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 82 of 85 pages ‹ First  < 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 > 
   8101. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 29, 2012 at 12:22 AM (#4248722)
McGovern's party held the House of Representatives in the 1972 election, didn't they?

Yes, while a lot of those same voters apparently voted for Nixon. If the GOP in 1972 had claimed that Americans had soundly rejected the Dem platform but then sat by and watched as Americans allowed the Dems to retain control of the House (and make gains in the Senate), that would have been as laughable as Treder's theory re: the GOP in 2012.

Right now, most pollsters predict an Obama win coupled with a GOP retention of the House and GOP gains in the Senate. That hardly sounds like a thorough rejection of the GOP platform.
   8102. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 29, 2012 at 12:28 AM (#4248723)
#2 is correct, but #1 doesn't logically follow from the two comments you quoted. I've never said I thought Romney would win if the election were held today; I've said I believe Romney will win in November if the economic metrics stay the same (or trend worse) and no "events" override the economics. Inherent in that belief is that Romney must do well in the debates, hammer Obama down the stretch, etc.

Okay, I'll try one more time:

1. Obama would win if the election were held today.

2. Romney will win if there are no "events" or "surprises" in the form of an economic improvement or a foreign crisis that causes people to rally around the president.

3. But since you think (or fear) that in fact there will be Obama-helping "events" or "surprises" in the next 39 days, you're also not thinking today that Romney is actually likely to win in November.

On that I retire for the evening. You can amend this if you want, but I won't see it until tomorrow.

And how 'bout them Yankees!
   8103. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 29, 2012 at 12:32 AM (#4248725)
In 1972, just 13 incumbents ran for reelection and lost: five Republicans and eight Democrats. Five Senators ran for reelection and lost: four Republicans and one Democrat.
   8104. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 29, 2012 at 12:33 AM (#4248727)
Joe, that 1972 presidential election was decided almost wholly on cultural and symbolic issues: Anti-anti-war protesters; "crime in the streets"; "activist courts"; and of course the classic "Amnesty, abortion, and acid" line, which I have to admit was one of the choicest (if not exactly accurate) one-liners ever stuck onto a presidential candidate. It's too bad that the original source for that exact wording is lost to history.
   8105. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 29, 2012 at 12:40 AM (#4248728)
Andy — Re: #8102, I agree with #1 and #2. As for #3, I'm not comfortable betting based on a total unknown. It's fun to debate the underlying political issues and metrics, but such a bet seems more like a lottery ticket than a controlled wager. (E.g., for all I know, the Obama camp already has Romney's tax returns.) It's the dreaded "unknown unknowns," as Rummy would say.

Joe, that 1972 presidential election was decided almost wholly on cultural and symbolic issues: Anti-anti-war protesters; "crime in the streets"; "activist courts"; and of course the classic "Amnesty, abortion, and acid" line, which I have to admit was one of the choicest (if not exactly accurate) one-liners ever stuck onto a presidential candidate. It's too bad that the original source for that exact wording is lost to history.

Understood. My point was simply that when voters specifically vote for split government, as happened in 1972 and pollsters are predicting will happen in 2012, it's fairly absurd for one party to claim that Americans have thoroughly rejected the other party.

As for one-liners in election-year presidential politics, LBJ's classic always makes me laugh: "Communists and c***suckers: What a way to win an election."
   8106. tshipman Posted: September 29, 2012 at 12:42 AM (#4248729)
But regardless, if Treder is right — which would be a first — that Americans have rejected the GOP platform, it doesn't make much sense that incumbency would make that much difference, especially since the GOP has only controlled the House for less than two years. That's hardly enough time for people to have fallen in love with their new GOP reps.


Incumbency makes a huge difference. I mean, I hope you're right, and it would mean that due to a lack of down-ballot polling, Dems are posed to pick up around 30 seats, and we just don't know it.

But incumbency makes a difference.

Edit: I should point out that people aren't voting for split government. It's somewhat likely to end up that way, but that is a consequence of the 2006 and 2010 wave elections, not a result of 2012 voting. If there were no incumbents, Dem's would be favored to win the WH and both houses of Congress.
   8107. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 29, 2012 at 01:02 AM (#4248735)
Incumbency makes a huge difference.

I agree, but if the theory is that the country has thoroughly rejected the GOP platform, then that would seem to imply a wave election. But right now, basically no one is predicting that (except Sam Wang).

Edit: I should point out that people aren't voting for split government. It's somewhat likely to end up that way, but that is a consequence of the 2006 and 2010 wave elections, not a result of 2012 voting.

Of course they are. Any person who deliberately pulls the lever for Obama and then pulls the lever for a GOP House candidate (or for Romney and a Dem House candidate) is voting for split government.
   8108. SteveF Posted: September 29, 2012 at 01:06 AM (#4248736)
I don't think split ticket voting is the result of incumbency, but rather genuine political ambivalence.
   8109. steagles Posted: September 29, 2012 at 01:25 AM (#4248739)
I agree, but if the theory is that the country has thoroughly rejected the GOP platform, then that would seem to imply a wave election. But right now, basically no one is predicting that (except Sam Wang).
i think the difference in fundraising is another significant hurdle for downballot democrat candidates. with republicans, there's probably a quarter of a billion dollars in pac-money that will support their congressional candidates, but for democrats, they'll be lucky to have half of that.
   8110. OCF Posted: September 29, 2012 at 01:29 AM (#4248741)
Re: 1972 (which happens to be the first national election I voted in)

The great ideological realignment - which is a more intense phenomenon in the South than anywhere else - was still young in 1972. Many of those Democratic congressmen and senators elected in that year were typical Southern Democrats elected easily in states whose local and state politics were solidly Democratic, even while those states voted strongly for Nixon.

Since that time, the Republicans have been steadily gaining representation in both houses of Congress from the realignment of party to ideology. But that process has nearly reached its end, and there will be no - or very few - more gains for the Republicans from that route after this year. There's maybe a tiny bit more of that still to happen this year. For instance, it seems reasonably likely that the Republicans will sweep the House races in Arkansas, which is one of the last states to realign. Maybe Sen. Manchin in West Virginia still represents the older style in which party and ideology don't cut along the same lines - but is there anyone else like that out there? Someone like Sen. Nelson in Florida is by now a post-realignment figure: a fit within the national Democratic party, running as an incumbent in a fully-realigned but closely balanced state.
   8111. PreservedFish Posted: September 29, 2012 at 01:47 AM (#4248743)
I agree, but if the theory is that the country has thoroughly rejected the GOP platform, then that would seem to imply a wave election. But right now, basically no one is predicting that


I think Joe is right about this.

The number of people who will not vote for Romney does not equal the number of people that reject the GOP platform.

I mean, this stuff is complicated.

Oh, and from last page, quoting Treder:

Which charismatic GOP candidate? Please specify, and explain why said candidate chose not to run, despite the abundant likelihood of winning greater than 48% with this platform?


I was imagining a hypothetical candidate. Obviously none of the goofballs from the primaries would do any better than Romney.
   8112. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 29, 2012 at 03:32 AM (#4248750)
Yes, but that's why Obama was getting his ass handed to him in the springtime polling versus Republican Opponent. And it's why Unnamed Democrat beat George W. Bush like a rented mule in the early 2004 polling. Voters are always ready to throw the bum out, until they get a load of New Bum. Slap a name on the generic opponent, and watch his numbers burn like a meteorite hitting Earth's atmosphere.
   8113. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 29, 2012 at 03:40 AM (#4248751)
I saw a spoof of that topic a few months ago, maybe at The Onion:

Generic Republican beating Obama by 8 points;
Republicans desperately seeking generic Republican
   8114. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 29, 2012 at 08:05 AM (#4248762)
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because they're all young guys and they preferred to wait for what could be a wide-open 2016 election rather than enter a bruising race

In other words, because none of them calculated that they'd have as good a chance as Romney. Thanks for validating the point.
This is trolling. You have to win a primary to win the election. I can't believe even Treder is dumb enough not to realize this, so he's just pretending his far-left-wing preferences actually match those of the electorate.
   8115. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 29, 2012 at 08:34 AM (#4248768)
Tshipman @8067: so you're saying that if Romney came out in favor of illegal immigration, he'd increase his chances of winning the election? That sounds rather, uh, dubious to me. I would note that the quote you provided is essentially Obama's position; Obama has drastically increased enforcement actions against employers in order to dry up jobs for illegals. The only way in which Obama is running to the left of Romney is his eleventh-hour executive order to (in essence) implement the DREAM act that Congress did not actually pass. (I guess it's possible that Romney would pick up a few Latino votes if he had come out in favor of the DREAM act, but it would seem rather difficult for Romney to out-pander Obama.)

63-28 may be a massive deficit in the Latino vote, but it's a typical Republican margin, not something unique to Romney because he's running as such a far right candidate. McCain only got 31%.
   8116. BDC Posted: September 29, 2012 at 09:23 AM (#4248774)
63-28 may be a massive deficit in the Latino vote, but it's a typical Republican margin, not something unique to Romney because he's running as such a far right candidate

I think that's a fair assessment, though one might speculate that Jeb Bush, or Marco Rubio, or even God help him Rick Perry – someone who'd grown up in politics dealing with a substantial Hispanic constituency – might be running better.
   8117. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 29, 2012 at 10:02 AM (#4248788)
Tshipman @8067: so you're saying that if Romney came out in favor of illegal immigration, he'd increase his chances of winning the election? That sounds rather, uh, dubious to me. I would note that the quote you provided is essentially Obama's position; Obama has drastically increased enforcement actions against employers in order to dry up jobs for illegals. The only way in which Obama is running to the left of Romney is his eleventh-hour executive order to (in essence) implement the DREAM act that Congress did not actually pass. (I guess it's possible that Romney would pick up a few Latino votes if he had come out in favor of the DREAM act, but it would seem rather difficult for Romney to out-pander Obama.)

This seems as if it had been written by someone who wasn't paying attention to the ugly primary rhetoric in which Romney glibly talked about "self-deportation", and in which Romney angrily reacted to Obama's order to focus deportations on those with criminal convictions. Romney's opposition to the DREAM Act is only part of his wholly consistent pattern of pandering to the nativist elements within his party's base. The fact that you don't view the GOP base's attitudes that way is entirely irrelevant.

There's no question that Obama's followup on that announced policy has been less than sterling, but there's also the point that the immigration officials on the ground are resistant to it. There's little love lost between them and Obama, but yes, Obama has often let friendly rhetoric substitute for implementation.

But Latinos aren't stupid, and they can tell the difference between political constraints and open hostility, and they also can tell the vast difference between the immigration attitudes of the two party's respective bases. If Romney had endorsed the immigration proposals of President Bush, he might not be winning a majority of the Latino vote, but the margin be a lot closer than it is today. But by pandering to the worst elements of the Tea Party, he's essentially written off the idea of even trying to go beyond the older Cuban-American hardliners and the hardcore cultural conservatives.
   8118. zonk Posted: September 29, 2012 at 10:19 AM (#4248795)

63-28 may be a massive deficit in the Latino vote, but it's a typical Republican margin, not something unique to Romney because he's running as such a far right candidate. McCain only got 31%.


Typical compared to what? Bush got 44% in 2004.
   8119. Random Transaction Generator Posted: September 29, 2012 at 10:20 AM (#4248796)
63-28 may be a massive deficit in the Latino vote, but it's a typical Republican margin, not something unique to Romney because he's running as such a far right candidate


Hispanic voting for Republican presidential candidates:

McCain 2008: 31%
Bush 2004: 44%
Bush 2000: 35%
Dole 1996: 21%
Bush 1992: 25% (Perot also drew 14%)
Bush 1988: 30%
Reagan 1984: 34%
Reagan 1980: 37%
Ford 1976: 18%
   8120. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 29, 2012 at 10:51 AM (#4248808)
This seems as if it had been written by someone who wasn't paying attention to the ugly primary rhetoric in which Romney glibly talked about "self-deportation"
WTF are you talking about? It appears that you were the one who wasn't paying attention. There's nothing even remotely "ugly" about it. The exact opposite. He was saying that rather than rounding people up and shipping them home, he'd provide an incentive so that they'd leave voluntarily. (A negative incentive to stay, not a bribe to leave.) That's a lot less "ugly" -- to the extent that you continue to pretend that there's no difference between legal and illegal aliens -- than Bush's policy. Here's the actual quote:
The answer is self-deportation, which is people decide they can do better by going home because they can’t find work here because they don't have legal documentation to allow them to work here. We’re not going to round them up.
This is exactly Obama's position, except with regard to people who would have qualified under the DREAM act if it had passed. (Basically, people who came as minors, graduated from HS, and didn't commit crimes. Some versions of the act required them to go to college or serve in the military.)
   8121. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 29, 2012 at 11:00 AM (#4248812)
Incidentally, there have been serious questions raised about the reliability of the 44% number for Bush in 2004. That number was based on the bizarre result that Bush had gotten sixty percent of the Texas Hispanic vote -- an estimate later revised downward. You can read a little about the issue here and here.
   8122. Lassus Posted: September 29, 2012 at 11:17 AM (#4248819)
(A negative incentive to stay, not a bribe to leave.)

Didn't you guys roll your eyes and mock others when this concept was applied here in arguments in favor of the ACA? (That's an honest question, as I don't specifically recall, but it sounds awfully familiar.)


"The answer is self-deportation, which is people decide they can do better by going home because they can’t find work here because they don't have legal documentation to allow them to work here. We’re not going to round them up."

This is exactly Obama's position

You have Romney's quote - do you have Obama's, for reference?
   8123. tshipman Posted: September 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM (#4248823)
63-28 may be a massive deficit in the Latino vote, but it's a typical Republican margin, not something unique to Romney because he's running as such a far right candidate. McCain only got 31%.


First of all, nice job ignoring the second part of that post regarding Medicare.

Re: Romney with Hispanics:

It's a typical vote for Republican losers, yes. But Latino voters were up for grabs to a serious degree this year, and Romney lost them miserably. What's hurt Romney is not just his policy positions, but also his rhetoric. Romney's response to Obama's mini-DREAM proposal was to say that the only path to citizenship should be military service.

Articulating a better, more humane immigration policy is not pandering.
   8124. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: September 29, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4248854)
More problematic GOP voter forms are found in Florida
By Friday, elections supervisors had found dozens of forms turned in by the party that had wrong birthdays or spellings of names that didn't match signatures. In other cases, multiple forms were filled out in the same handwriting. One voter in Palm Beach County was registered to an address that is a Land Rover dealership.

"It was that flagrant," said Ann W. Bodenstein, the elections supervisor in Santa Rosa County, where officials found 100 problematic applications — including one for a dead voter. "In no way did they look genuine."
This is the interesting part:
The Florida GOP had contracted out its registration efforts to a newly formed company called Strategic Allied Consulting. The RNC had urged party organizations in seven swing states to hire the firm, directing at least $3.1 million in payments to it.

The RNC and its state affiliates hastily cut ties with Strategic Allied Consulting when the first questionable forms were discovered in Palm Beach County. On Thursday, the Republican Party of Florida, which paid at least $1.3 million for the voter registration work, filed a complaint of voter fraud against the firm. And the state Division of Elections turned over the problematic forms to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

Strategic Allied is run by an Arizona-based consultant and Republican Party activist named Nathan Sproul, who has been dogged by charges in the past that his employees destroyed Democratic registration forms. No charges were ever filed. But his reputation is such that Sproul said RNC officials requested that he set up a new firm so the party would not be publicly linked to the past allegations. The firm was set up at a Virginia address, and Sproul does not show up on the corporate paperwork.
   8125. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 29, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4248858)
This seems as if it had been written by someone who wasn't paying attention to the ugly primary rhetoric in which Romney glibly talked about "self-deportation"

WTF are you talking about? It appears that you were the one who wasn't paying attention. There's nothing even remotely "ugly" about it. The exact opposite. He was saying that rather than rounding people up and shipping them home, he'd provide an incentive so that they'd leave voluntarily. (A negative incentive to stay, not a bribe to leave.) That's a lot less "ugly" -- to the extent that you continue to pretend that there's no difference between legal and illegal aliens -- than Bush's policy. Here's the actual quote:


The answer is self-deportation, which is people decide they can do better by going home because they can’t find work here because they don't have legal documentation to allow them to work here. We’re not going to round them up.


First Romney ripped Rick Perry for supporting the DREAM Act, calling it a "magnet for illegal immigration."

He then called any act that would let any undocumented workers gain permanent residency "a mistake".

He then made his famous "self-deportation" comment, which somehow Latinos took offense to, in spite of your typical lawyerlike parsing of the language.

He then for the second time hired the lovely Kris Kobach as an "informal" adviser on immigration policy. Kobach is the Kansas Secretary of State who can best be described as a white collar version of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Kobach's latest venture was to file a brief in Texas on behalf of a group of ICE agents who are trying to void Obama's interim policy of halting deportation proceedings against illegal aliens who were brought here as children. What a sweet fellow.

Of course none of this means a damn thing to you, but please don't pretend that in the eyes of most Latinos, Romney is (or should be) seen as some sort of immigration moderate. He positioned himself to the right of Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich while he was trying to win the nomination, and you seem to think that his ugly (yes, ugly) rhetoric can be redeemed by a few weasel words in his defense.
   8126. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: September 29, 2012 at 01:09 PM (#4248865)
Bush got 44% in 2004.


Bush was one of the politicians with actual experience dealing with immigration issues, thanks to Texas. Plus, he could speak Spanish, which seems like something a Latino voter would appreciate.
   8127. Ron J Posted: September 29, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4248897)
Don't make me quote Heinlein in response.


Which quote did you have in mind? Bet the leading apprentice to show (Moon is a Harsh Mistress IIRC)

It's something that makes some sense at first hearing but which isn't backed by any emperical evidence that it's true.
   8128. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 29, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4248909)
If Romney had endorsed the immigration proposals of President Bush, he might not be winning a majority of the Latino vote, but the margin be a lot closer than it is today. But by pandering to the worst elements of the Tea Party, he's essentially written off the idea of even trying to go beyond the older Cuban-American hardliners and the hardcore cultural conservatives.

Nonsense. The polls on this have been clear for years: For every Latino who might be moved to the GOP because of immigration pandering, more than one working-class white voter defects. Pandering on immigration is a net negative for the GOP.

But Latino voters were up for grabs to a serious degree this year, and Romney lost them miserably.

Total speculation and likely 100 percent false. Reagan's big immigration amnesty in 1986 didn't result in Latinos voting for the GOP in large numbers, and there's zero evidence that Romney supporting such a scheme would have yielded a different result, either among Latinos specifically or in terms of being a net positive overall (i.e., when accounting for white defectors).

Articulating a better, more humane immigration policy is not pandering.

There's absolutely nothing inhumane about the U.S.'s current immigration policy. According to the last study I saw on the topic, the U.S., in an average year, admits more legal immigrants than every other country added together. Just because some people want more of something doesn't mean they're currently being treated unfairly or inhumanely.

As for a "better" immigration policy, it's funny how liberals always say we should look abroad to help solve our problems, but then cover their eyes and ears when those international solutions conflict with their ideology. The U.S. has one of the dumbest immigration regimes on the planet, while our neighbors to the north and south have much smarter policies. It's idiotic for the U.S. to continue admitting more and more low-skilled immigrants when the U.S. economy is offering fewer and fewer low-skilled jobs that pay a living wage. Canada and Mexico figured out a decade or two ago that skills-based immigration is much smarter and much more economically beneficial than low-skilled and/or chain migration; hopefully the Dems will figure it out sometime soon.

First Romney ripped Rick Perry for supporting the DREAM Act, calling it a "magnet for illegal immigration."

He then called any act that would let any undocumented workers gain permanent residency "a mistake".

Both of those statements are true, and neither are "ugly" or "inhumane." Immigration amnesty makes a fool of anyone who ever filled out an immigration form or waited in an immigration line abroad. Few things are less American than rewarding lawbreakers at the expense of the law-abiding.
   8129. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 29, 2012 at 02:30 PM (#4248911)
Which quote did you have in mind? Bet the leading apprentice to show (Moon is a Harsh Mistress IIRC)

I'm guessing it was this one:

“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”
   8130. BDC Posted: September 29, 2012 at 02:49 PM (#4248919)
It's idiotic for the U.S. to continue admitting more and more low-skilled immigrants when the U.S. economy is offering fewer and fewer low-skilled jobs that pay a living wage

In your own way, Joe, you've identified the cause and effect here. Many American goods, particularly fresh produce, are inexpensive to the consumer and hugely profitable because illegal workers can be paid far less than minimum – and are sometimes kept in debt peonage, even literal slavery. It's "idiotic" not to regulate these industries and protect their workers; but from the perspective of those who profit from those industries, directly or indirectly in the form of cheap tomatoes, it makes all the sense in the world both to admit illegals and to keep them illegal, thus keeping them in fear and bondage.

Few things are less American than rewarding lawbreakers at the expense of the law-abiding

Except that the DREAM act and various similar state initiatives (such as in-state tuition for illegal immigrants in Texas, of all deep-red places) aren't about "lawbreakers." They are about teenagers and young adults who are for the most part good students, with fluent English, no roots in their countries of birth, and no resident status here, because they happen to have been born somewhere else. These kids are in no conceivable legitimate sense of the word "lawbreakers," unless traveling across a border in a Snugli at the age of 18 months is a crime. Deporting them to some place where they haven't been since they were 18 months old, have no connections, don't know the culture, and may even barely know the language fluently, is not some great blow for law and order.
   8131. bunyon Posted: September 29, 2012 at 03:22 PM (#4248928)
unless traveling across a border in a Snugli at the age of 18 months is a crime.

Technically, it is. Of course, they should only be convicted as a minor.
   8132. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 29, 2012 at 03:23 PM (#4248929)
In your own way, Joe, you've identified the cause and effect here. Many American goods, particularly fresh produce, are inexpensive to the consumer and hugely profitable because illegal workers can be paid far less than minimum – and are sometimes kept in debt peonage, even literal slavery. It's "idiotic" not to regulate these industries and protect their workers; but from the perspective of those who profit from those industries, directly or indirectly in the form of cheap tomatoes, it makes all the sense in the world both to admit illegals and to keep them illegal, thus keeping them in fear and bondage.

I was talking about legal immigration; the above is re: illegal immigration. Regardless, studies have shown that the average consumer saves less than $20 per year on produce because of illegal-immigrant labor. That old Geraldo Rivera nonsense about a McDonald's hamburger costing $10 without illegal immigrants in the kitchen and in the fields is and always was just that: nonsense.

Except that the DREAM act and various similar state initiatives (such as in-state tuition for illegal immigrants in Texas, of all deep-red places) aren't about "lawbreakers." They are about teenagers and young adults who are for the most part good students, with fluent English, no roots in their countries of birth, and no resident status here, because they happen to have been born somewhere else. These kids are in no conceivable legitimate sense of the word "lawbreakers," unless traveling across a border in a Snugli at the age of 18 months is a crime. Deporting them to some place where they haven't been since they were 18 months old, have no connections, don't know the culture, and may even barely know the language fluently, is not some great blow for law and order.

The "good students" thing is just marketing; none of the Dem-written DREAM proposals have had strict academic requirements. Many if not most right-wingers support a narrowly tailored DREAM Act, but the ones proffered by Dems have always had huge loopholes — e.g., the last Dem-written DREAM bill didn't actually require DREAMers to attend college or serve in the military; it simply required them to check a box saying they intend to do one of the two, with five years to comply and basically no penalty for not doing so. A lot of the Dem DREAM bills have also retained the chain-migration eligibility of the DREAMers lawbreaking parents, which is absurd.
   8133. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 29, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4248959)
More than one in eight adults in Ohio gets a "free" cell phone from taxpayers:

1 million Ohioans using free phone program

A program that provides subsidized phone service to low-income individuals has nearly doubled in size in Ohio in the past year — now covering more than a million people.

If you have a cell phone, this is your "Universal Service Fees" at work. Give the government more money, and they find more ways to spend waste it.
   8134. Spahn Insane Posted: September 29, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4248966)
If you have a cell phone, this is your "Universal Service Fees" at work. Give the government more money, and they find more ways to spend waste it.

Well, I can think of a lot worse things to spend money on; it's not as if having a phone's a triviality, particularly for people who are unemployed and seeking employment. Having no means for a prospective employer to contact you's kind of a big deal; finding a job's tough enough for those who *have* phones.

I guess on the government waste/"your tax dollars funding frivolities" scale, this one doesn't particularly impress me (and as a cell phone user who surely pays all sorts of bullshite surcharges for the privilege, this particular use of my money doesn't bother me).
   8135. DA Baracus Posted: September 29, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4248970)
If you have a cell phone, this is your "Universal Service Fees" at work. Give the government more money, and they find more ways to spend waste it.


And you can blame the GOP for it since Lifeline was established under Reagan and expanded during the "Contract with America" Congress in '96.
   8136. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 29, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4248972)
I guess on the government waste/"your tax dollars funding frivolities" scale, this one doesn't particularly impress me (and as a cell phone user who surely pays all sorts of bullshite surcharges for the privilege, this particular use of my money doesn't bother me).

It's not high on my list, either; just an interesting story after the "I'm voting for Obama; he gave me a free cell phone" lady a few days ago.

It is, however, yet another example of dishonest government. Calling this program "Lifeline" implies that only sick people stuck at home are provided with phones, when the reality is far different.
   8137. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 29, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4248975)
He then made his famous "self-deportation" comment, which somehow Latinos took offense to, in spite of your typical lawyerlike parsing of the language.
Ah, yes; I forgot I was talking to Andy the Hispanic Spokesperson.
   8138. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 29, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4248976)
On a lighter note:

Rural whites prefer Ahmadinejad to Obama? Iranian news site gets fooled

(RNN) - The Iranian FARS News Agency published an article Friday morning titled: "Gallup Poll: Rural Whites Prefer Ahmadinejad."

The problem was the article was stolen from The Onion, a satirical news site.

In the original article by The Onion, which dubs itself "America's Finest News Source," it was "reported" a Gallup Poll showed 77 percent of rural white Americans would prefer Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over President Barack Obama.

It also joked that rural white Americans would rather go to a baseball game or have a drink with Ahmadinejad than with Obama. "Sources" praised the Iranian leader for not hiding the fact he's Muslim, like Obama does.
   8139. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 29, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4248977)
I'm guessing it was this one:

“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”
That's it. Although I was thinking of a few sentences earlier, about Carthage. But it's the same scene in the book.
   8140. Morty Causa Posted: September 29, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4248980)
WTF, Nieporent. Seems like the same predicate that on other occasions you used to characterize people as thugs and fascists.
   8141. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 29, 2012 at 05:52 PM (#4248993)
He then made his famous "self-deportation" comment, which somehow Latinos took offense to, in spite of your typical lawyerlike parsing of the language.

Ah, yes; I forgot I was talking to Andy the Hispanic Spokesperson.


Andy the Hispanic Spokesperson apparently can read the poll results among Hispanics better than the Resident Spokesman for Anything Not Obama, but then we'll see how it plays out in 38 days.
   8142. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 29, 2012 at 05:56 PM (#4248995)
Calling this program "Lifeline" implies that only sick people stuck at home are provided with phones, when the reality is far different.

Perhaps you and Ray can get some tips from those GOP "vote fraud" poll watchers and find out how many of those cell phone minutes don't meet with your royal approval. And while you're in between calls Ray can check up on all those Big Screen TVs. Where's the outrage?
   8143. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 29, 2012 at 06:05 PM (#4249000)
Perhaps you and Ray can get some tips from those GOP "vote fraud" poll watchers and find out how many of those cell phone minutes don't meet with your royal approval. And while you're in between calls Ray can check up on all those Big Screen TVs. Where's the outrage?

"Lifeline" was the thing my grandmother wore around her neck in case she fell down; "Lifeline" is not giving cell phones to millions of able-bodied 20-somethings.

Andy the Hispanic Spokesperson apparently can read the poll results among Hispanics better than the Resident Spokesman for Anything Not Obama, but then we'll see how it plays out in 38 days.

I'll ask again: If Reagan's major amnesty in 1986 didn't result in large numbers of Latinos moving to the GOP, then why would some pandering by Romney move Latinos to the GOP?

Immigration might be the No. 1 issue among non-citizen Latinos, but it's not the No. 1 issue among Latinos who can vote. Immigration generally slots in no higher than No. 3, behind the economy and education.

   8144. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: September 29, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4249004)
What would be the point of giving cellphones to people who can't leave the house?
   8145. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 29, 2012 at 07:51 PM (#4249030)
WTF, Nieporent. Seems like the same predicate that on other occasions you used to characterize people as thugs and fascists.


It's not fascism if David does it, obviously.
   8146. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 29, 2012 at 08:46 PM (#4249046)
Andy the Hispanic Spokesperson apparently can read the poll results among Hispanics better than the Resident Spokesman for Anything Not Obama, but then we'll see how it plays out in 38 days.

I'll ask again: If Reagan's major amnesty in 1986 didn't result in large numbers of Latinos moving to the GOP, then why would some pandering by Romney move Latinos to the GOP?


It's not a case of moving "large numbers" of Latinos to the Republicans. It's a case of not going out of your way to alienate even more of them by pandering to the worst elements among us, as Romney did all during the primaries. Jesus, even Rick ####### PERRY and Newt ####### GINGRICH were criticizing his over-the-top rhetoric.

And funny, I thought that the Republicans have been saying for decades that Latinos are naturally conservative, given their Catholicism and traditional family values. With that in mind, why aren't more of them voting Republican already? Why aren't they all up in arms against those gay-loving socialists who are undermining our social fabric with their anti-family polcies?

Immigration might be the No. 1 issue among non-citizen Latinos, but it's not the No. 1 issue among Latinos who can vote. Immigration generally slots in no higher than No. 3, behind the economy and education.

In that case I guess that the Democrats are winning in those areas, too. But then the idea that you can easily separate "non-citizen Latinos" from "Latinos who can vote", as if the latter group doesn't often have family members and friends among the former group, is absurd.
   8147. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 29, 2012 at 09:47 PM (#4249066)
And funny, I thought that the Republicans have been saying for decades that Latinos are naturally conservative, given their Catholicism and traditional family values. With that in mind, why aren't more of them voting Republican already?


Well, I suspect this is a rhetorical question, but the answer is quite simple. Culturally conservative Latinos don't vote Republican for the same reasons culturally conservative African Americans rarely vote Republican; people don't vote for parties that align with elements that demagogue and hate them. David can run around all day long shouting up is down and day is night, if he wants, but we all know well that the GOP aligns with the old Dixiecrat rump, and that drives the alienation that most minorities have toward the party.
   8148. Zoppity Zoop Posted: September 29, 2012 at 09:54 PM (#4249068)

Well, I can think of a lot worse things to spend money on; it's not as if having a phone's a triviality, particularly for people who are unemployed and seeking employment. Having no means for a prospective employer to contact you's kind of a big deal; finding a job's tough enough for those who *have* phones.


You don't really think that's really high up in the rankings with how the phones are used, do you? It's probably down somewhere with "receive demands from kidnapper" and "smash really big spider."
   8149. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 29, 2012 at 10:42 PM (#4249092)
Kidnaping and pest control are both on-site, outsourcing-proof types of jobs.
   8150. Langer Monk Posted: September 29, 2012 at 11:20 PM (#4249109)
   8151. Tripon Posted: September 29, 2012 at 11:43 PM (#4249117)
It is kinda ironic that most of the voter fraud news is concerning the Republican party. Who would have guessed that they would create their own scandal out of thin air?
   8152. Lassus Posted: September 29, 2012 at 11:48 PM (#4249119)
There's absolutely nothing inhumane about the U.S.'s current immigration policy.

For what it's worth, I met many a normal, non-hippie, non-protester traveler around the globe who didn't bother coming through this country because the tourist visa process was so invasive they just said #### it. If someone defines the immigration policy as "inhumane", I'm guessing it's from the fact at the entire philosophy of "the other" is run similarly.


And, if you're quoting Heinlein, you've just completely lost.


You don't really think that's really high up in the rankings with how the phones are used, do you? It's probably down somewhere with "receive demands from kidnapper" and "smash really big spider."

Could you elaborate?
   8153. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 29, 2012 at 11:59 PM (#4249123)
It is kinda ironic that most of the voter fraud news is concerning the Republican party. Who would have guessed that they would create their own scandal out of thin air?

Well, given the pond scum and consultants they tend to hire to do their work for them, I don't find this latest news from Florida the slightest bit surprising. As the old saying goes, when you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
   8154. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 30, 2012 at 03:45 AM (#4249171)
Here's an interesting side conversation, perhaps.

I know lots and lots of people who search out local business and small business owners, pay markups for products sold by local and small businesses, all to support those folks in their endeavors. Most of those same people try to avoid buying mass marketed product from large, faceless corporate manufacturers.

Virtually all of them self-identify as "liberal" or "left" in some way. Why do we think that is?
'Cause liberals are EIBs?
   8155. SteveF Posted: September 30, 2012 at 04:22 AM (#4249174)
European Investment Banks?

I always assumed it was because his one Republican friend was too afraid of being stabbed in the neck to admit to being Republican.
   8156. Greg K Posted: September 30, 2012 at 04:54 AM (#4249176)
European Investment Banks?

I was about to ask the same thing. I have a truly heroic ability to forget what any and all acronyms mean.

EDIT: My stab at it would be, Economically Irrational...Blackguards?
   8157. Morty Causa Posted: September 30, 2012 at 08:30 AM (#4249190)
People use acronyms way too promiscuously, to begin with, but if you are going to use them, the first time you do in piece, you lay out what it stands for. You should have learned that around the sixth or seventh grade. Unless of course the acronym has come to be universally recognized as standing for the thing, even becoming the official name--like NAACP or Nabisco.
   8158. BDC Posted: September 30, 2012 at 10:15 AM (#4249219)
The Sport Literature Association is "SLA," and posters for our conferences still get second looks from old-timers who reckon we kidnapped Patty Hearst.
   8159. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 30, 2012 at 10:48 AM (#4249227)
It is kinda ironic that most of the voter fraud news is concerning the Republican party.


No it's not. It's not surprising at all. The reason the GOP assumes the Dems are committing voter fraud is because they (the GOP) have no compunction about doing as much themselves if it wins elections, and they think "if I'd do it, surely and evil liberal would do it twice!"

We always project our own failings onto others.
   8160. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 30, 2012 at 10:51 AM (#4249229)
EDIT: My stab at it would be, Economically Irrational...Blackguards?


The reference is almost certainly to "economically illiterate bvtches."

Note how David is incapable of comprehending how people might actually behave outside of a solipsitic, man-as-an-island construct. Note also how David is completely unconcerned with supporting local businesses if it means paying an extra dime out of his own pocket.

The lady doth protest too much on matters of economic "liberty."
   8161. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 30, 2012 at 10:58 AM (#4249233)
People use acronyms way too promiscuously, to begin with, but if you are going to use them, the first time you do in piece, you lay out what it stands for.


It's a reference most here should get. Please stop making me defend David.
   8162. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 30, 2012 at 02:02 PM (#4249319)
He then made his famous "self-deportation" comment, which somehow Latinos took offense to, in spite of your typical lawyerlike parsing of the language.

Ah, yes; I forgot I was talking to Andy the Hispanic Spokesperson.


Andy the Hispanic Spokesperson apparently can read the poll results among Hispanics better than the Resident Spokesman for Anything Not Obama, but then we'll see how it plays out in 38 days.
Can you please point to where in that poll it mentions his self-deportation comment, let alone claims that Latinos "took offense to" it?

(As for "famous," just because you keep repeating a particular quote ad nauseam does not make it "famous.")
   8163. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 30, 2012 at 02:31 PM (#4249329)
Can you please point to where in that poll it mentions his self-deportation comment, let alone claims that Latinos "took offense to" it?

Ever the lawyer, aren't you? And yeah, no fair-minded Latino could possibly take offense at the suggestion that his friends or family members just leave the country voluntarily.

(As for "famous," just because you keep repeating a particular quote ad nauseam does not make it "famous.")

"Self-deportation Romney" gets you 967,000 Google hits, 649,000 if you add "Telemundo" to the search, and another 102,000 if you replace "Telemundo" with "Univision." But perhaps since it only shows up 4 times if you substitute overlawyered.com, it may not be famous enough for you.
   8164. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 30, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4249335)
Note also how David is completely unconcerned with supporting local businesses if it means paying an extra dime out of his own pocket.
Yes. It's a business, not a charity. That's not to say that there might not be other reasons to support a business (local or otherwise) that charges more, such as better service or higher quality or reciprocation. But supporting it because of where the owner lives is nonsensical.
   8165. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 30, 2012 at 02:45 PM (#4249337)
That's not to say that there might not be other reasons to support a business (local or otherwise) that charges more, such as better service or higher quality or reciprocation. But supporting it because of where the owner lives is nonsensical.\

I'd say that a business owner who spends much of his profits locally rather than depositing them in a Swiss bank account might be another pretty good reason to give that business a few bonus points.
   8166. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 30, 2012 at 02:49 PM (#4249339)
Ever the lawyer, aren't you?
Ever the weasel, aren't you?
And yeah, no fair-minded Latino could possibly take offense at the suggestion that his friends or family members just leave the country voluntarily.
Once again, speaking for Hispanics.

Why do you think most Hispanic citizens spend their time hanging out with friends who are illegal immigrants?
"Self-deportation Romney" gets you 967,000 Google hits, 649,000 if you add "Telemundo" to the search, and another 102,000 if you replace "Telemundo" with "Univision." But perhaps since it only shows up 4 times if you substitute overlawyered.com, it may not be famous enough for you.
There are approximately a gazillion websites on the Internet; the numbers you cite are rather low given that denominator. Contrast that with <"47 percent" Romney>, which gets 66 million hits, or <"You didn't build that" Obama>, which gets 8 million.
   8167. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 30, 2012 at 03:18 PM (#4249352)
Yes. It's a business, not a charity. That's not to say that there might not be other reasons to support a business (local or otherwise) that charges more, such as better service or higher quality or reciprocation. But supporting it because of where the owner lives is nonsensical.


You really should do a remedial course on the classics. Aristotle has a lot to teach you about actual, human economics.
   8168. greenback calls it soccer Posted: September 30, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4249404)
Yes. It's a business, not a charity. That's not to say that there might not be other reasons to support a business (local or otherwise) that charges more, such as better service or higher quality or reciprocation. But supporting it because of where the owner lives is nonsensical.

Wait until all the kids at Fudan and Tsinghua get admitted to the bar without ever coming state-side.
   8169. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: September 30, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4249410)
Ever the lawyer, aren't you?
Ever the weasel, aren't you?
There's a difference?
   8170. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: September 30, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4249414)
Ever the lawyer, aren't you?


Ever the weasel, aren't you?


It's fun with synonyms!

There are approximately a gazillion websites on the Internet; the numbers you cite are rather low given that denominator. Contrast that with <"47 percent" Romney>, which gets 66 million hits, or <"You didn't build that" Obama>, which gets 8 million.


On the one hand, it certainly seems from a standard riff GOP-hater/right-wing neofascist hater POV that Andy's over selling this "self-deportation" comment significantly. Generally speaking, if it's a gaffe that didn't really register with me it's probably not a gaffe that's registering with a lot of swing voters either.

With that said, the "count the web hitzzz" retort is 1) stupid and 2) innumerate, unless you're counting the web hitzzz from Spanish language portals too. Because question is "what is registering with Latino voters," not "what is registering on Google algorithms tailored to the browsing history of pasty Jewish lawyers from Jersey?"
   8171. Morty Causa Posted: September 30, 2012 at 06:34 PM (#4249450)
Yes. It's a business, not a charity. That's not to say that there might not be other reasons to support a business (local or otherwise) that charges more, such as better service or higher quality or reciprocation. But supporting it because of where the owner lives is nonsensical.


You really should do a remedial course on the classics. Aristotle has a lot to teach you about actual, human economics.

David is just one quick step from getting it more right, of getting out of the dead-end rut he's in, and that's some improvement from when I first entered this never-ending fray. However close he plays his cards to his dominatrix patent leather vest, it's obvious that he isn't totally impervious to experience, and to the experience of others. He simply needs to jettison the idea that the "free market" is imposed from some Mount Sinai dictate. There is no burning bush of natural law. That instead higher social systems, or which the economic is one, developed out of basic human relationships, beginning with the most elemental to the more complex. Thus, if our relationships change at some level, there's no reason that the artifices of that relationship shouldn't reflect that. It's simply up to us to decide on the best policy--and, you know, we can change, even take it back, if we think we decided wrong. But it's up to us--there is no ideal to be met. Certainly not up to a given immutable system imposed by God or "natural law".
   8172. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 30, 2012 at 06:52 PM (#4249456)
On the one hand, it certainly seems from a standard riff GOP-hater/right-wing neofascist hater POV that Andy's over selling this "self-deportation" comment significantly. Generally speaking, if it's a gaffe that didn't really register with me it's probably not a gaffe that's registering with a lot of swing voters either.

With that said, the "count the web hitzzz" retort is 1) stupid and 2) innumerate, unless you're counting the web hitzzz from Spanish language portals too. Because question is "what is registering with Latino voters," not "what is registering on Google algorithms tailored to the browsing history of pasty Jewish lawyers from Jersey?"


You've pretty much responded to yourself there. I also wouldn't expect many pasty-faced libertarian lawyers from Jersey to understand why a Latino would take offense at that gratuitous "self-deportation" comment of Romney's, made in the context of a debate in which Romney was complaining that Rick Perry was soft on the children of illegal immigrants. Just as I'm sure that in 1939 some pasty-faced Latino Republican lawyer from California might not have given a #### what happened to all those bothersome Jews in some far off country over there somewhere. The Davids of the world come in every race, color and creed, and they've been with us forever. With apologies to Earl Butz, all they want is a loose tax code, tight borders, and a warm island to stash their bank accounts.
   8173. Joe Kehoskie Posted: September 30, 2012 at 07:30 PM (#4249482)
I also wouldn't expect many pasty-faced libertarian lawyers from Jersey to understand why a Latino would take offense at that gratuitous "self-deportation" comment of Romney's,

I can't believe you're still beating this drum. "Self-deportation" has essentially been Obama's policy for his entire term. When Obama continued the crackdown on people who employ illegal immigrants without actively rounding up illegal immigrants for deportation, "self-deportation" was the obvious goal. Otherwise, how are illegal immigrants supposed to remain in (and survive in) the U.S. if they can't find jobs and aren't eligible for welfare benefits?
   8174. Morty Causa Posted: September 30, 2012 at 09:10 PM (#4249554)
   8175. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 30, 2012 at 10:11 PM (#4249589)
I guess I also shouldn't expect any half-employed baseball agent (or whatever you are) living somewhere between Mexico and New York to understand what was offensive about that "self-deportation" comment, either. Or to be able to understand the difference between what Latinos might expect under a Romney presidency compared to what they might expect in a second Obama administration. Or to be able to comprehend that a candidate who consults with characters like Kris Kobach on immigration policy is no friend of Latinos.
   8176. Ray (RDP) Posted: September 30, 2012 at 10:28 PM (#4249601)
Well, I can think of a lot worse things to spend money on; it's not as if having a phone's a triviality, particularly for people who are unemployed and seeking employment. Having no means for a prospective employer to contact you's kind of a big deal; finding a job's tough enough for those who *have* phones.

You don't really think that's really high up in the rankings with how the phones are used, do you?


Of course it's not.

   8177. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 01, 2012 at 08:33 AM (#4249726)
Morty - that was a cool article. Thanks.
   8178. Spahn Insane Posted: October 01, 2012 at 08:46 AM (#4249730)
You don't really think that's really high up in the rankings with how the phones are used, do you?

Of course it's not.


So what? You don't really disagree that it's *A* use for phones, do you (or with my central point, which is that finding a job's damn near impossible if you don't have a means of being contacted by prospective employers)? That phones are also used for other purposes is completely beside the point.

Or to put it more succinctly: That phones are used for non-essential purposes does not make phones non-essential.

   8179. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 01, 2012 at 09:31 AM (#4249753)
Aside on the mobile phone tax and subsidy sub-thread.*

One interesting impact of taxing mobile phone usage and using the money to subsidize mobile phone usage is the network effect. Cell phones are more valuable the more there are**. My mobile phone is more valuable if I have more people to call (who have there phone with them), and this applies to everyone. Thus the net cost of such a scheme is less than it would appear at first glance.

In fact this is a tax and subsidy plan that likely does not bother the mobile companies much. They might lose some customers because of the increased price with the tax, but they also gain some customers through the subsidy. Plus the network effect makes all their phones more valuable and more "integrated" into society as an expected thing. I doubt they come out completely ahead, but I bet the negative impact of the tax is pretty minimal on them.

If you assume that most phone communication occurs with like income cohorts (sounds reasonable, but I have no idea if it is true) then this tax and subsidy scheme is doubly redistributive towards lower income cohorts. First they receive the bulk of the free phones and they also receive the bulk of the additional value from the network effect.

* Queue the misquoting, raging, and accusations that are typical. Some folks won't read and understand what I am saying here - oh well.

** Of course all phones beneift from this as well. Every phone added to the network adds value to all the other phones. Mobile phones add a bit more because they are (in general - people who forget to charge their phones or don't turn it on excepted) more available than land lines.
   8180. Morty Causa Posted: October 01, 2012 at 10:14 AM (#4249791)
8177:

You're welcome. I thought so, too.
   8181. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 01, 2012 at 10:22 AM (#4249796)
Happy Holloween Season everyone!

Has anyone convinced anyone else of anything yet?
   8182. zonk Posted: October 01, 2012 at 10:58 AM (#4249829)
Happy Holloween Season everyone!

Has anyone convinced anyone else of anything yet?


Best holiday of the year...

Also time for me to decide on my costume for this year -- It's been a 11 year tradition that I dress as a member of the Simpsons supporting cast.

To date:
Duffman
Milhouse
Snake
Nelson Muntz
Ned Flanders
Selma Bouvier
Comic Book Guy
Mayor Quimby
Barney Gumble
Jasper
Chief Wiggum

Candidates for this year are Dr Nick Riviera, Waylon Smithers, Disco Stu, and C Montgomery Burns. Also accepting write-ins...
   8183. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 01, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4249837)
Candidates for this year are Dr Nick Riviera, Waylon Smithers, Disco Stu, and C Montgomery Burns. Also accepting write-ins...


You gotta go with Monty in his Bain letter jacket.
   8184. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 01, 2012 at 11:09 AM (#4249841)
Go as Dr Hibbert, a whole night of fun!

Sensitive Type: Hey, are you wearing blackface? That's so offensive!

You: A-heh heh heh....
   8185. Randy Jones Posted: October 01, 2012 at 11:17 AM (#4249846)
Kirk Van Houten or Jebediah Springfield
   8186. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 01, 2012 at 11:25 AM (#4249855)
So what? You don't really disagree that it's *A* use for phones, do you (or with my central point, which is that finding a job's damn near impossible if you don't have a means of being contacted by prospective employers)? That phones are also used for other purposes is completely beside the point.

Or to put it more succinctly: That phones are used for non-essential purposes does not make phones non-essential.


I agree one needs a phone to conduct a job search. I was under the impression that they had home phones, just not cell phones.

I don't think a *cell* phone is critical for a job search per se, no. I agree that _some_ kind of phone is, but before I provided people with a free phone I'd like to confirm whether they've wasted money that could have been spent on a phone instead.

   8187. Morty Causa Posted: October 01, 2012 at 11:35 AM (#4249866)
Candidates for this year are Dr Nick Riviera, Waylon Smithers, Disco Stu, and C Montgomery Burns. Also accepting write-ins...


Krusty? A lot of makeup and costume needed, though. How about Frink? Put down that science pole.
   8188. Spahn Insane Posted: October 01, 2012 at 11:37 AM (#4249869)
In fact this is a tax and subsidy plan that likely does not bother the mobile companies much. They might lose some customers because of the increased price with the tax, but they also gain some customers through the subsidy.

Yes. (Speaking solely from my own recent experience, when mobile companies lose customers, it's because they provide shite-quality service. I'm lookin' at you, AT&T....)
   8189. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 01, 2012 at 11:38 AM (#4249871)
I don't think a *cell* phone is critical for a job search per se, no. I agree that _some_ kind of phone is, but before I provided people with a free phone I'd like to confirm whether they've wasted money that could have been spent on a phone instead.

You really missed your calling in life, Ray. Your dream job apparently would have been going around in low income neighborhoods peeking through windows to count the big screen TVs.
   8190. spycake Posted: October 01, 2012 at 11:41 AM (#4249874)
You've got to remember that undecided voters are not thoughtful people weighing the pros and cons of each candidate and just unable to decide who they like better; they're morons who don't pay attention.

It's funny how true this is and how no one — not the candidates, not the media, not anyone among the political class — really talks about it.


Yeah, it is funny how politicians don't call potential voters "morons" or how businesses (media outlets) don't call potential customers/viewers "morons". It's such a funny world we live in!
   8191. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 01, 2012 at 11:46 AM (#4249881)
Yeah, it is funny how politicians don't call potential voters "morons" or how businesses (media outlets) don't call potential customers/viewers "morons". It's such a funny world we live in!


And yet, people here - not running for anything - talk about the "undecideds" as if they were some respected class. They're not.
   8192. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 01, 2012 at 11:49 AM (#4249886)
Yeah, it is funny how politicians don't call potential voters "morons" or how businesses (media outlets) don't call potential customers/viewers "morons". It's such a funny world we live in!


well actually yes, many do, amongst themselves/staffers, though one wonders how long that will last with the proliferation of cellphone cameras and such...

   8193. Morty Causa Posted: October 01, 2012 at 11:50 AM (#4249888)
And yet, people here - not running for anything - talk about the "undecideds" as if they were some respected class. They're not.

Why not? Why is the stance, "I don't know" "I can't figure it out" "I don't think it makes a difference", necessarily contemptible? Undecideds can be simply people who don't think it or they matter. There's evidence for both of these propositions.
   8194. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 01, 2012 at 12:03 PM (#4249912)
I agree that _some_ kind of phone is, but before I provided people with a free phone I'd like to confirm whether they've wasted money that could have been spent on a phone instead.


You're precious, son.
   8195. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 01, 2012 at 12:05 PM (#4249914)
And yet, people here - not running for anything - talk about the "undecideds" as if they were some respected class.


The passengers and surrounding traffic might think the bus driver is an idiot, but they respect the fact that he's sort of still driving the damned bus.
   8196. Steve Treder Posted: October 01, 2012 at 12:10 PM (#4249929)
Silver goes all in on the sports analogy today.

If you look at our estimate of Mitt Romney’s chances of winning the Electoral College, which are about 15 percent right now in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, the touchdown analogy works best: Mr. Romney has about as much chance of winning as an N.F.L. team does when it trails by a touchdown early in the fourth quarter.

It might be surprising that a team down by just a touchdown — a close game, by any common description of it — winds up winning so rarely. But there are a few things to consider.

First, a field goal alone won’t be enough for the team to come back. It needs something big to happen — or it needs to score at least twice.

Second, although there’s still enough time in the game for the trailing team to have multiple opportunities to score, there is also enough time for the opponents to score as well and extend their lead. So the team still has to play defense — it’s not purely a two-minute drill.

A third and often overlooked (if completely obvious) point: if the trailing team does score a clutch touchdown, it only ties the game. There are a lot of cases in which it will later lose anyway.

Right now, our forecast says that Mr. Romney has only about a 15 percent chance of winning. But that does not mean that he only has a 15 percent chance of tightening the race — or of making it come down to the wire.
   8197. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 01, 2012 at 12:18 PM (#4249943)
Also accepting write-ins...


Joey Jo-Jo Junior Shabadoo
   8198. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 01, 2012 at 12:18 PM (#4249944)
A third and often overlooked (if completely obvious) point: if the trailing team does score a clutch touchdown, it only ties the game.

Unless the team that scores the touchdown also gets a two point conversion.
   8199. The Good Face Posted: October 01, 2012 at 12:44 PM (#4249982)
Also accepting write-ins...


Joey Jo-Jo Junior Shabadoo


I vote for Guy Incognito.
   8200. PreservedFish Posted: October 01, 2012 at 01:01 PM (#4250006)
And yet, people here - not running for anything - talk about the "undecideds" as if they were some respected class. They're not.


Are they morons? I'm not sure if I've ever met one. I barely know any swing voters.
Page 82 of 85 pages ‹ First  < 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMLB announces postseason plans, with various notable points
(7 - 1:34pm, Sep 16)
Last: Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!

NewsblogNed Yost Is The Worst Manager, Except For All The Other Managers
(37 - 1:33pm, Sep 16)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(2590 - 1:32pm, Sep 16)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-16-2014
(15 - 1:28pm, Sep 16)
Last: BDC

NewsblogA’s lose Triple-A Sacramento affiliate
(38 - 1:28pm, Sep 16)
Last: odds are meatwad is drunk

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(165 - 1:28pm, Sep 16)
Last: Canker Soriano

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(222 - 1:27pm, Sep 16)
Last: PepTech

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(255 - 1:20pm, Sep 16)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-16-2014
(10 - 1:15pm, Sep 16)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogSteven Matz, other top minor league Mets to be honored at Citi Field on Monday
(19 - 12:20pm, Sep 16)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogLonestarball: Jonathan Papelbon suspended for 7 games
(6 - 12:17pm, Sep 16)
Last: GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(815 - 12:17pm, Sep 16)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogDave Kreiger: New Baseball Hall of Fame voting rules
(40 - 12:10pm, Sep 16)
Last: Tubbs & Minnie Miñoso don't fear Sid Monge

NewsblogHeyman: Mariners have decided not to retain the ice-cream buying scout
(14 - 11:55am, Sep 16)
Last: Batman

NewsblogBowman: A year’s worth of struggles leads reason to wonder what changes are in store for the Braves
(33 - 11:38am, Sep 16)
Last: Joey B. "disrespects the A"

Page rendered in 1.1864 seconds
52 querie(s) executed