its going to play out just like that last civil war. The red states would do OK for awhile but would get crushed once the blue states geared up for war.
What would be the killer for the red states, IMHO, is how the blue states would crush them in IT expertise. Of the major high tech corridors, the red states have only the minor ones. Silicon valley, Rt. 128, Seattle and Route 495 (metro DC) would all be safely in blue hands. The red states communications, electrical and infrastructure systems would be totally breached/###### for the duration, and that would be the difference.
EDIt: soft drink of choice to spike on the nuke sub angle.
Given that the 2000 election was stolen with nary a whimper, I think you are giving way too much credit. Post-2000 there was no change in the way elections were run; no change in how ballots were put together; and no change in how they were counted or re-counted.
It is a different media, now, though. MSNBC is much better than Fox, and serves as a real counterweight. They've been pounding the story, with real effect.
The market has been governed by computer trading for a while now. Long-term you might see some real relationship between price and earnings, but in the short term the fluctations can result from one hundred triggers on the order of, 'it's a Thursday. Tech stocks for the past decade increase on Thursdays.' Those adjustments can easily overwhelm specific events actually related to the stock itself.
This is breathtakingly ingenious.
I love how the same people who cheer the idea of, e.g., Texas voting for a Republican but throwing its EC votes to the Dem under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact now are aghast, absolutely aghast, at the idea of using some other scheme to award EC votes.
Do you guys have any actual principles, or do you just decide everything on a case-by-case basis?
***
Oops, another BBTF lefty exhibiting a serious lack of principles. The same guy who not only loves but demands "progressive" taxation at the local and state level is suddenly appalled at the idea of progressive taxation at the federal level.
All whims, no principles. Such is the convenient life of the modern lefty.
Traitors get hung.
It appears the difference between blue and red schemes at electoral reform is this: blue schemes strive to better represent the will of the people while red schemes strive to suppress it.
Giving your state's EC votes to a candidate your state's voters didn't vote for hardly seems aligned with respecting the "will of the people."
***
Yes, "Shredder," I know how much you lefties hate when your hypocrisy and lack of principles are pointed out to you. I know how much it hurts your fragile self-esteem.
***
I'd love to see a list of the inconsistent political principles I've exhibited here.
This is ingenious, but it is sleight of hand, as it 'twere. What is the fetus evidence of?
Why not a law that makes it a felony for her to bathe and douche afterwards?
The 'blue state schemes' aren't schemes -- they're changes to either eliminate wholesale the winner-take-all EC paradigm, or, essentially eliminate the EC paradigm altogether. The national vote compact isn't predicated on some patently undemocratic idea how to best turn the election towards a particular party, it's predicated entirely on the idea of the guy with the most votes being President.
None of these horrid red state schemes are predicated on that -- there's a reason that GOP-held legislatures in PA (blue state), MI (blue state), VA (purple state trending blue), and OH (purple) are doing this... yet - nothing is changing in SC (where the GOP just took both chambers for the first time), nothing is changing in AL, nothing is changing in GA, in MS, or any other red state.
These shenanigans are solely happening where splitting EVs would only under any conceivable, realistic circumstance in the foreseeable future - aid a Republic candidate to win the White House, regardless of the will of the majority of the country.
It's such a perverse joke - why even bother? Why not just pass legislation awarding the EVs by fiat now...
To be sure, both parties play games with gerrymandering. Both parties seek electoral advantage.
But anyone who doesn't see for the naked subversion it is, is either a liar or an idiot.
To wit - there's a difference gerrymandering districts to maximize party advantage and going so nuclear as to create a single party delegation...
EVERY single state where this is being done is in a state where the scenario only hurts Democratic chances. NOWHERE is any such legislation being proposed in states where Democratic might pick up an EV or two...
Again - why even bother with the niceties of elections?
This isn't even a case of giving the GOP an advantage in tight elections -- it's literally baking in advantage for the Republicans such that a Democratic Presidential candidate would literally need to win nationally by 5 to 7 points to have any shot at winning.
Again... Obama won the 2012 election by 5 million votes and nearly 4 points nationally... had these bills all been in place, he would have lost.
Anyone who believes that's a 'proper' result - and that's the sole thing this movement is looking to produce - has no place in a democracy, a republic, or any other representative form of government.
Like I said, just get it over with and cancel the elections because they no longer serve any meaningful purpose - there's no balance of small states vs large states, no balance of state and federal, no concern over tyranny of majority or tyranny of minority.... it's solely and only about ensuring a single party monopoly.
Yes, and that's what's so problematic with what Virginia is trying to ram through (without even the majority of the state legislature agreeing, mind you). They're trying to imbalance the power of the state electorate towards the minority of the rural voters who will vote red.
I'm glad you see the problem, Joe, and can demonstrate the capacity for critical and independent analysis.
You and all your pool-playing, movie-stealing buddies are welcome to try of course, friend ...
;)
Funny how gerrymandering only stinks when your party is on the wrong end of it.
Also, #2428 is a 13-paragraph reply by Zonk to a one-sentence comment. That might be a new record for him.
So we can trust them to take away our guns and to force us to buy crappy health insurance, etc., but we can't trust them to draw legislative districts.
So you don't believe in limited government. Swell. You want a government that actually responds to the people, it'll help by having representatives that actually have to listen to what their constituents want.
What do you want, they gave the idea of outreach and perhaps reversing the trend of women and latinos consolidating into the blue column a full 8 weeks of effort... it didn't work, so this is plan B.
Huh? Drawing legislative districts is a lot more aligned with the concept of "limited government" than taking away people's guns or forcing people to buy health insurance.
I'm... for this? You quoted me. But, Its so hard to tell, when I dont even know what the hell you're talking about.
Isn't the NPV a scheme to get EVERY state to divvy its votes accordingly? Yea, sure I'm for that. What does that have to do with anything?
oh, ok, I got to this right after. So youre against the thing that is really happening, and I'm for something that you told me I'm for, and isn't happening. OK.
One real advantage to the proposals in Virginia and Wisconsin would be that it would limit the amount of fraud that takes place in the inner cities that illegally inflates the Democratic vote by tens of thousands. The fact that this is allowed to happen is still a crime that needs to be prosecuted, but with the changes to the Electoral College voting, the corruption of one district won't completely tarnish the votes of the entire state. You still have the problem with the single district (or more depending on the size of the state), but these corrupt areas will no longer be able to illegally influence the vote in districts that properly vote.
Its kinda hilarious that Joe states what exactly is the issue and so he's against the idea of independent panels drawing the district lines. Fantastic.
Your comment was one of many on the topic. I simply used it as a jumping-off point for my comment, which wasn't intended as an accusation against you personally.
***
What exactly is this (alleged) "gotcha" you're so excited about?
Also, there's no such thing as an "independent" redistricting panel. You can't take politics out of politics.
Whatever you think I am saying, I'm actually just amused on how you're so rigidly against what you consider the regular ol' 'liberal Orthodox'. Nothing more, or less.
And they're "independent" of the political parties, not politics. There's a clear implications what "independent" means, and I trust you do understand and are just playing coy.
no, actually, if the Democrats win a bunch of legislatures and governors offices in 2014, I don't think that they should cherrypick a few adventitious states, massively rejigger their electoral system, and win control of the federal government via a firewall against all but the most massive popular vote landslide.
Glad to get that off my chest.
This thing that never happened is destroying our democracy! In order to save Democracy, we must trash it!
Signed,
Every right wing dictatorship ever
How is this better? The parties at least represent large blocs of voters.
***
You did? Every time you stop by, you claim to have found the "dumbest thing ever posted on BBTF."
***
And more than a few left-wing dictatorships, too.
Woo!
High-five!
***
By the way, "Gold Star" — I was here almost all afternoon and evening on Election Day and then stayed here for hours and hours that night and into the following morning, discussing the results. Yet someone told me you were in the Lounge, claiming that I was "scarce" on those two days. Are you a liar in real life, or only on the internet?
I'm not worried about my honor. I just felt like pointing out that you're a gutless weasel who likes to lie about people behind their backs. You know, for the benefit of the people who don't hang out in the Lounge all day.
That I've upset you has made my night. It really has.
I'm not upset at all. I knew about it two months ago, but you're generally so unnoticeable/irrelevant here that I kept forgetting to mention it.
Hi-5 is so square. All the cool kids are into terrorist fist jabs.
Bump it my Negroes!
Why do you hate America so much?
When was the last time Israel was mentioned?
Not even close.
I missed the opportunity to comment on this gem (clearly I need less life and more web time), but darn it I want to.
First of all it is a classic JoeK comment. You will note he is not defending the GOP plans, not talking about the principles behind it or anything like it. He is attacking the people criticizing the GOP proposal. If he had a principle he wanted to talk about then that could be discussed, but he is not interested in that.
So discussing the merits of the GOP propsal is irrelevent to Joe's case. Anyone against the GOP is bad and should be attacked, and the discussion staying on those grounds works for him.
All that aside, it is an obvious power grab by the GOP, but a fairly clever one and clearly within the EC rules. How much (if any) backlash there would be either before or after an election with these rules in place is not clear to me. How many partisan Joe's are there, versus folks who are conservative but still have a sense of fair play and can see a power grab and wouldn't like it?
Because it is legal and there is not much that could be done about it. And no I don't think it would spark a civil war or anything like that, though I did appreciate the brief detour into War!
Interesting fact: during the actual Civil War, this was a pretty big issue in most of Appalachia. Much like West Virginia, the hills and mountain counties of Carolina, GA and TN didn't really want any part of the war to defend slavery, which was only really supported popularly by the lowland cotton societies. While only WV succeeded in seceding from the seceding state, there was a lot of "insurrection" against the Confederacy in the mountains of the other CSA states.
The NPV scheme is entirely founded on making the EC moot...
Basically, the legislation in place in a number of states is predicated on 270 EVs worth of states passing the same - at that point, the EC is moot... there are is a majority of states who will always ensure the national popular vote winner wins the EC, regardless.
Hence, they're saying it doesn't matter where the EVs come from -- 270 EVs en bloc would say the national popular vote winner takes the Presidency.
The EC could continue, I suppose, but it becomes meaningless and archaic.
I curse his name daily.
Us to.
I kid.
Unfortunately the cast of characters that will run for his seat look to be even worse, such as Broun and Gringey.
It only seems that way while reading it.
Actually - the plan (and BTW - The RNC has blessed and supports this) is more like saying they're going to make a always-true point spread of 5-7 points part of the game, and even if you 'win', you have to beat this built in point spread.
Because the number of ways to say basketball - and the NBA above all - suck is endless.
Link
It was full of rational, intelligent, informative discussion with very little rancor, grandstanding, or arguments in bad faith.
And the 3d printer thing is interesting. Technology always outpaces legislation.
Depending on who the Dems run against a potential Broun bid, that's a definite pick-up possibility for the D's in the Senate. It would be odd having a Dem Senator from GA, but if the GOP runs a nutter fringe kook like Broun, it could happen.
Rep. John Barrow, who faced a tough re-election campaign this year. I don't think he'll run though, and he has said he is not interested. I don't see Kasim Reed running. Scott Holcomb is a hot name but I don't think he's got the pull to win. In a reserve tank somewhere is Shirley Franklin. Those immediately come to mind, I'm sure I'm forgetting someone.
//edit - Herman Cain may well run and win, BTW. Try that on for size.
#### YEAH MOONBASE.
GA is a strong Lib state, especially the Atlanta suburbs. If the GOP goes hard right, and the Dems have a weak challenger, it's not impossible that Barr could do a real dance for the seat.
Market dropped 10%
All the columnists and financial tv yakkers tell me that borrowing money from your 401k still makes you worse than hitler.
One wonders how many of these talking heads actually follow their own advice. Not that I watch them very often (no money so no investment worries), but much of what I've seen is either common sense that any investor should know, or stuff that is just batshit crazy.
MPAA: You wouldn't download a high capacity magazine.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main