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 9 of 85 pages ‹ First  < 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›
   801. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: September 05, 2012 at 10:51 PM (#4227814)
Bill is obliterating the GOP.
   802. asdf1234 Posted: September 05, 2012 at 10:53 PM (#4227815)
Did Clinton just condemn the policies that got us into this trouble in the first place? Space control to Major Tom.
   803. booond Posted: September 05, 2012 at 10:56 PM (#4227818)
Bill is obliterating the GOP.


They are an easy target.
   804. asdf1234 Posted: September 05, 2012 at 10:57 PM (#4227819)
They are an easy target.


When you illegally assassinate American citizens, destroy the economy, and inflate the debt, you aren't in particularly good position to criticize those who have merely destroyed the economy and inflated debt.
   805. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:00 PM (#4227822)
Jdkaput is hilarious.
   806. Lassus Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:00 PM (#4227823)
The fact that this fascist,

Huh?


Forget it, he's rolling.
   807. booond Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:00 PM (#4227825)
When you illegally assassinate American citizens, destroy the economy, and inflate the debt, you aren't in particularly good position to criticize those who have merely destroyed the economy and inflated debt.


Step away from the alcohol.
   808. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:11 PM (#4227831)
New York Democratic Congresswoman says slavery existed in Brooklyn in 1898 under the Dutch.
   809. tshipman Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:11 PM (#4227832)
I'm really curious in an Election-geeky kind of way to see what kind of bump Obama gets after the convention. Romney looks to have picked up around a 1-2 point bump, which is pretty low historically, but not abnormal given the last 10 years.

I'm curious to see the extent to which that small bump was a result of the RNC being poorly produced, Romney or just the new normal. If the race continues deadlocked or at D+1, then I was wrong about Romney's bump being small and about the RNC. If Obama swings back up to around 3, then it appears that small bumps are the new normal. If Obama swings up to around +5, then to me, that's attributable to a better produced convention. If Obama swings up significantly higher than that, i.e. +7-+9 (not likely), then I am guessing it has to do with Romney's personality.

This is probably not that interesting to the rest of the board, but I felt like I had to document my thinking.

Edit: Also, I decided to let go snapper's reply re: natural rights. I think he's massively wrong in a fundamentally Protestant way, but I am quite sure that no one cares, as opposed to being only mostly sure that no one cares about convention bumps.
   810. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:14 PM (#4227836)
illegally assassinate American citizens
also, whether you agree with it or not, i'm pretty sure it's legal for law enforcement to use deadly force when a citizen represents a clear and present danger.

   811. Lassus Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:18 PM (#4227841)
New York Democratic Congresswoman says slavery existed in Brooklyn in 1898 under the Dutch.

Unless there's some kind of hidden history we're unaware of, that is just plain brick-stupid.
   812. tshipman Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:19 PM (#4227842)
New York Democratic Congresswoman says slavery existed in Brooklyn in 1898 under the Dutch.


Better Know a District is the best piece of political journalism conducted today. I watched that last night and almost died laughing. I'm just afraid that Nancy Pelosi is going to tell D's to stay away again. Only time I've ever written a letter to a congressperson was when Nancy said that congresscritters could go on BKAD again, so I wrote to thank her.

If you stuck around until the interview, Colbert likewise eviscerated Reihan Salam.
   813. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:22 PM (#4227849)
 I'm really curious in an Election-geeky kind of way to see what kind of bump Obama gets after the convention. Romney looks to have picked up around a 1-2 point bump, which is pretty low historically, but not abnormal given the last 10 years.


I'm certain there are other people on this board more qualified to speak to this, but it strikes me that it could be hard to parse out the DNC and the Friday jobs report.
   814. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:24 PM (#4227850)
I'm really curious in an Election-geeky kind of way to see what kind of bump Obama gets after the convention.

The National Debt passed 16 trillion dollars the day before the Democratic Convention opened, and the unemployment report comes out the day after it closes. If the unemployment announcement is more bad news, I suspect any bounce would be short-lived as the economic numbers sink in.
   815. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:26 PM (#4227851)
Unrelated: David Brooks needs to give up the combover.
   816. Lassus Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:27 PM (#4227852)
The National Debt passed 16 trillion dollars the day before the Democratic Convention opened....

This wasn't really news to anyone.
   817. Kiko Sakata Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:31 PM (#4227855)
it strikes me that it could be hard to parse out the DNC and the Friday jobs report.


Does the actual jobs report affect polling? Obviously, the economy / number of employed/unemployed affects polling, but I always assumed it was on a more personal level: people develop their own sense of how the economy is doing based on their own personal lives. Are my friends and neighbors losing their jobs and having trouble finding new ones? Are there real people who would change their opinion of Barack Obama if the reported unemployment rate falls from 8.3% to 8.1%, or would a fall in the unemployment rate from 8.3% to 8.1% be indicative that people are getting jobs and seeing their friends and neighbors getting jobs and it's that personal-level observation that might drive people to re-evaluate their opinion of President Obama? I hope that rambling makes sense.
   818. asdf1234 Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:35 PM (#4227856)
Awkward.

Did any Dem delegates go to non-Obama individuals? I've been hoping that Vermin Supreme would sneak one out.
   819. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:46 PM (#4227859)
Did any Dem delegates go to non-Obama individuals?

There were a few places where fringe candidates received enough votes to get delegates, but the state parties found ways to disallow them.
   820. I am going to be Frank Posted: September 05, 2012 at 11:57 PM (#4227863)
He kept trying to give her a chance to correct herself but she just had no clue.

I also think that it was funny that Colbert went down to DC to do the interview. The Congresswoman's district is in Brooklyn.
   821. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: September 06, 2012 at 12:04 AM (#4227870)
Well, Clinton still knows how to go off prepped text. That sort of speech almost makes me forget that he wasn't a super great president.
   822. asdf1234 Posted: September 06, 2012 at 12:11 AM (#4227875)
The fact that this fascist,

Huh?



Forget it, he's rolling.


Are the two of you confused as to why a statist who wants to control the private economy for the benefit of the state is a fascist? I may give you a hard time about being a roadie for Metallica and looking like M Emmet Walsh, Lassus, but I think you know why freedom lovers call statist cheerleaders fascists.

If you don't, let me know, as I'd be happy to shine the Nieporent signal into the gloomy night sky.
   823. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: September 06, 2012 at 12:14 AM (#4227879)
Does anyone like to play Mr. Microphone more than Bill Clinton?
   824. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 06, 2012 at 12:14 AM (#4227880)
I think you know why freedom lovers call statist cheerleaders fascists.
So, because people who have a bizarre, crabbed definition of "freedom" also have a completely non-sensical definition of "fascism"?

I will say that I look forward to jdbkaput presenting a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care that Bill Clinton's politics are well-defined as "fascist".

I'll let him take it away, but I'll spot him one - did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian? From this, the entire edifice of social democracy as an originally anti-fascist ideology comes crumbling down.
   825. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: September 06, 2012 at 12:26 AM (#4227882)
So, because people who have a bizarre, crabbed definition of "freedom" also have a completely non-sensical definition of "fascism"?
when republicans speak of fascism, what they're referring to is a strong central government.

on the other hand, when sentient human beings speak of fascism, they tend to be referring to the fact that fascists committed one of the most gruesome mass-genocides in human history.

   826. tshipman Posted: September 06, 2012 at 12:31 AM (#4227883)
I'm certain there are other people on this board more qualified to speak to this, but it strikes me that it could be hard to parse out the DNC and the Friday jobs report.


No one outside of a few junkies pays attention to job reports. It would take a massively bad report (i.e., actual loss of private non-farm), or a massively good report (250K plus), to move the needle. No one pays attention to reports that come in around expectations (100K-200K).

Coke to 817.

   827. booond Posted: September 06, 2012 at 12:37 AM (#4227886)
I think you know why freedom lovers call statist cheerleaders fascists.


Please explain. We could use a good laugh.
   828. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: September 06, 2012 at 12:44 AM (#4227888)
   829. bobm Posted: September 06, 2012 at 12:48 AM (#4227892)
[796] Damn good speech by Warren. That's going to help her in MA.

It's too bad she wasn't tapped as the first Native American keynote speaker. :)
   830. tshipman Posted: September 06, 2012 at 12:48 AM (#4227893)
Btw, apparently Bubba read the thread and was annoyed at Kehoskie saying that he didn't have substance.
   831. JuanGone..except1game Posted: September 06, 2012 at 12:54 AM (#4227897)
Krauthammer said the Dems have known for months what the weather will be tomorrow night.


Jeez, how disloyal. You think loyal soldier Krauthammer would have used his weather 8-ball to let W know when Katrina was coming. He needs to use those powers for good.
   832. Lassus Posted: September 06, 2012 at 12:57 AM (#4227898)
I may give you a hard time about being a roadie for Metallica and looking like M Emmet Walsh, Lassus

Um. What?
   833. Mark Donelson Posted: September 06, 2012 at 01:06 AM (#4227903)
I'm staying out of the rest of this, but yeah: Lassus looks (and sounds) absolutely nothing like M. Emmet Walsh. Or J. T. Walsh, for that matter.
   834. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: September 06, 2012 at 01:06 AM (#4227904)
Of course Democrats know what the weather is going to be each day for months in advance. How do you think we plan our outfits? Geez.

If Warren were running for Senate in Oklahoma, no one would bat an eye about the Cherokee thing, btw. This is the current head of the Cherokee Nation. So it drives me crazy that because Harvard Law was racist and didn't want to hire female people of color, and used her as an excuse not to, that she's taking #### about the fact that she's actually Cherokee. Of course, if she were running in Oklahoma, she'd be lucky to pull 40%.
   835. bobm Posted: September 06, 2012 at 01:19 AM (#4227906)
[834]
Meet Principal Chief Bill John Baker

Bill John Baker is a fourth generation of Cherokee, born and raised in Cherokee County and the great-grandson of Nancy Walker Osage, an early Tahlequah business owner and Cherokee Healer. Nancy’s mother, Sarah Tackett was brought to Tahlequah Indian Territory by friends after her parents died on the “Trail of Tears”.


Meet Elizabeth Warren:

"My Aunt Bea has walked by that picture at least a thousand times (and) remarked that he – her father, my papaw – had high cheekbones like all of the Indians do."
Oh, and don't forget her "contributions" to "Pow Wow Chow," available at amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Pow-Wow-Chow-Collection-Civilized/dp/9996688445.
   836. Morty Causa Posted: September 06, 2012 at 01:27 AM (#4227908)
   837. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2012 at 01:35 AM (#4227913)
Good one. Shows that certain segments of both sides are can be as hypocritical. FTR, I'm opposed to most of those mandates talked about in the piece. But one can take this freedom of choice thing too far. Should I have a choice to not pay taxes? Should I have a choice to not educate my children? Should I have a choice to smoke in a public library? Should I have a choice to not wear pants in public?
Yes, no, yes, yes.

But claiming that liberals are "hypocrites" on choice sort of misses the point; their stance on other issues doesn't originate from hypocrisy, but in the fact that "pro-choice" is simply a euphemism for pro-abortion. They just try not to say what the "choice" is.
   838. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 06, 2012 at 01:42 AM (#4227915)
Well, the fact-checking revealed that Warren's claim to Cherokee ancestry was non-existent. Warren is a graduate of Rutgers Law School, then & now a middling institution. Now, I'm not a law school snob, but the folks at Harvard are. It's been reported that not only does the Harvard Law Faculty not include any other Rutgers grads, there aren't even any graduates of similarly ranked law schools. Thus, it appears that Warren used her manufactured ancestry to advance her career, and then dropped the claim after she received tenure at Harvard. Seems like she wasn't really vetted before the field was cleared for her nomination.
   839. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2012 at 01:54 AM (#4227919)
They do want to progress.

Most of the rest of the world now has some sort or government mandated/controlled/provided health care. We don't
19th century idea.
Most of the rest of the world has disbanded the death penalty. We haven't.
Your conception of "most of the rest of the world" is rather narrow. 20th century idea.
Most of the rest of the world has a progressive tax system. We don't.
Yes, we do. Also, a 19th century idea.
   840. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: September 06, 2012 at 02:07 AM (#4227924)
this is an absolutely ridiculous post:

839. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2012 at 01:54 AM (#4227919)

They do want to progress.

Most of the rest of the world now has some sort or government mandated/controlled/provided health care. We don't


19th century idea.

Most of the rest of the world has disbanded the death penalty. We haven't.


Your conception of "most of the rest of the world" is rather narrow. 20th century idea.

Most of the rest of the world has a progressive tax system. We don't.


Yes, we do. Also, a 19th century idea.
   841. Monty Posted: September 06, 2012 at 02:08 AM (#4227925)
Isn't Libertarianism from the 18th century?
   842. Dr. Vaux Posted: September 06, 2012 at 02:15 AM (#4227926)
Isn't the germ theory of disease a 19th-century idea?
   843. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 06, 2012 at 02:25 AM (#4227929)
Isn't Libertarianism from the 18th century?
17th.
Isn't the germ theory of disease a 19th-century idea?
As a hypothesis? Older. Proven in the 19th.

Both of these comments miss the point; I'm not dismissing the earlier-named leftist ideas as wrong because of their vintage (they're wrong for other reasons); I'm simply pointing out that holding them is hardly advocating "progress."
   844. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: September 06, 2012 at 03:14 AM (#4227943)
Both of these comments miss the point; I'm not dismissing the earlier-named leftist ideas as wrong because of their vintage (they're wrong for other reasons); I'm simply pointing out that holding them is hardly advocating "progress."
If you define things that way, then nothing's progress, ever. It's a worthless definition, applied here to kill discussion.
   845. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: September 06, 2012 at 06:00 AM (#4227959)
Don't be talking #### about Rutgers!!!
   846. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: September 06, 2012 at 07:18 AM (#4227963)
Both of these comments miss the point; I'm not dismissing the earlier-named leftist ideas as wrong because of their vintage (they're wrong for other reasons); I'm simply pointing out that holding them is hardly advocating "progress."


Well then, what would be progress? Building casinos on the moon?
   847. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: September 06, 2012 at 07:21 AM (#4227964)
Your conception of "most of the rest of the world" is rather narrow. 20th century idea.


Again, see the list in 785. Do you like the company we're keeping? How about most of the rest of the civilized world.
   848. formerly dp Posted: September 06, 2012 at 07:22 AM (#4227965)
I see David's back to making arrogant but stupidly wrong pronouncements again. 6 in one post must be some sort of record. Fatherhood's clearly taken its toll on his intellect.

but in the fact that "pro-choice" is simply a euphemism for pro-abortion.


Just speaking for myself, I perform at least 6 or 7 a day, but most of those have the mother's consent.
   849. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: September 06, 2012 at 07:36 AM (#4227970)
but in the fact that "pro-choice" is simply a euphemism for pro-abortion.


Wow, I never thought of it that way. Is that the first time a political entity has couched their position in a euphemistic way? Maybe the Republicans aren't really pro life, as many support the death penalty. Maybe they are really anti-abortion.

And when it comes down to it, pro abortion isn't as accurate as anti abortion. When a woman get's pregnant, the pro lifers say "Don't get an abortion" That's pretty clearly anti-abortion. On the other hand, a pro choicer doesn't say "get an abortion", they say "if you want to get an abortion, you can". It's less clear that that position is pro abortion. If you want, you can characterize their position as "pro abortion to be legal under certain circumstances", but that's a lot to put on a bumper sticker.
   850. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 06, 2012 at 07:46 AM (#4227975)
Both of these comments miss the point; I'm not dismissing the earlier-named leftist ideas as wrong because of their vintage (they're wrong for other reasons); I'm simply pointing out that holding them is hardly advocating "progress."
This is stupid.

Say that a hospital institutes a program under which sterilization procedures are stepped up and in-hospital infections drop. This is of course progress because the germ theory of disease is right and lowering the rate of preventable infections is good. It's progress toward a lower rate of harm done by hospital stays, by medical errors, and so on. The moment in time when the germ theory of disease was first theorized or demonstrated is completely irrelevant to the question of "progress".

We can find attacks on the system of legal slavery in the Mediterranean world dating from at least the 4th century CE (Gregory of Nyssa), and I'm sure there are other examples all over the place. When slavery was abolished in the US in the 19th century, this was progress because slavery is wrong and its abolition is good. The 14-plus century gap between the invention of the idea that slavery is bad and the abolition of slavery doesn't mean that this doesn't quality as "progress". It means that it takes a long time for good ideas to be implemented in an effective way.
   851. formerly dp Posted: September 06, 2012 at 07:46 AM (#4227976)
And when it comes down to it, pro abortion isn't as accurate as anti abortion. When a woman get's pregnant, the pro lifers say "Don't get an abortion"


Your confusing David's attempt to piss off liberals with a serious argument.
   852. Spahn Insane Posted: September 06, 2012 at 07:47 AM (#4227977)
but in the fact that "pro-choice" is simply a euphemism for pro-abortion.

Just speaking for myself, I perform at least 6 or 7 a day, but most of those have the mother's consent.


George Carlin: "I'm not pro-choice; I'm pro-abortion. I believe all people, men and women, should be legally required to have at least two abortions per year, even if they're sterile homosexuals who have no genitals. [Pause] It's a rather extreme position, I realize... "
   853. Spahn Insane Posted: September 06, 2012 at 07:52 AM (#4227980)
Wow, I never thought of it that way. Is that the first time a political entity has couched their position in a euphemistic way? Maybe the Republicans aren't really pro life, as many support the death penalty. Maybe they are really anti-abortion.

While acknowledging the obvious truth of dp's 851, I'd go one further and say they're not only not truly "pro-life," they are anti-sex, as many of them oppose contraception as well. (Cue snapper lecturing me on how I've got it all wrong, and that it's not sex that's the problem, but non-procreative extramarital/premarital sex. Provided there's no masturbation or sodomy involved in the foreplay to said sex, of course...)
   854. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 06, 2012 at 07:53 AM (#4227981)
"Pro-choice" means "I think abortion should be legal." "Pro-life" means "I think abortion should be illegal." Most members of both sides believe there should be some exceptions to these positions, but if you want to simplify, there it is.

These are political positions having to do with how a legal code is organized. The question that people are arguing about is whether abortion should be against the law, or not.
   855. Spahn Insane Posted: September 06, 2012 at 07:57 AM (#4227982)
Well then, what would be progress? Building casinos on the moon?

16th century idea. Copernicus.
   856. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: September 06, 2012 at 08:01 AM (#4227983)
16th century idea. Copernicus.


But Copernicus himself is a 15th century idea (born in 1473).
   857. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 06, 2012 at 08:02 AM (#4227984)
Best thing about last night's convention: Clinton's speech.

Worst thing about last night's convention: It was competing with the NFL's opening night.

Consolation prize about the worst thing: Neither Dallas nor New York is located anywhere near a swing state.
   858. Spahn Insane Posted: September 06, 2012 at 08:06 AM (#4227985)
But Copernicus himself is a 15th century idea (born in 1473).

Yeah, but he came of age in the 16th.
   859. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: September 06, 2012 at 08:20 AM (#4227991)
Wow, I never thought of it that way. Is that the first time a political entity has couched their position in a euphemistic way? Maybe the Republicans aren't really pro life, as many support the death penalty. Maybe they are really anti-abortion.

Woah! Let's not let them get away with this 'anti-abortion' dodge!

They are anti-freedom, anti-sex, pro-torture* and in most cases pro-rape. If we are going to demand honesty in labelling, let's do it on both sides!

*That is what forcing a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy amounts to
   860. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 06, 2012 at 09:46 AM (#4228036)
I am always shocked at the ignorance often displayed here and elsewhere by people who should know better. It is fine to dislike Liberalism, but to equate it with Socialism, Communism, or Fascism reveals a profound ignorance of what those things are. Each is different (though the boundary between Socialism and Communism can be fuzzy, still the distinction to those paying attention is fairly clear).

Honestly it seems to be done to name call and distract because one has nothing better to say, but it is still more than a little feeble.

For example Fascism is (among other things) known to be extremely nationalistic. It is kind of a defining characteristic in fact. But the same folks calls Liberals fascists also spend much effort painting Liberals as Anti-US, going on world apology tours, planning for the UN to take over as part of a new world order and so on.

Might I suggest name calling us statists and authoritarians. Those terms at least are a bit more rooted in reality, but I do recognize they lack the cache of Fascism. Just trying to help lend some credibility to the name calling.

   861. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 06, 2012 at 09:50 AM (#4228040)
Worst thing about last night's convention: It was competing with the NFL's opening night.


I think the ad hoc change to the Party Platform was weak and embarassing. Not a hugely important thing, but still a bad misjudgement. And note I am not taking a position on the party platform one way or another, but changing it at the last minute throguh a voice vote (and clearly without getting their ducks in a row) was a really bad idea and displayed a weakness and sense of panic I don't think was justified.

   862. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 06, 2012 at 09:59 AM (#4228046)
Might I suggest name calling us statists and authoritarians.

Collectivists is the best and most descriptive term, but it drives Andy nuts.

The essence of modern liberalism is that the collective has the first claim on our talents, ambitions, dreams (*), accomplishments, and money.

(*) Unless the dream is to obtain a late-term abortion, of course, but that aside ....
   863. formerly dp Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:06 AM (#4228054)
Might I suggest name calling us statists and authoritarians.


These are almost as stupid, as they make the typical libertarian error of assuming that the absence of state power equals the absence of authority, and the presence of freedom. Corporate power, unrestrained by the state, is equally capable of tyrannizing people. The Libertarian conception of power was articulated by elite businessmen and intellectuals as a response to feudal and religious power, and it hasn't evolved much since then.
   864. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:07 AM (#4228055)
The essence of modern liberalism is that the collective has the first claim on our talents, ambitions, dreams (*), accomplishments, and money.

Except when it comes to anything sexual. Then the individual has radical autonomy.

It's an odd cognitive dissonance. Especially since the collective desperately needs more young workers to shore up the welfare state. Liberals should be wildly pro-natalist.

   865. formerly dp Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:10 AM (#4228058)
The essence of modern liberalism is that the collective has the first claim on our talents, ambitions, dreams (*), accomplishments, and money.


That's essentially correct, if you replace "collective" with "corporation." Your inability to understand how power actually operates does not negate its operation. It's a descriptive rather than prescriptive position, and recognizes that the state is there to protect individuals from the operation of unrestrained private power.
   866. Spahn Insane Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:10 AM (#4228059)
Liberals should be wildly pro-natalist.

We are, for those who wish to be.
   867. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:14 AM (#4228063)
Liberals should be wildly pro-natalist.

Who knows? Someday they might be, since their philosophy is to simply lurch from this enthusiasm to that.
   868. The Good Face Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:14 AM (#4228065)
The essence of modern liberalism is that the collective has the first claim on our talents, ambitions, dreams (*), accomplishments, and money.


That's essentially correct, if you replace "collective" with "corporation." Your inability to understand how power actually operates does not negate its operation.


Look how dumb you are.
   869. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:17 AM (#4228067)
We are, for those who wish to be.

Then why don't you follow the same logic on other issues?

Why not socialized medical insurance, or social security for those "who wish to be" included?
   870. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:18 AM (#4228069)
It's a descriptive rather than prescriptive position, and recognizes that the state is there to protect individuals from the operation of unrestrained private power.

So who protected the actually talented and qualified from Harvard's exercise of its private power to give Elizabeth Warren a job and tenure because she was part-"Cherokee"?
   871. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:19 AM (#4228070)
The essence of modern liberalism is that the collective has the first claim on our talents, ambitions, dreams (*), accomplishments, and money.

Except when it comes to anything sexual. Then the individual has radical autonomy.
These are, of course, both false. The claim of the left is that the collective has a claim, not first claim.

I also note that when I advocated for a far stricter ethic of consent and consent-certainty in sex, snapper opposed it. Sexual ethics are extremely important to me, and to a lot of other folks on the left. It's just that our sexual ethics involve a different set of values and restrictions.
   872. booond Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:21 AM (#4228075)
The essence of modern liberalism is that the collective has the first claim on our talents, ambitions, dreams (*), accomplishments, and money.


Do you get the tinfoil from Costco or is delivered straight from the factory?
   873. formerly dp Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:24 AM (#4228077)
So who protected the actually talented and qualified from Harvard's exercise of its private power to give Elizabeth Warren a job and tenure because she was part-"Cherokee."?


You're babbling again.
   874. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:25 AM (#4228080)
I also note that when I advocated for a far stricter ethic of consent and consent-certainty in sex, snapper opposed it. Sexual ethics are extremely important to me, and to a lot of other folks on the left. It's just that our sexual ethics involve a different set of values and restrictions.

Your "ethic of consent" involved branding misunderstandings as criminal, and applying different standards of consent and criminality based on the sex of the person.

My sexual ethic doesn't propose criminalizing anything that isn't already criminal.
   875. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:28 AM (#4228083)
Your "ethic of consent" involved branding misunderstandings as criminal, and applying different standards of consent and criminality based on the sex of the person.

My sexual ethic doesn't propose criminalizing anything that isn't already criminal.
If you believe this is my position, then you don't believe that I believe in radical sexual autonomy. You can pick one or the other. You can't claim both distortions. Pick one, and then we can have a discussion.
   876. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:28 AM (#4228085)
These are almost as stupid, as they make the typical libertarian error of assuming that the absence of state power equals the absence of authority, and the presence of freedom.


Sure it is stupid, but I would argue much less so. Libeals do believe in the efficacy of the state and suggest that the state needs a certain amount of authority to do its job. You can build a narrative (though a dumb one) where Liberals are authoritarians, but you can't really for Liberals are Fascists.

Collectivists? No, that is more in the Communist and Socialist wheelhouse. Liberals tend to believe in the interdependence of things and because of that interdependence there needs to be occasional collective action taken (ususally by the state), but I don't think the base drive is to collectivise.
   877. Ron J2 Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:31 AM (#4228089)
We spent a fair amount of time discussing negative adds last month (and before) There's also some stuff on traits that seem to matter to voters.

Research roundup

Some of the money quotes

All told, the research literature does not bear out the idea that negative campaigning is an effective means of winning votes, even though it tends to be more memorable and stimulate knowledge about the campaign. Nor is there any reliable evidence that negative campaigning depresses voter turnout, though it does slightly lower feelings of political efficacy, trust in government and possibly overall public mood.


The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment

It found that, in contrast to earlier research, that negative advertising could be an effective strategy for challengers, while incumbents were hurt by going negative.


(study limited to Democratic candidates in U.S. Senate and Gubernatorial elections from 2002 to 2006)

A Framework for Dynamic Causal Inference in Political Science

Targeted campaign ads appear to have only a small measurable effect on groups


(The only targeted ads that had measurable affects were those directed at parents, and even then they were roughly 15 times as expensive [measured by influence on likely turnout] as door to door get out the vote efforts.

Voters’ tolerance for negative campaigns and political rhetoric depends on individual characteristics: Those with a strong party affiliation and a deep interest in the campaign tend to be more tolerant and their impressions of candidates were not as deeply influenced by negativity. Men are more tolerant than women of negative content, while older respondents are less tolerant.


Variability in Citizens’ Reactions to Different Types of Negative Campaigns

Across a series of three studies, we basically showed that not all negative campaigns lead to the same consequences. Specifically, especially personal attacks toward the opposing candidate may backfire at the explicit level…. Overall, it appeared that negative messages decreased the perceived warmth of the source while simultaneously increasing the perceived competence. Results are discussed by focusing on the importance of implicit measures in political psychology and on the crucial role of perceived competence.”


The Implicit and Explicit Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: Is the Source Really Blamed?

Voters tend to separate a campaign ad’s tone from whether they believe it to be informative: many voters will (correctly) perceive a campaign as negative but will also believe that it is providing truthful information. “These dimensions appear to be separate constructs in citizens’ minds.” Voters can accurately perceive whether a campaign is negative, and such judgment is not just a matter of which candidate they prefer. “Public perceptions of negativity do in fact respond to reality.” The degree of a campaign’s negativity as reflected in advertising has little bearing on whether voters believe it is informative. “There was no relationship between the volume of negative appeals and beliefs about whether the candidates were providing useful information or discussing policy issues.


Do Voters Perceive Negative Campaigns as Informative Campaigns?

We find evidence that personally delivered messages can be effective at influencing voting preferences, but neither experiment uncovered a systematic difference between the effects of negative and positive messages on voter turnout or political attitudes


Comparing Negative and Positive Campaign Messages: Evidence From Two Field Experiments

We find that messages from the news media influence people’s willingness to rate the candidates on trait dimensions. In addition, negative trait messages emanating from challengers and the press shape citizens’ impressions of incumbents. In contrast, voters’ evaluations of challengers are unmoved by campaign messages, irrespective of the source or tone of the communications. Finally, we find citizens rely heavily on traits when evaluating competing candidates in U.S. Senate campaigns, even controlling for voters’ party, ideological and issue preferences.


The Role of Candidate Traits in Campaigns

We find that in equilibrium, the proportion of negative ads depends on both voters’ knowledge and the candidate’s budget. Furthermore, for an interesting subset of the parameter space, negativity increases in both knowledge and budget.”

The Seeds of Negativity: Knowledge and Money”

Taken together, both tests reinforce that negativity can only demobilize when two conditions are met: (1) a person is exposed to negativity after selecting a preferred candidate and (2) the negativity is about this selected candidate.

When Does Negativity Demobilize? Tracing the Conditional Effect of Negative Campaigning on Voter Turnout

As predicted, partisans in primary election conditions had lower ad and sponsoring candidate evaluations for comparative ads attacking a primary opponent than for positive ads or comparative ads attacking the eventual general election opponent, but there were no differences between the latter two. Independents in the general election conditions responded more positively to positive ads than comparative ads. Issue ownership had no main effects.


The Influence of Tone, Target and Issue Ownership on Political Advertising Effects in Primary Versus General Elections

Men are disproportionately mobilized by uncivil negativity as compared to women [and] women appear to be slightly more likely than men to vote after viewing civil negative messages.


A Negativity Gap? Voter Gender, Attack Politics, and Participation in American Elections

We assess the role of education, party polarization, and paid advertising in explaining trends in Americans’ political knowledge and engagement. We show that the public’s steady level of information and increased focus on policy in presidential politics reflects the high level of policy content in paid ads, which have compensated for the shift of news coverage toward candidate character, scandal, and the horse race.


The Mass Media and the Public’s Assessments of Presidential Candidates, 1952-2000
   878. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:32 AM (#4228093)
If you believe this is my position, then you don't believe that I believe in radical sexual autonomy. You can pick one or the other. You can't claim both distortions. Pick one, and then we can have a discussion.

Did I say you did? I'm talking about the general viewpoint of the left. Of course there are individuals that have different nuances. Hell, there are even a few pro-life leftists.

But, IIRC, you still believe in a version of radical sexual autonomy. You just believe that people have to be stone cold sober, and hyper-communicative, to exercise autonomy.

Or, do you believe there is some sexual conduct that is wrong, regardless of consent? Correct me if I'm wrong.
   879. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:33 AM (#4228094)
If you believe this is my position, then you don't believe that I believe in radical sexual autonomy. You can pick one or the other.

You believe in radical sexual autonomy for women. I'm not sure that's an improvement over radical sexual autonomy generally.

Do gays have to sign the form at each stage, too? If so, who signs?
   880. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:35 AM (#4228097)
Then why don't you follow the same logic on other issues?


We do. Liberals want to allow choices, to give opportunity. Thus we want to provide access to healthcare, so people have the opportunity to avail themselves of it. We want people to have the opportunity to retire with enough money and security to have reasonable choices. Liberal programs tend to be about providing access to those who need it.

I agree that in order to ensure the ability to provide that access collective actions (taxes, health insurance mandates) need to be taken. It is all about the complex task of governance where there are competing interests, rights and responsibilities. Not everyone wants everything (some folks don't want to pay taxes), but every society in history has mandates and a social contract everyone is expected to follow.
   881. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:37 AM (#4228100)
Collectivists? No, that is more in the Communist and Socialist wheelhouse. Liberals tend to believe in the interdependence of things and because of that interdependence there needs to be occasional collective action taken (ususally by the state), but I don't think the base drive is to collectivise.

I view the base drive as more of an "overindulgent mother" mindset.

The leftist view is that people are never at fault for their bad outcomes, and society should always bail them out of trouble. Criminals are criminal because of "root causes" not because they're venal or evil. Poor people are always victims of circumstance, never laziness and stupidity, and have to be supported in a near-middle class lifestyle, by the rest of us. No one is ever to be made to suffer for their bad choices, if a sufficient amount of taxpayer money can alleviate that suffering.
   882. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:42 AM (#4228104)
We do. Liberals want to allow choices, to give opportunity. Thus we want to provide access to healthcare, so people have the opportunity to avail themselves of it. We want people to have the opportunity to retire with enough money and security to have reasonable choices. Liberal programs tend to be about providing access to those who need it.

But, you don't just want to provide access. You want to provide good outcomes, regardless of the decisions of the people.

If you wanted to provide access, you'd be for voluntary health insurance pools, and a voluntary retirement savings system. Perhaps they'd be subsidized, but they wouldn't be mandatory and hugely redistributive. And, they would allow people who failed to plan to suffer for it.

The guy that drops out of high school, gets addicted to drugs, refuses to work, engages in criminality, and fathers a bunch of children who he doesn't support, still gets benefits under your system.

I'm all for helping those who are trying, but if you do wrong and stupid things, you need to pay the consequences.
   883. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:47 AM (#4228109)
The leftist view is that people are never at fault for their bad outcomes, and society should always bail them out of trouble. Criminals are criminal because of "root causes" not because they're venal or evil. Poor people are always victims of circumstance, never laziness and stupidity, and have to be supported in a near-middle class lifestyle, by the rest of us. No one is ever to be made to suffer for their bad choices, if a sufficient amount of taxpayer money can alleviate that suffering.


There have been hundreds of posts by Liberals here on this (extended) political thread. I would love some cites that back up this view.

I for one believe that there is a level of subsistence (education, housing, food, healthcare and so on) that society can and should provide for all its citizens. How that becomes "Poor people are always victims of circumstance" or "No one is ever to be made to suffer for their bad choices" is a complete mystery to me.

It is true that poor people should only be allowed to fall so far and no farther, and they should always have the opportunity for themselves and especially their children to better themselves.

it is also true that people should not be punished unecessarily for their choices - for example having sex should not result in one of the people having that sex being forced to carry an unwanted baby to term. Preventing unneeded consequences is not the same as claiming immunity to bad choices, and it is silly to think other wise.
   884. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:47 AM (#4228110)
The essence of modern liberalism is that the collective has the first claim on our talents, ambitions, dreams (*), accomplishments, and money.


Do you get the tinfoil from Costco or is delivered straight from the factory?

Let's hope he got it from Costco, since their CEO carved right through that sort of pidgin wingnut rhetoric in his speech last night.
   885. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:48 AM (#4228113)
Do gays have to sign the form at each stage, too? If so, who signs?
It's really sad to me that people find consent to be this onerous imposition on their sexual lives. There are innumerable stories out there of people who were deeply hurt by sexual activity they did not feel was fully consensual. Slowing down for a moment to ask, when you're not sure, is the tiniest little imposition on your sex life, and it can have the effect of saving someone else a ton of pain. And, of course, everyone is enjoined to slow down for a moment to ask, when you're not sure, regardless of your or your partner's gender.
   886. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:49 AM (#4228114)
But, IIRC, you still believe in a version of radical sexual autonomy. You just believe that people have to be stone cold sober, and hyper-communicative, to exercise autonomy.

Yeah, but it is currently legal to exercise that sexual autonomy. So either you also approve of it, or you are in fact proposing to criminalize something that isn't already criminal.

I believe the point Mikael is making, is that you can't have it both ways.
   887. booond Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:49 AM (#4228115)
I'm all for helping those who are trying, but if you do wrong and stupid things, you need to pay the consequences.


Let's hang the #############!
   888. tshipman Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:50 AM (#4228117)
And, they would allow people who failed to plan to suffer for it.

The guy that drops out of high school, gets addicted to drugs, refuses to work, engages in criminality, and fathers a bunch of children who he doesn't support, still gets benefits under your system.


Yes, the whole purpose is to provide for everyone. Even people who make bad decisions. The idea is that a higher floor provides people with the ability to recover from bad decisions. This is good for society, as it encourages dynamic risk taking and innovation.
   889. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:51 AM (#4228118)
I for one believe that there is a level of subsistence (education, housing, food, healthcare and so on) that society can and should provide for all its citizens. How that becomes "Poor people are always victims of circumstance" or "No one is ever to be made to suffer for their bad choices" is a complete mystery to me.

It is true that poor people should only be allowed to fall so far and no farther, and they should always have the opportunity for themselves and especially their children to better themselves.
Right. I mean, I don't believe that poor people should be sold into debt slavery. Neither does snapper. So I guess, extending his logic, that snapper also doesn't believe anyone should ever be made to suffer for their bad choices, because he believes there should be legal limits on how much suffering debt causes.
   890. formerly dp Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:52 AM (#4228120)
It's really sad to me that people find consent to be this onerous imposition on their sexual lives.


You have to remember that for fundamentalist Catholics, recognizing that there's such a thing as spousal rape constitutes a huge step toward radical sexual autonomy.
   891. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:53 AM (#4228121)
If you wanted to provide access, you'd be for voluntary health insurance pools, and a voluntary retirement savings system. Perhaps they'd be subsidized, but they wouldn't be mandatory and hugely redistributive. And, they would allow people who failed to plan to suffer for it.

The guy that drops out of high school, gets addicted to drugs, refuses to work, engages in criminality, and fathers a bunch of children who he doesn't support, still gets benefits under your system.


No we want to provide access. Access to health insurance pools is meaningless. Access to healthcare is what matters to people. We want to provide access to healthcare, which in our current system means affordable access to health insurance, but the insurance is a means to an end and not an end itself.

Both the other examples speak to the idea of a safety net. In our society you can fall so far and no farther and we will help you climb up again. People are important. They are valuable. The children and other vulnerable members of our society need the safety net and the people around them to have that net as well. So we have some things that are madated to provide that net.

If we could provide the net without mandating anything and for free we would. But we can't, so we make choices, because providing the net is worth the costs.
   892. booond Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:54 AM (#4228123)
Right. I mean, I don't believe that poor people should be sold into debt slavery. Neither does snapper.


How do you know?

   893. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:57 AM (#4228127)
it is also true that people should not be punished unecessarily for their choices - for example having sex should not result in one of the people having that sex being forced to carry an unwanted baby to term. Preventing unneeded consequences is not the same as claiming immunity to bad choices, and it is silly to think other wise.

Why? Everyone freaking knows that's a potential consequence of sex. It's not "punishment"; that's sex working as designed.

If you don't want to have or father a baby (and I fully favor equal rights and responsibility for both parents, and the state enforcing paternal responsibility), you know damn well which activities to avoid.

To my mind, both the man and women have accepted the potential responsibility when they have sex. If the guy doesn't want to be on the hook for 18 years of support, he knows what not to do. If the women doesn't want to have/raise a child, likewise.
   894. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:57 AM (#4228128)

If you wanted to provide access, you'd be for voluntary health insurance pools, and a voluntary retirement savings system. Perhaps they'd be subsidized, but they wouldn't be mandatory and hugely redistributive. And, they would allow people who failed to plan to suffer for it.


Speaking only for myself (and I personally identify as a member of the "base"): I think that the safety net has an inescapable moral component, and that poverty can and should be eliminated wherever possible. Thus, a strong safety net ought to include universal, single payer health care (or at least a public option buy-in for Medicare), significant support for retirees, children and the disabled, universal low-cost/free access to higher education, and generous unemployment benefits for those who find themselves between jobs. In an advanced economy, no person should die from hunger, treatable disease, or involuntary exposure to the elements. There simply isn't a good reason for it, and if there is, I'd like to hear it.

These policies seem to have the happy consequence of improving the function of markets; better educated citizens who don't fear homelessness with their next disease or firing are more likely to work as rational actors in the marketplace. They are more likely to take risks, less likely to engage in criminal behavior, and more likely to be generally productive members of society.
   895. Bitter Mouse Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:58 AM (#4228130)
Regarding sex: Safe, Sane, Consensual.

It puzzles me also that anything there should be radical or an imposition.
It also puzzles me that anyone thinks anything past that is anyone's business but those involved.
   896. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 06, 2012 at 10:59 AM (#4228133)
I mean, I don't believe that poor people should be sold into debt slavery. Neither does snapper.


How do you know?

To be fair to snapper, I believe that sort of market solution would fall into Mr. Nieporent's department.
   897. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 06, 2012 at 11:00 AM (#4228134)

Yeah, but it is currently legal to exercise that sexual autonomy. So either you also approve of it, or you are in fact proposing to criminalize something that isn't already criminal.

I believe the point Mikael is making, is that you can't have it both ways.


Wrong. I don't think everything legal is moral, or everything immoral should be illegal.

In many cases, the effects of criminalizing something would be worse than the effects of the immorality itself.
   898. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 06, 2012 at 11:02 AM (#4228136)
Isn't Libertarianism from the 18th century?


? The issue is that liberals claim to be "progressives." And yet they are trumpeting centuries-old ideas.
   899. booond Posted: September 06, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4228138)
that's sex working as designed.


####, there isn't cotton candy at the end. I heard there was cotton candy and cigarette smoking.
   900. The Good Face Posted: September 06, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4228139)
Yes, the whole purpose is to provide for everyone. Even people who make bad decisions. The idea is that a higher floor provides people with the ability to recover from bad decisions. This is good for society, as it encourages dynamic risk taking and innovation.


This is nonsense. It removes the salutory effects of fear from the equation. People need fear. It shapes us, drives us, forces us to do things we otherwise couldn't or wouldn't do, allows us to achieve things we otherwise couldn't achieve. Removing the fear of suffering the consequences of failure breeds weakness and complacency, not risk taking or innovation.

Necessity is the mother of invention, not welfare checks.
Page 9 of 85 pages ‹ First  < 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
HowardMegdal
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(4531 - 11:01pm, Dec 17)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(628 - 11:00pm, Dec 17)
Last: King Mekong

NewsblogAre Wil Myers' flaws fixable? | FOX Sports
(71 - 10:59pm, Dec 17)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(19 - 10:59pm, Dec 17)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogOT: Soccer December 2014
(294 - 10:55pm, Dec 17)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogMLBTR: Padres-Rays-Nationals Agree to Three-Team Trade
(25 - 10:49pm, Dec 17)
Last: Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy

NewsblogAZCentral: Miley's Preparation Apparently an Issue for DBacks
(8 - 10:46pm, Dec 17)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9148 - 10:39pm, Dec 17)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

NewsblogThe Dan Shaughnessy Hall Of Fame Ballot
(56 - 10:07pm, Dec 17)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOrioles agree to one-year deal with LHP Wesley Wright, pending physical, source says
(11 - 8:58pm, Dec 17)
Last: escabeche

NewsblogIndians sign Gavin Floyd to deal
(9 - 8:37pm, Dec 17)
Last: Dock Ellis on Acid

NewsblogMorosi - Effects of US Shift on Cuba Policy
(7 - 8:24pm, Dec 17)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim

Newsblog"You Are F----d": Breaking down the first-year candidates on the Hall of Fame ballot (Sports Illustrated)
(15 - 7:57pm, Dec 17)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogNew York Mets Top 20 Prospects for 2015
(18 - 7:28pm, Dec 17)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogPitching-deficient Yankees re-sign Chris Capuano
(22 - 7:09pm, Dec 17)
Last: No Maas Cashman

Page rendered in 0.9183 seconds
48 querie(s) executed