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

Sunday, September 02, 2012

OTP - September 2012 - Because it’s Labor Day after all

Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 02, 2012 at 01:22 PM | 8483 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 6 of 85 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›
   501. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:09 PM (#4227212)
Like all management teams the military "experts" want an owner that will give them clear goals that they can believe in and that they will be given the resources and ability to reach those goals. They also don't want to get a black eye for things they tend not specialize in (torture) or to be used as leverage in things they cannot control (political side). It does appear that Obama's administration does this better than Bush 2's administration.

Secretary of defense, 2006 to 2009 (Bush): Robert Gates
Secretary of defense, 2009 to 2011 (Obama): Robert Gates

Chairman of Joint Chiefs, 2007 to 2009 (Bush): Adm. Michael Mullen
Chairman of Joint Chiefs, 2009 to 2011 (Obama): Adm. Michael Mullen

Hmm ...
   502. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:09 PM (#4227213)
Obama's putrid track record demands his removal from office.


So that a crappy politician can take his place?


If Obama had an R next to his name he would be touting this exact same track records as "leadership and success."
   503. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4227216)
What were the 2007 or 2008 findings on morale in the Army?

Military reenlistment reached all-time highs under Bush and Rumsfeld. Their unpopularity among military types has been vastly overstated.
   504. PreservedFish Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:11 PM (#4227218)
Maybe the people with cushy jobs in D.C., but not, apparently, the guys in the trenches:


Just FYI Kehoskie, I don't respond to your posts much because I think you're a troll. If you're not, then you are so impossibly inflexible in your biases that you have no ability to carry on a political conversation like an adult. I was going to write something like "one wonders what the response would be if the opposite were true and the soldiers loved Obama but he was disliked by the generals." But no, one does not wonder. One knows that your response would be that the opinions of the grunts are irrelevant because the accomplished men who actually work hand in hand with Obama know better.

Your post #501 is an almost astonishing display of cognitive dissonance, by the way. Congrats.
   505. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:11 PM (#4227220)
tepid and malleable requirements.

Can we not turn this into another thread about Jack Morris' HoF qualifications?
   506. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:12 PM (#4227221)
Damn right I'm voting for Romney.


really I would never ever have guessed.

   507. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:13 PM (#4227223)
What were the 2007 or 2008 findings on morale in the Army?


I actually looked for that, can't find, but the Center for Army Leadership seems to have some fascinating stuff on their site.
   508. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:14 PM (#4227225)
Just FYI Kehoskie, I don't respond to your posts much because I think you're a troll.


He's Maynard. Nothing more, nothing less.
   509. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:15 PM (#4227226)
Military reenlistment reached all-time highs under Bush and Rumsfeld.

As determined by gross totals or as a percentage?
   510. TomH Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:15 PM (#4227227)
47th in job creation is VERY misleading. State was 50th when he came in, 28th when he left. If you suddenly became Gov of (pick a lousy state, I will defer from naming a specific obvious one) and got their public schools up from "abysmal" to 'mediocre' in 4 years, for an average rating of "poor", would you want us to assign you a gread of "poor"??
   511. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:17 PM (#4227228)
Just FYI Kehoskie, I don't respond to your posts much because I think you're a troll.

He IS a troll, but as trolls go he's a "good one" he sometimes has a point and doesn't just spew mindless invective, and besides sometimes you need someone, even a troll to play off of, or a thread (a politics thread) will turn into a circle jerk so to speak.
   512. Kiko Sakata Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:17 PM (#4227229)
   513. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:17 PM (#4227230)
Just FYI Kehoskie, I don't respond to your posts much because I think you're a troll. If you're not, then you are so impossibly inflexible in your biases that you have no ability to carry on a political conversation like an adult.

First Sam Hutcheson calls me an "idiot," and now this. I don't know how I'll be able to get through life knowing some guy who calls himself "Preserved Fish" doesn't like my political commentary.
   514. McCoy Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:17 PM (#4227231)
Military reenlistment reached all-time highs under Bush and Rumsfeld. Their unpopularity among military types has been vastly overstated.

What were the morale numbers for 2007 and 2008?

Why did people reenlist? Could it be because a few planes crashed into American buildings and the administration created some pretty strong incentives to reenlist?
   515. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4227233)
Aside from Romney having an actual track record of leadership and success

Success in making himself a multi-millionaire, no doubt about that. Success in avoiding taxes to the point where he's too embarrassed to reveal his tricks of the trade, absolutely. Success in winning the nomination over world class opposition like Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Can't beat that for an amazing achievement.

But then I'm probably being unfair, since Romney actually has accomplished one socially useful thing in his entire life: Romneycare. Too bad he's run away from that faster than Strom Thurmond ran away from his backyard Santa love child.
   516. McCoy Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4227234)
47th in job creation is VERY misleading. State was 50th when he came in, 28th when he left. If you suddenly became Gov of (pick a lousy state, I will defer from naming a specific obvious one) and got their public schools up from "abysmal" to 'mediocre' in 4 years, for an average rating of "poor", would you want us to assign you a gread of "poor"??

The same could be used as a defense for Obama as well. He came into a crappy situation and has been the leader while the nation has gotten less crappy.
   517. Ron J2 Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4227235)
The Dems thought that Kerry had substance - war hero! - but if they paid more attention to his intangibles, maybe they would have gone another direction.


As Jonathan Bernstein (among others) has pointed out, Kerry actually out-performed his fundamentals. It was just a lousy time for the Democrats.

Now the "fundamentals" approach has a pretty fair margin of error. IOW it's certainly possible that a different candidate could have won. It's just somewhat unlikely.
   518. McCoy Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:21 PM (#4227237)
First Sam Hutcheson calls me an "idiot," and now this. I don't know how I'll be able to get through life knowing some guy who calls himself "Preserved Fish" doesn't like my political commentary.

Well, personally I don't know how someone who makes a living by getting a cut from immigrants coming to this country can live with themselves when they believe those immigrants shouldn't be allowed to come to this country. Seems your motives for strong immigration controls is to profit from the barriers that are put up on these poor people looking for a better life.

Note to Jim: I'll stop debating Joe at this point in a direct manner since for whatever reason I'm not allowed. Everyone else apparently is allowed to call him in out and Joe gets to continue to spew his nonsense.

So Sam carry on with the good fight and Jim I'll try to be more obscure about my disagreeing with Joe.
   519. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:21 PM (#4227239)
47th in job creation is VERY misleading. State was 50th when he came in, 28th when he left. If you suddenly became Gov of (pick a lousy state, I will defer from naming a specific obvious one) and got their public schools up from "abysmal" to 'mediocre' in 4 years, for an average rating of "poor", would you want us to assign you a gread of "poor"??

That sounds a lot like the state of the economy since 2008, and yet it seems to be the Republicans' sole campaign theme.

EDIT: coke to McCoy
   520. Spahn Insane Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:22 PM (#4227240)
Ted Strickland gave a base rousing jeremiad and Deval Patrick's was also good.

zonk, as a guy who agrees with you on most things (from what I can discern from BBTF threads, at least), this reads oddly to me; I thought Patrick's speech was about a jillion times better than Strickland's. Leaving aside substance--for the love of god, Ted, vary your pitch a little. (Actually, he did, toward the end--he started shouting even louder.)
   521. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:28 PM (#4227244)
So why are people arguing whether or not Obama was qualified to be president (had accomplishments or whatever) in 2008?

He met the two (and there are only two) criteria. He was constitutionally eligible. He won the election. Evrything else is just talk.

That does not mean you can't talk about his accomplishments (or Palin's lack therein, or whatever), but it goes to the whole election thing. It is a Democracy, where the people get to decide. And they did.

Now, here in 2012, Obama is clearly more experienced than Romney. Whether he is is more "qualified" will be decided by, you guessed it, an election. One which will likely be won by Obama, but we shall see.

Other than getting elected to the office, previous accomplishments mean nothing*, unless you somehow want to try to prove that previous accomplishments are predictive of how a president will do in office (and good luck with that by the way).

* Well it does go to the total worth of a persons accomplishments, for example George Washington brings with him a pretty impressive pre-presidency career which adds to his LORE (Life Over Replacement Entity) rating, but should not change how his presidency is evaluated.
   522. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:28 PM (#4227245)
So Sam carry on with the good fight and Jim I'll tried to be more obscure about my disagreeing with Joe.


Oh, I killfiled the troll ages ago. I will occasionally point out to others that they're arguing with a troll for no purpose whatsoever.
   523. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4227246)
Well, personally I don't know how someone who makes a living by getting a cut from immigrants coming to this country can live with themselves when they believe those immigrants shouldn't be allowed to come to this country. Seems your motives for strong immigration controls is to profit from the barriers that are put up on these poor people looking for a better life.

I've never come out against immigration, just low-skilled immigration, especially at a time of high unemployment among low-skilled workers.

But regardless, there's nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about my position on immigration. Professional athletes aren't low-skilled immigrants, so your logic doesn't seem to hold much water.
   524. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:31 PM (#4227249)
Oh, I killfiled the troll ages ago. I will occasionally point out to others that they're arguing with a troll for no purpose whatsoever.

Liar. You quoted me in #424 before anyone else had done so.
   525. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4227251)
Damn right I'm voting for
whomever was the Republican nominee for president, like always.
   526. McCoy Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4227252)
Apparently in some circles a minor league job that tops out at something like $25,000 is a highly skilled job in which it is okay to bring in immigrant workers to hold that job while being a janitor for $25,000 is a low skilled job that we have to erect barriers to protect in this troubled time. I wonder if it has anything to do with the ability of a third party to make any money off that employee. Not that I'm talking about anyone here. Just in general I'm wondering.

The ability to hit a fastball has an expiration date. The ability to be an engineer or a doctor or a carpenter does not have an expiration date.
   527. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4227253)
Don't feel bad, Joe; that's just what Sam does when he loses an argument.
   528. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4227254)
Don't feel bad, Joe; that's just what Sam does when he loses an argument.


No, this is what I do when someone proves themselves incapable of rational discourse, Kneeps.
   529. Tripon Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4227255)
whomever was the Republican nominee for president, like always.


If Obama was the RNC, would Joe vote for him?
   530. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4227256)
Apparently in some circles a minor league job that tops out at something like $25,000 is a highly skilled job in which it is okay to bring in immigrant workers to hold that job while being a janitor for $25,000 is a low skilled job that we have to erect walls to protect in this troubled time. I wonder if it has anything to do with the ability of a third party to make any money off that employee. Not that I'm talking about anyone here. Just in general I'm wondering.

Hey, blame it on those racist, xenophobic Republicans who reclassified minor league players as skilled workers in 2006, thus granting them P1 visas rather than H2B visas.
   531. Spahn Insane Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4227259)
He's Maynard. Nothing more, nothing less.

Well, perhaps less cordial.
   532. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:41 PM (#4227262)
Apparently in some circles a minor league job that tops out at something like $25,000 is a highly skilled job in which it is okay to bring in immigrant workers to hold that job while being a janitor for $25,000 is a low skilled job that we have to erect barriers to protect in this troubled time. I wonder if it has anything to do with the ability of a third party to make any money off that employee. Not that I'm talking about anyone here. Just in general I'm wondering.


Coyotes are gonna coyote and mules are gonna mule.
   533. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:41 PM (#4227263)
Your post #501 is an almost astonishing display of cognitive dissonance, by the way. Congrats.


The interesting part is if we combine the information in 501 with the knowledge* that the current brass prefer Obama to Bush leads one to believe that it really was Obama they were preferring.

However, I don't think what the Military think about the President is very significant. It is not the Presidents job to cater to the Military and make sure they like him. The President's job is to work for the benefit of the nation as a whole, to see to all of our interests.

Certain parties (for example the Military, but really anyone) might not like parts of it, but too darn bad. Elections are a popularity contest, but being Presidentis not. There are times when popularity makes the job much easier (bully pulpit and all that), but there is no reason the Military gets some kind of preferred status and their feelings matter more than teachers, students, or anyone else.

The fetish some folks have for the military is just plain bizarre. I am not against them, but why on Earth should their opinion of the President matter more than anyone elses?

* I say knowledge, but I have no idea who they prefer. Nor actually do I care honestly.
   534. Fresh Prince of Belisle Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4227264)
Anyone declaring Kehoskie a troll while simultaneously joking about it with Hutcheson, the biggest, nastiest, troll in BTF history shouldn't be taken the least bit seriously. Kehoskie is a troll, but Hutcheson's got an even bigger bridge.
   535. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4227270)
the biggest, nastiest, troll in BTF history


Now thems some big shoes I'm being pushed into.
   536. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4227271)
If Obama had an R next to his name he would be touting this exact same track records as "leadership and success."

Nonsense. Here's one example of what I said about Marco Rubio back when people were trumpeting him for v.p.:

I like Marco Rubio, but he's the GOP's Obama. He's a half-term senator who generates a lot of love but is thin on actual accomplishments and initiatives.
   537. Steve Treder Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4227273)
The fetish some folks have for the military is just plain bizarre. I am not against them, but why on Earth should their opinion of the President matter more than anyone elses?

For no good reason at all, of course. The rah-rah-military schtick is childish at best, dangerous at worst. The proper stance toward the military, by the President and everyone else, should be seriousness, respect, and skepticism.
   538. McCoy Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:50 PM (#4227275)
Anyone declaring Kehoskie a troll while simultaneously joking about it with Hutcheson, the biggest, nastiest, troll in BTF history shouldn't be taken the least bit seriously. Kehoskie is a troll, but Hutcheson's got an even bigger bridge.

Well, I could joke about it with about the dozen or so other people who have called him a troll. Which one would you prefer? But it wasn't really a joke. I don't really understand how Joe gets to spew his stuff, I'm not allowed a rebuttal, and everyone else gets to carry on just like I would have done if I was allowed. Of the two parties involved Jim's threats really only apply to me.
   539. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:50 PM (#4227276)
I think a Troll dishonestly present their thoughts or feelings in posts to get a reaction. I don't think that is why Joe K posts what he does, and so I don't think he is a Troll.

Sam H is posting what he believes as filtered through the bit he has (his BBTF personality as it were), and that honesty prevents him from also fitting my personal Troll definition.

Both can be a bit hard to take, but Sam is more amusing because his bit is off kilter and over the top enough (but that is pretty subjective). I think both add to the over OT politics thread.
   540. McCoy Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4227277)
I wonder if people who say they are voting for Romney would vote for him in if he was a Democrat. I also wonder if they voted for him in either the 2008 or 2012 primary or would have if they voted.
   541. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:54 PM (#4227279)
I wonder if people who say they are voting for Romney would vote for him in if he was a Democrat.

Impossible to answer. Would he have the same positions? Who is his opponent?
   542. Lassus Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:55 PM (#4227280)
I don't know how I'll be able to get through life knowing some guy who calls himself "Preserved Fish" doesn't like my political commentary.

Preserved Fish was an accomplished businessman and important part of a very successful New York political family. Try to do some research before you move straight to somewhat clueless denigration.
   543. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:56 PM (#4227281)
Apparently in some circles a minor league job that tops out at something like $25,000 is a highly skilled job in which it is okay to bring in immigrant workers to hold that job while being a janitor for $25,000 is a low skilled job that we have to erect barriers to protect in this troubled time. I wonder if it has anything to do with the ability of a third party to make any money off that employee. Not that I'm talking about anyone here. Just in general I'm wondering.
What on earth does pay have to do with it? Pay is a function of supply and demand. Minor league ballplayers are very highly skilled; they're not paid a lot because there isn't much demand for those skills outside of the top 750 people with those skills. There are lots of Olympic gold medalists who aren't worth $25,000, not because they're not skilled but because no sane person is interested in competitive racewalking.

(And how much money does one think someone can make off a person "tops out at something like $25,000," btw?)

The ability to hit a fastball has an expiration date. The ability to be an engineer or a doctor or a carpenter does not have an expiration date.
Sure it does, although that date is farther out.
   544. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4227285)
I wonder if people who say they are voting for Romney would vote for him in if he was a Democrat.


That's the hilarious part of all of this: Given the two main candidates of Romney and Obama, if the two candidates' positions remained the same and nothing was done other than swapping the D and R next to their names, the liberals here would vote for Romney and the conservative here would vote for Obama. The liberals and the conservative act as if they're deeply analyzing and concerned about the issues, when really -- here's my sports analogy again -- they're doing nothing except voting for the uniform.

Which makes all of their election banter here pretty pointless.
   545. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4227286)
First Sam Hutcheson calls me an "idiot," and now this. I don't know how I'll be able to get through life knowing some guy who calls himself "Preserved Fish" doesn't like my political commentary.


See, this is nice and dry, good post.

In case you care (and I assume you don't), the reason I call you a troll, is because you do not argue honestly. If a "conservative" says or does something, you say it is good, if a "liberal" says or does the same thing, you say it is bad.

If you say that a liberal is bad because of A, and someone shows that A is not true, you say that the liberal is still bad due to not A.

I know you are going to say that everyone else, or at least all the liberals, argue this way, but no, it really is just you doing that here.
   546. PreservedFish Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4227288)
Preserved Fish was an accomplished businessman and important part of a very successful New York political family. Try to do some research before you move straight to somewhat clueless denigration.

And I want you all to calibrate your mental pronunciation accordingly:

His first name was properly pronounced with three syllables ("pre-SER-vedd"),
   547. McCoy Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4227290)
What on earth does pay have to do with it?

So someone who is against low skilled workers coming into this country because their prospects aren't good, won't make a lot of money thus requiring tax payer assistance, and take a job away from a native low skilled worker can be for having a highly skilled worker coming into this country even though their prospects aren't good, won't make a lot of money this requiring tax payer assistance, and take a job away from a native high skilled worker is being logically consistent with these two views? In terms of baseball minor leaguers what is the real difference between "high skilled" and "low skilled" outside the letter of the law? Economically they are in the same boat.

(And how much money does one think someone can make off a person "tops out at something like $25,000," btw?)

I don't know. It wasn't the profession I picked for myself.
   548. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:03 PM (#4227291)
Andy, despite all of his hoopla here about Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand, would vote for Ryan if Ryan had a D next to his name. As would Sam, Lassus, Treder, on and on and on. They think their positions make them better than everyone else, but they're not actually better than everyone else; they just root root root for the home team.
   549. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:06 PM (#4227293)
That's the hilarious part of all of this: Given the two main candidates of Romney and Obama, if the two candidates' positions remained the same and nothing was done other than swapping the D and R next to their names, the liberals here would vote for Romney and the conservative here would vote for Obama. The liberals and the conservative act as if they're deeply analyzing and concerned about the issues, when really -- here's my sports analogy again -- they're doing nothing except voting for the uniform.

Which makes all of their election banter here pretty pointless.


Not me. I would never vote for someone with Obama's positions on abortion/marriage/etc., if there was a less odious option.
   550. PreservedFish Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4227296)
Andy, despite all of his hoopla here about Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand, would vote for Ryan if Ryan had a D next to his name. As would Sam, Lassus, Treder, on and on and on.


I think this is probably an exaggeration. I agree that the letters D and R determine millions of votes, and some of the candidates' positions could conceivably be flipped from one party to the other. But Paul Ryan as a D doesn't make a lot of sense, unless the guy with the R is Adolf Hitler.
   551. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4227297)
That's the hilarious part of all of this: Given the two main candidates of Romney and Obama, if the two candidates' positions remained the same and nothing was done other than swapping the D and R next to their names, the liberals here would vote for Romney and the conservative here would vote for Obama. The liberals and the conservative act as if they're deeply analyzing and concerned about the issues, when really -- here's my sports analogy again -- they're doing nothing except voting for the uniform.


If the two candidates positions remained the same and we swapped the D and R - then by proxy, the party positions would be flipped and so would my vote.

This has to be one of the dumbest what ifs in the history of the BBTF OTPs...

Yes, if Mitt Romney were pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, believed health care was something more fundamental than changing your car's oil and as such, ought to have some role for government to ensure universal affordability, was opposed to neocon-based foreign policy, and likewise believed in public spending to boost an economy in need of a boost -- and Obama believed the opposite of those things, I would vote for Romney...

However, for all those things to be the case - Romney would be running as a D and Obama as an R.

Are we in syndication already with the nonsensical "no difference between the two parties" silliness from a decade ago?
   552. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4227299)

That's the hilarious part of all of this: Given the two main candidates of Romney and Obama, if the two candidates' positions remained the same and nothing was done other than swapping the D and R next to their names, the liberals here would vote for Romney and the conservative here would vote for Obama. The liberals and the conservative act as if they're deeply analyzing and concerned about the issues, when really -- here's my sports analogy again -- they're doing nothing except voting for the uniform.

Which makes all of their election banter here pretty pointless.


I really don't think this is the case. We can add this to your Ryan statement.

What's funny is that Gov. Romney or Senate candidate Romney probably WOULD draw significant democratic support. A pro-choice, pro-universal healthcare candidate supporting a a long-term debt reduction plan which includes significant infrastructure investment and LGBT equality sounds fairly palatable.

The current Mitt Romney would be impossible for me to vote for because of his regressive social positions, if nothing else. His supply side economic policy is also pretty unappealing, though Romney's promised infrastructure expenditure is appealing (I promise I heard this in an interview). At least Obama wants to try and pay for his expenditures.

FWIW, Jill Stein might actually come closer to approximating my views and if we had instant runoff voting, I'd probably put a 1 next to her name and a 2 next to Barack Obama's (and a 3 next to Gary Johnson's.)
   553. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4227300)
Given the two main candidates of Romney and Obama, if the two candidates' positions remained the same and nothing was done other than swapping the D and R next to their names, the liberals here would vote for Romney and the conservative here would vote for Obama. The liberals and the conservative act as if they're deeply analyzing and concerned about the issues, when really -- here's my sports analogy again -- they're doing nothing except voting for the uniform.


Not true. First of all some of us do care about issues, and on many issues (as we have discussed before) the two parties are very different. Most of the issue parsing is done in the primary.

Secondly with his current positions Obama could not get nominated dog catcher by the GOP, and Romney would have a nearly equally tough time. The reason many can "just vote the uniform" is because the uniform (party in this instance) holds within it a basket of positions on those issues you say are not important.

Swing voters either have a some of A some of B attitude or more often are basically low information (ignorant) folks who decide who to vote for, for whatever random reason they want.

However the fact that most Liberals will vote for the Liberal major party and most Conservatives will vote for the Conservative major party does not mean they are sheep, it means they have correctly identified the person that most closely matches their views. This is pretty m,uch the point of political parties, by the way.

EDIT: Coke to all who clearly type much faster than I. With fewer typos also. And less Rodent.
   554. Lassus Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4227301)
Andy, despite all of his hoopla here about Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand, would vote for Ryan if Ryan had a D next to his name. As would Sam, Lassus, Treder, on and on and on. They think their positions make them better than everyone else, but they're not actually better than everyone else; they just root root root for the home team.

Ray, thank you for not paying attention for 5 years. Anti-gay, pro-life, anti-science, corporate wealth uber alles, and yet you still think it's a letter that makes the difference. Brilliant.
   555. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:10 PM (#4227302)
Preserved Fish was an accomplished businessman and important part of a very successful New York political family. Try to do some research before you move straight to somewhat clueless denigration.

Preserved Fish was a rich banker and member of the NYSE who was involved with the corrupt Tammany Hall. It's comical for a liberal to use that as a screen name here and expect to be taken seriously.

***
In case you care (and I assume you don't), the reason I call you a troll, is because you do not argue honestly. If a "conservative" says or does something, you say it is good, if a "liberal" says or does the same thing, you say it is bad.

This is comical. I have far more heterodox political positions than any of the liberals here. The fact none of you have noticed or are willing to admit it says much more about the liberals and their cocoon than it does about me.
   556. The Good Face Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:11 PM (#4227303)
The fetish some folks have for the military is just plain bizarre. I am not against them, but why on Earth should their opinion of the President matter more than anyone elses?


Because they have the power to do something about their opinion. I can't believe this sort of thing even requires explanation to somebody who doesn't believe in natural rights, but reduces all rights to outgrowths of government power.
   557. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:11 PM (#4227304)

This has to be one of the dumbest what ifs in the history of the BBTF OTPs...


You may not have noticed, but a great many people pull the lever simply based on D or R.

And the idea that the BBTF high-fivers and Joe are above that is laughable.
   558. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:11 PM (#4227305)
That's the hilarious part of all of this: Given the two main candidates of Romney and Obama, if the two candidates' positions remained the same and nothing was done other than swapping the D and R next to their names, the liberals here would vote for Romney and the conservative here would vote for Obama.

I would have voted for Romney in a heartbeat if it were the same Mitt Romney who was the governor of Mass. The guy who's running for president now is a different guy.
   559. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:11 PM (#4227308)

This is comical. I have far more heterodox political positions than any of the liberals here. The fact none of you have noticed or are willing to admit it says much more about the liberals and their cocoon than it does about me.


Name one.
   560. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:12 PM (#4227309)
Andy, despite all of his hoopla here about Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand, would vote for Ryan if Ryan had a D next to his name. As would Sam, Lassus, Treder, on and on and on. They think their positions make them better than everyone else, but they're not actually better than everyone else; they just root root root for the home team.


You seriously have no idea what you're talking about with regards to me, here, Ray.
   561. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:13 PM (#4227310)
I would have voted for Romney in a heartbeat if it were the same Mitt Romney who was the governor of Mass. The guy who's running for president now is a different guy.


No he's not. He's just changed his spots to suit his purposes. Much like Obama suddenly couldn't bear - simply couldn't bear - to associate himself with Jeremiah Wright or his church anymore. But the core is the same.
   562. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:15 PM (#4227312)

You may not have noticed, but a great many people pull the lever simply based on D or R.


Ray, that's mostly because one party or the other mirrors the majority of their views.

I almost always vote Republican b/c they usually match more of my views on the important issues. The exception is at the Town level, where I vote Democratic, b/c the Republicans are the tax and spend party, and social issues are irrelevant.
   563. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4227313)
This has to be one of the dumbest what ifs in the history of the BBTF OTPs...



You may not have noticed, but a great many people pull the lever simply based on D or R.


Um, sure -- and that 'D' and 'R' stand for basic differences in governing philosophy. I'm fairly sure it's not a matter of blue or red color preference. I have, on very rare occasions, voted for Republicans - more on the local level (believe it or not, there are urban Republicans who actually tout themselves as 'liberal Republicans'), but I voted for Dick Lugar on my last Indiana ballot (1994) and I also voted for George Ryan for governor in 1998.
   564. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:17 PM (#4227315)
Because they have the power to do something about their opinion. I can't believe this sort of thing even requires explanation to somebody who doesn't believe in natural rights, but reduces all rights to outgrowths of government power.


So the President needs to kiss military @$$ because otherwise they will overthrow the government? Do you live in a Banana Republic somewhere? Seriously?

The military should be treated like everyone else. Full stop. It is the treating them like they are special, like they deserve extra attention, like they deserve a free pony and to be spoiled, that will eventually cause them to decide they ARE better and more deserving and which could lead to problems down the road.

Fortunately I believe and trust in our military, even though you clearly do not.
   565. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4227317)
Name one.

Proves my point. Among other things, I was for gay marriage long before Obama, and I've repeatedly called for higher wages for low-skilled workers.

Meanwhile, I can't think of a single liberal in these threads who holds a non-orthodox position on any major issue.
   566. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:19 PM (#4227318)
I'll try it another way: If John Edwards were running against Romney, you people would vote for Edwards. Despite the fact that you were all so outraged - just outraged - at what he did.

Do any of you deny this?
   567. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:20 PM (#4227319)
Meanwhile, I can't think of a single liberal in these threads who holds a non-orthodox position on any major issue.


Yes.
   568. PreservedFish Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:22 PM (#4227320)
No he's not. He's just changed his spots to suit his purposes. Much like Obama suddenly couldn't bear to associate himself with Jeremiah Wright or his church anymore. But the core is the same.


First of all, we cannot reasonably guess what Romney's core is, because his views in Massachusetts may have been similarly altered to suit his purposes. But more importantly, that core doesn't matter, what matters is the decisions he's likely to make in office. Is Romney going to just back away from all of his new positions?
   569. Tripon Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:22 PM (#4227321)
I probably wouldn't vote for Edwards, I'd probably look for a 3rd party candidate or just not vote at all. If None of the Above was an option, that would be a choice I would use.
   570. The Good Face Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:27 PM (#4227325)
So the President needs to kiss military @$$ because otherwise they will overthrow the government? Do you live in a Banana Republic somewhere? Seriously?


You liberals are the guys who worship power around here, not us libertarians. The military has a ton of power; why are you so surprised that people who are obsessed with power kiss up to them?

The military should be treated like everyone else. Full stop. It is the treating them like they are special, like they deserve extra attention, like they deserve a free pony and to be spoiled, that will eventually cause them to decide they ARE better and more deserving and which could lead to problems down the road.


Reality dictates otherwise. The military is NOT like everyone else, because they have the power to do what other people and institutions do not.

Fortunately I believe and trust in our military, even though you clearly do not.


This is utterly non-responsive to anything I've said. Don't stop though, I like watching you throw self-righteous little hissy fits.
   571. McCoy Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4227326)
Meanwhile, I can't think of a single liberal in these threads who holds a non-orthodox position on any major issue.

Well, I'm against raising the minimum wage. I'm also more libertarian when it comes to social issues. I'm liberal because the Republican party has gone batshvt crazy over the last 20 years.
   572. PreservedFish Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4227327)
Meanwhile, I can't think of a single liberal in these threads who holds a non-orthodox position on any major issue.


You don't differentiate. To you any liberal voice is just one of a chorus of cliches. That is why you are infuriating to talk to.
   573. McCoy Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4227328)
Do any of you deny this?

Yes. I probably wouldn't vote just like I didn't vote in 2008.
   574. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4227329)
I'll try it another way: If John Edwards were running against Romney, you people would vote for Edwards. Despite the fact that you were all so outraged - just outraged - at what he did.


What positions is the slimy little bastard advocating for? Does John Edwards, terrible person, advocate for the expansion of civil rights for gays and lesbians? Does he advocate for reduced military spending and an end to "preemptive" wars of aggression? Does he support fiscally conservative policies such as allowing the Bush tax cuts to sunset in order to better address the looming national deficit issues? Does he support Wall Street and the financial sector over stimulating the decades long stagnation and collapse of the middle class? Does he support a woman's right to her own body, or does he think the government should tell women when and where they must become officially sanctioned breeding sows of the state?

If he's right on the issues I don't care who he ##### on the side, nor if he's doing twin Playmates in the rumpus room while his wife is coughing up lung tissue in the back room.
   575. McCoy Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:31 PM (#4227330)
The military is NOT like everyone else, because they have the power to do what other people and institutions do not.

The military has to change a whole helluva lot in order for this to be true. There are no military coups on the horizon nor in the solar system right now.
   576. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4227331)
Well, I'm against raising the minimum wage. I'm also more libertarian when it comes to social issues. I'm liberal because the Republican party has gone batshvt crazy over the last 20 years.
I'm all for nuclear energy and the consumption tax. I've voted for two Republican governors and a Republican senator. I'm liberal because the Republican party has gone batshvt crazy over the last 20 years.
   577. Morty Causa Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:34 PM (#4227332)
Meanwhile, I can't think of a single liberal in these threads who holds a non-orthodox position on any major issue.


I am a liberal, and I am vehemently against the preferential component of racial/gender policies, legal and political. Equal under the law and in the political process means just that. It doesn't mean more equal for some.

I also find that part of the moralizing green environmental mindset that seems to think that the US in particular and the West in general has a moral duty to commit suicide or return to the dark ages (that this will somehow magically make things right) to be ridiculous and repugnant.
   578. Tripon Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4227335)
In the facepalm division...

Speaking at the Sydney Mining Club, Rinehart said her country's mining industry couldn't compete with nations that are willing to pay workers less than $2 a day for their sweat and labor.

The implicit suggestion: Employers should be free to pay workers whatever they please.

This echoes Rinehart's earlier to-do list, in which she urged Aussie lawmakers to cut the minimum wage so that, well, she wouldn't have to spend so much money on things like workers' salaries and benefits.

"The evidence is inarguable that Australia is becoming too expensive and too uncompetitive to do export-oriented business," Rinehart said at the Sydney Mining Club. "Africans want to work, and its workers are willing to work for less than $2 per day. Such statistics make me worry for this country's future."

Yep, it's getting harder and harder to be a job creator.

Rinehart knows what it means to pull yourself up by the bootstraps. She inherited a fortune now estimated to be worth about $18 billion.
   579. Morty Causa Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4227337)
I'm liberal because the Republican party has gone batshvt crazy over the last 20 years.


This can't be stressed too much. The RP is the party of bogus impeachments, anti-evolution and anti-science, and religious fundamentalism at its most odious and dangerous. Remember Terri Schiavo? If that doesn't make you shudder, then you must be reptilian to the core.
   580. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4227338)
I'll try it another way: If John Edwards were running against Romney


Is a silly hypothetical. How about if Edwarda was running against Gingrich. That is a match made in heaven. They can debate the best way to treat a cancer striken spouse and the proper use of hypocrisy in politics.

But in an alternate universe, given the choice of a horrible person who espouses my views or a noble person whose views I find terrible I think you have to look deep and decide. One of the two Republican votes I have done in my life was in fact because I could not stomach voting for the guy with the D by their name. I voted against the corrupt bastard in the primary, and in the general I voted for the R.

Other times I have voted for the D, even though I knew they were not as good a person, because I am voting for issues and policies and not someone to be my best friend or date my children. Or, basically what Sam said.
   581. The Good Face Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4227340)
The military is NOT like everyone else, because they have the power to do what other people and institutions do not.

The military has to change a whole helluva lot in order for this to be true. There are no military coups on the horizon nor in the solar system right now.


You have no possible way of knowing such a thing. But if your prediction turns out to be correct, the reason you'll be correct is because the political establishment has gone to great lengths over the years to keep the military happy and well-fed. In short, because our politicians do exactly what BM is decrying in this thread.
   582. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4227341)
The President's job is to work for the benefit of the nation as a whole, to see to all of our interests.

No, it's not. That's a modern liberal construct.

The President's job is to preside over the executive function of the federal government and prosecute his other constituional powers and obligations, e.g., as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

There are times when popularity makes the job much easier (bully pulpit and all that), but there is no reason the Military gets some kind of preferred status and their feelings matter more than teachers, students, or anyone else.

This, too, is off -- the military is more entitled to "preferred status" by virtue of the President being their commander-in-chief. It's shocking that this simple fundamental of the US system could be so elusive.


   583. Morty Causa Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:44 PM (#4227342)
I'll try it another way: If John Edwards were running against Romney, you people would vote for Edwards. Despite the fact that you were all so outraged - just outraged - at what he did.


I'm not that outraged--not to the extent that it negates all policy merits.

From what I can tell (and, admittedly, my reading of this is cursory), he's more victim than victimizer. He was married to a shrew and a scold who demeaned him as a matter of course, took refuge with someone who pretended to sympathized, who then parlayed that for all it was worth. Not the perfect person by any means, but, then, yadda yadda.
   584. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:46 PM (#4227344)
I am in the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party and I fall pretty close to that set of beliefs. There are a few random spots (Civil liberties, economics) that I have some disagreements. I am an incrementalist, so I am OK with ACA but I would strongly prefer single payer. Since a majority of Democrats prefer the new law to Single Payer (I suspect) does that put me at odds? Not really I would guess.

Why does it matter though? Is it a badge of honor to have ones own personal Sister Souljah moment with regards to ones party?

   585. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:47 PM (#4227345)
I'll try it another way: If John Edwards were running against Romney, you people would vote for Edwards. Despite the fact that you were all so outraged - just outraged - at what he did.

Do any of you deny this?


So long as he advocated and I believed him regarding the things that there in campaign platform, sure... Given his sleaziness, the "believe him" part would be tough to overcome. I'd probably still vote for him, but my energies would likely be focused downballot.

I'm confused, are we now arguing that Democrats ignore 'style'/personality instead focusing on the 'substance' of the party's generally held positions? Is whiplash a covered condition under Obamacare?
   586. asdf1234 Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:48 PM (#4227346)
Anti-gay, pro-life, anti-science, corporate wealth uber alles, and yet you still think it's a letter that makes the difference. Brilliant.


Granted that the Dems would never be caught dead saying that they're pro-life. The legal monolith of abortion remains a real bone of contention between the two parties, not that it'll change anytime soon. But...

Are you saying that Obama wasn't "anti-gay" before he was pro-gay (again)? Or that the Democratic Party's populist core is pro-gay? Or that the Obama- and Reid-led budget-free Democrats are even pro-mathematics, much less pro-science (whatever that means)? Or that Obama isn't one of the most corrupt presidents in history, shamelessly handing out plunder extorted from working Americans to campaign donors and friends in private industry and not even attempting to disguise or excuse it? Or that the Obama presidency has been somehow distinguishable from the Bush presidency in the experience of most Americans who are not beneficiaries of corporate welfare?

Where have you been for the past four years, and is there room for one more on the island?

You liberals...

That's a modern liberal construct.


Not to distract from the usual blanket party we all enjoy so much, but when did libertarians adopt "liberal" as a label for people who are notably un-liberal (or even anti-liberal when it comes to economics)?
   587. McCoy Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:48 PM (#4227347)
You have no possible way of knowing such a thing

Well, you have no possible way of knowing that the US military could stage a coup. It is just a hypothetical. Yes, people with guns can use those guns on their own people and against the wishes of elected officials but there is no evidence of that ever happening in America*


*And since the early 19th century was a crazy time let me constrain it to the last 60 to 100 years or so.
   588. Morty Causa Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:50 PM (#4227349)
That's the hilarious part of all of this: Given the two main candidates of Romney and Obama, if the two candidates' positions remained the same and nothing was done other than swapping the D and R next to their names, the liberals here would vote for Romney and the conservative here would vote for Obama. The liberals and the conservative act as if they're deeply analyzing and concerned about the issues, when really -- here's my sports analogy again -- they're doing nothing except voting for the uniform.


There's a good deal of truth in this. We all have tendency to team up, then to make it a "us v. them" thing.

Think if Obama had not had a black Muslim father, had not lived in darkest nether regions--you think the opponents wouldn't have looked for a hook so as to simplified choices. What if, instead, he had been the Mormon. Would the Republicans, and the religious right, been so low-key, if not downright conciliatory, as they are with Romney now on this issue?
   589. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:51 PM (#4227350)
Because they have the power to do something about their opinion.


Which is what exactly? Stage a coup? Oh please!
   590. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:53 PM (#4227351)
Andy, despite all of his hoopla here about Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand, would vote for Ryan if Ryan had a D next to his name. As would Sam, Lassus, Treder, on and on and on.

Which is why I voted for Connie Morella every time she ran for Congress against a wide variety of liberal Democrats. You're about as good at mind reading as you are about predicting division winners.

But since you think that labels are everything, why don't you dress up in a mini-skirt and try your luck in a bar. You might want to shave, though, since most guys don't go for bearded ladies.



   591. zonk Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:53 PM (#4227352)

No, it's not. That's a modern liberal construct.

The President's job is to preside over the executive function of the federal government and prosecute his other constituional powers and obligations, e.g., as commander-in-chief of the armed forces.


There you go again...

The constitution said nothing about the 'seat of government' - yet, the Residence Act was one of the nation's first pieces of legislation and there was Washington, laying out what would be a fabulous city grid that was designed to be impressive to visitors - and built at no small cost - in a Virginia swamp.

While monies were being spent on creating a capital city from scratch, he then likewise presided over the Hamilton-Jefferson feud regarding taxation and debt, siding with Hamilton, and personally leading the militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

"Modern liberal construct".

Next, I think we need an OT Remedial History thread...
   592. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:53 PM (#4227353)
Well, you have no possible way of knowing that the US military could stage a coup.


The idea that the military would even want to stage a coup is absurd on its face. There is no single greater embedded government agency than the military-industrial complex. Why would they coup when they already run the ship of state?
   593. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:55 PM (#4227356)
GF - I never said the military should not be "well fed and happy" just that they should not get preferential treatment. The fact that you want to kiss their but because they have guns and also claim it is "Liberals who worship power" is very precious.

SBB - So by your logic the CEO of a company should giver preferential treatment to their employees over the customers? Just because the President is Commander in Chief does not me he has to kiss their behind. It means he is in charge.

Now, does the President have a responsibility to the Military as their commander? Yes. That responsibility is not to be deferential to them. it is not to kiss their posterior. It is to not waste their work, their talents.

The President is the President of the whole nation.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.


Where does the constitution establish the preference the military has as their right?
   594. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4227357)
I'll try it another way: If John Edwards were running against Romney, you people would vote for Edwards. Despite the fact that you were all so outraged - just outraged - at what he did.

Do any of you deny this?


If the John Edwards of today were running against Romney, it'd have to be as a 3rd party candidate, and no, I wouldn't vote for him. Duh.

If your assumption is that Edwards could ever get the Democratic nomination after his scandal broke, you're even more disconnected from reality than I'd ever even imagined.
   595. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:58 PM (#4227359)
Now, deos the President have a responsibility to the Military as their commander? Yes. That responsibility is not to be deferential to them. it is not to kiss their posterior. It is to not waste their work, their talents.


The POTUS is CiC specifically to keep the military subservient to the elected government, you gits. The entire point of making the POTUS the CiC as well was to make sure that the CiC and the elected executive of the people were never at odds.

The POTUS has one responsibility with regards to the military: tell them what to do and give them the means to accomplish the people's goals. The military has one responsibility to the POTUS; carry out his lawful commands.
   596. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4227360)
Are we in syndication already with the nonsensical "no difference between the two parties" silliness from a decade ago?


There's very little difference between the parties. If the system was healthy, they'd break down into labor and capital parties, but it's not, so they are both corporatist parties. They're all but identical on the surveillance/torture/death by drone on the president's orders state, the inviolability of the bulge bracket banks and King Finance, and the "war on terror" -- three areas terribly in need of an opposition party.

Obama has ratified all of the excesses of the Bush years, right down to the massive deficits. I know that's tough on the psyches of people who think only "healthcare reform" when they think of him, but it's reality.

   597. The Good Face Posted: September 05, 2012 at 03:00 PM (#4227362)
Well, you have no possible way of knowing that the US military could stage a coup.


The idea that the military would even want to stage a coup is absurd on its face. There is no single greater embedded government agency than the military-industrial complex. Why would they coup when they already run the ship of state?


Could they? Sure, they have the power. But as I said earlier and as Sam states here, they don't need to because both political parties are deeply invested in keeping them fat and happy.
   598. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 05, 2012 at 03:02 PM (#4227366)
Not to distract from the usual blanket party we all enjoy so much, but when did libertarians adopt "liberal" as a label for people who are notably un-liberal (or even anti-liberal when it comes to economics)?

That's why I use the adjective "modern." Today's "liberals" are, as you note, highly illiberal.
   599. zenbitz Posted: September 05, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4227367)
Am I not a liberal? Did I not argue for 2.4 pages defending the Citizen United ruling?

The closest I came to voting for a republican was not voting for whomever D ran against Arnold's gubernatorial reelection. I also voted for Nader not Gore and Clinton only once (but did not vote for Dole, of course).

   600. Random Transaction Generator Posted: September 05, 2012 at 03:04 PM (#4227368)
One of the better parts about being Canadian is that the political system does give you the opportunity to abandon the two main parties and not throw your vote away into the void by doing so.

The old ruling Progressive Conservative party became so disliked that they disintegrated in just one election (going from ruling party to not-officially-recognized-party status). Instead, the right-wingers decided to back a new conservative party, which eventually grew to become the current ruling party.

The old ruling Liberal party became so disliked that they've tumbled into third place in the national party status, leading to a surge in the more-left-wing party to grow from 3rd place status (federally) to become the official opposition.

Page 6 of 85 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Marc Sully's not booin'. He's Youkin'.
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(67 - 12:00am, Oct 21)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(33 - 11:52pm, Oct 20)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogCalcaterra: So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got?
(91 - 11:50pm, Oct 20)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(14 - 11:21pm, Oct 20)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2766 - 11:01pm, Oct 20)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8366 - 10:29pm, Oct 20)
Last: steagles

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(133 - 10:26pm, Oct 20)
Last: zonk

NewsblogHitting coaches blamed for lack of offense - Sports - The Boston Globe
(15 - 10:19pm, Oct 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogCould the Yankees ever be Royals? Young and athletic K.C. is everything that Bombers are not - NY Daily News
(28 - 10:18pm, Oct 20)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

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

NewsblogWhy Royals great Frank White no longer associates with the team whose stadium he built - Yahoo Sports
(19 - 9:06pm, Oct 20)
Last: A New Leaf (Black Hawk Reign of Terror)

NewsblogAngell: Gigantic
(38 - 8:22pm, Oct 20)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(272 - 7:27pm, Oct 20)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(97 - 6:24pm, Oct 20)
Last: BDC

NewsblogESPN: Brian Roberts retires
(22 - 6:19pm, Oct 20)
Last: Captain Supporter

Page rendered in 0.9423 seconds
52 querie(s) executed