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, December 02, 2012

OTP December 2012 - Pushing G.O.P. to Negotiate, Obama Ends Giving In

Mr. Obama, scarred by failed negotiations in his first term and emboldened by a clear if close election to a second, has emerged as a different kind of negotiator in the past week or two, sticking to the liberal line and frustrating Republicans on the other side of the bargaining table.

Bitter Mouse Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:15 PM | 6172 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 56 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 >  Last ›
   5501. tshipman Posted: December 28, 2012 at 11:59 PM (#4334036)
so why is social security some sacred ground for folks 40 years from eligibility?

if i were you i would be agitating for death panels


Because it's a very effective program. Social Security is the program with the best effectiveness to reducing poverty. The long-term liberal goal is to eliminate poverty, so that means that for people like me, I'd rather increase it than decrease it.

I feel like it's somewhat evil to put people in poverty without a good reason, so I don't support cuts to existing beneficiaries.
   5502. Morty Causa Posted: December 29, 2012 at 12:06 AM (#4334039)
If you don't understand the need for Social Security, you don't understand the nature of social organization at a highly developed complex level. Everyone can't have it all. The nature of our economic system is that there will necessarily be winners and losers, relative to each other, and the more dislocated a system is fundamentally, the less egalitarian it is as to outcome that is, the more a Social Security system is needed. If you don't understand that, you haven't mastered the basic. People, many people, not only can't save to thrive in an unpredictable, ever-changing, old age (disability) setting, our system couldn't stand if too many did. It doesn't encourage people doing that. That's what a consumer system is all about. At least three times in the last twenty years the economic system has tanked to the extent that many, if not most, of the old and infirm would have been left bereft had those Social Security taxes been invested (or the savings directly themselves) into the stock market. The only respite in this is visions of the hopeful prospect of the hanging at every street corner of the smug and victoriously superior.

   5503. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 29, 2012 at 01:11 AM (#4334064)
now I'm a 41 year nerdy white dude. Respect!


47 year old white dude. Can you say diversity!
   5504. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 29, 2012 at 01:16 AM (#4334067)
The thing with SSI is HW is right the old have a huge chunk of the wealth. But the bleeding hearts are right in that SSI has reduced poverty a bunch among old people.

Of course I am not convinced the deficit is all that bad (or that SSI is in real trouble) and that there is not really any reason at all to be cutting spending (still a Keynesian). I do like many of non-entitlement ideas though (ag subsidies are just crazy, and mortgage deduction is not so great either).

But of course none of that matters because HW's deal wold never get through the gauntlet of politics any more than my heaping spoonful of more stimulus will.

Oh well.
   5505. GregD Posted: December 29, 2012 at 01:50 AM (#4334072)
Separate from the ethical concerns, in the short term what about the impact of cutting Social Security payments on consumption? I think this is what Bitter Mouse is getting at, right? Unless you are careful, you are going to have impacts on spending, especially since (I believe, could be wrong) that old people spend a high proportion of their checks. Whether you class that as private consumption or government spending doesn't matter for this exercise. If you're concerned about GDP (which isn't the only standard), you're still stuck at C+ I + G

There are reforms I would like to see but wouldn't like to see right now, while the economy is still tender and global forces could still force another recession.
   5506. Lassus Posted: December 29, 2012 at 02:03 AM (#4334074)
I'm sorry I have absolutely nothing to contribute to the SSI or debt ceiling topics.

But holy god is Jenna-Louise Coleman better than Karen Gillan. I feel a great weight lifted from my shoulders. Moffatt will probably #### it up, but for the moment all seems right in my nerdy little world.
   5507. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: December 29, 2012 at 02:39 AM (#4334081)
I'm one of those mid 30s nerdy white dudes and 100% of my (and wife) savings/retirement plans are built on assumptions that I will receive 0 benefits from Uncle Sam. I don't say this to suggest I think this is a certainty, just a much more prudent move. I'm afraid my fellow nerdy 30 somethings are A. not saving at all, and B. going to work til their dead. (whether they expect or do not expect to receive benefits (SSI or otherwise)). I also support radical changes to SSI, more the sort that blows things up for those of us under the age of 40 and has zero % chance of going anywhere in the public forum.
   5508. bobm Posted: December 29, 2012 at 02:53 AM (#4334084)
The thing with SSI is HW is right the old have a huge chunk of the wealth. But the bleeding hearts are right in that SSI has reduced poverty a bunch among old people. 


The bleeding hearts also know that universality is key to the political viability of SSI. Once you introduce means-testing (whether wealth or income), SSI becomes another "welfare" program more easily targeted for reduction.
   5509. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: December 29, 2012 at 02:59 AM (#4334085)
Once you introduce means-testing (whether wealth or income), SSI becomes another "welfare" program ....


Odds of this happening in my lifetime are very high IMO.
   5510. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 29, 2012 at 03:36 AM (#4334090)
I'm one of those mid 30s nerdy white dudes and 100% of my (and wife) savings/retirement plans are built on assumptions that I will receive 0 benefits from Uncle Sam.

Smart man.

Odds of this happening in my lifetime are very high IMO.

Agreed.
   5511. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 29, 2012 at 07:23 AM (#4334108)
tship

you want to put a dent into poverty? get people when they are young. help folks when they are young. when there is a 30/40/50 runway to build off that assistance.

social security was well intentioned and had a purpose back in a day when there was legitimately nothing. when if you didn't have family you were in a heap of hurt. but now social security is long established. and people should be pushed, and i do mean pushed, to anticipate social security only as a supplement to whatever was generated over a life's efforts.

the govt should be placing tremendous focus on the young who can learn and change and adapt. that's a good investment.

investing in old people may be something you regard as the 'right thing to do' but it's a terrible waste of resources. the return stinks.

   5512. McCoy Posted: December 29, 2012 at 10:49 AM (#4334125)
This notion of retirement always confounds me. As if it is a right and that society is somehow off if you "work until you die". People keep acting like the American society of the 50's through 70's is the norm and how everyone should live. It isn't really true. It was a post war bubble that required half the world to get blown up to achieve.
   5513. Lassus Posted: December 29, 2012 at 11:35 AM (#4334133)
Is it like tipping old people? Is that why it's so upsetting?
   5514. Jay Z Posted: December 29, 2012 at 11:47 AM (#4334137)
This notion of retirement always confounds me. As if it is a right and that society is somehow off if you "work until you die". People keep acting like the American society of the 50's through 70's is the norm and how everyone should live. It isn't really true. It was a post war bubble that required half the world to get blown up to achieve.


And the "hey everybody, let's be more productive and work more hours" model is failing too.

The economy is like an ecosystem, and if any one force or side predominates it doesn't work as well. Work is a commodity, and the idea that you can simply pile on more and more work hours and more and more output and not have negative consequences is a fallacy.

Businessmen understand this. Sensible businessmen will not sit their and work their butts off in a market that is saturated with whatever product they're putting out. They will buy the competition out, or be bought out, or close up shop. People lower on the totem pole can do the same through unions, guilds, co-ops, or with help from the government. If they can't or won't do this, problems ensue.

If you want to gut the retirement benefits, the old fogies are just going to stay at their office jobs until they're 70 or 75. Which means one less job or one less promotion for the younger folks. If you keep hammering on one side of the economy, it doesn't work.
   5515. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 29, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4334140)
This notion of retirement always confounds me. As if it is a right and that society is somehow off if you "work until you die". People keep acting like the American society of the 50's through 70's is the norm and how everyone should live. It isn't really true. It was a post war bubble that required half the world to get blown up to achieve.


Right, let's put 20 million more people into the labor market.
   5516. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2012 at 12:03 PM (#4334143)
you want to put a dent into poverty? get people when they are young.


Death panel the old folks. Remove the spawn from incorrectly aligned parents and send them to camps to ramp up success "while they're young." I'm all in.

Seriously, most people support SSI because it's the status quo ante, and it's a vaguely moral and historically successful program that prevents collapse into absolute destitution the likes of which we saw in the Great Depression. and because a working class that hasn't seen real wages increase since 1970 and can't support a family on one base income salary as is, can't even think about "saving for retirement."

I'd support significant changes to SSI, perhaps, but it would have to be *after* we break the oligarchy and reestablish some reasonable wealth distribution curve in America. Until then, the "Social Security crisis" is really just a "Baby Boomers getting old crisis" and can be managed without gutting the program, so long as we hobnail boot-face the "Tea Party" morons and elect vaguely rational representatives.
   5517. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM (#4334145)
Oh. 40. Not even close to a nerd. Men want to be me. Women want to be with me. I totes rolled 20s on charisma.
   5518. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 29, 2012 at 12:07 PM (#4334146)
I totes rolled 20s on charisma.


Yeah, not a nerd at all.
   5519. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM (#4334148)
Yeah, not a nerd at all.


I am so hip, I'm vorpal cool.
   5520. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 29, 2012 at 12:34 PM (#4334153)
Seriously, most people support SSI because it's the status quo ante, and it's a vaguely moral and historically successful program that prevents collapse into absolute destitution the likes of which we saw in the Great Depression. and because a working class that hasn't seen real wages increase since 1970 and can't support a family on one base income salary as is, can't even think about "saving for retirement."

That last part is the beginning and the end of the discussion. The same people who are yammering on about "reforming" Social Security are usually the ones who shrug off the fact that well-paying working class jobs have mostly evaporated, while corporate profits are at record highs.

I'd support significant changes to SSI, perhaps, but it would have to be *after* we break the oligarchy and reestablish some reasonable wealth distribution curve in America. Until then, the "Social Security crisis" is really just a "Baby Boomers getting old crisis" and can be managed without gutting the program, so long as we hobnail boot-face the "Tea Party" morons and elect vaguely rational representatives.

Absolutely true, but don't hold your breath, not with the gerrymandered House of Representatives and the rapid shrinkage in the number of competitive congressional districts. Those Tea Party morons haven't been so moronic in their strategy of concentrating their money and energy at the state and district levels. You can see the result of that strategy in the upcoming party makeup of the House, in an election where the Democratic candidates won nearly a full percentage point more of the national popular vote and still wound up 35 seats short of a majority.
   5521. Morty Causa Posted: December 29, 2012 at 01:33 PM (#4334174)
The thing with SSI is HW is right the old have a huge chunk of the wealth. But the bleeding hearts are right in that SSI has reduced poverty a bunch among old people.

The bleeding hearts also know that universality is key to the political viability of SSI. Once you introduce means-testing (whether wealth or income), SSI becomes another "welfare" program more easily targeted for reduction.


Please stop confusing SS (Social Security benefits) with SSI (Supplemental Security Income benefits). One is set up as welfare (was state welfare payments until the federal government nationalized them effective January, 1974)—that’s SSI. One is not—it is the program created and installed by FDR, since evolved a good bit. That’s Social Security.

Medicaid is associated with SSI, not SS. Medicare is associcated with SS.
   5522. Morty Causa Posted: December 29, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4334178)
This notion of retirement always confounds me. As if it is a right and that society is somehow off if you "work until you die". People keep acting like the American society of the 50's through 70's is the norm and how everyone should live. It isn't really true. It was a post war bubble that required half the world to get blown up to achieve.


"I will work harder." Boxer, Animal Farm.
   5523. Morty Causa Posted: December 29, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4334179)
This notion of retirement always confounds me. As if it is a right and that society is somehow off if you "work until you die". People keep acting like the American society of the 50's through 70's is the norm and how everyone should live. It isn't really true. It was a post war bubble that required half the world to get blown up to achieve.


It's been working effectively ever since it was enacted. And still is.

Chill, people. The Boomers are going to all die off--they've been dying off. No need to eat your own.
   5524. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4334180)
Chill, people. The Boomers are going to all die off--they've been dying off. No need to eat your own.


This. There is no SS/SSI crisis. There is no "debt crisis." The US government borrows money at a negative interest rate, for chrissakes.
   5525. Morty Causa Posted: December 29, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4334186)
Right. There is no crisis. That doesn't mean things can't be improved, but no need to go off the deep end when it comes to suggesting improvements. Patience, and you will be rewarded. Those dreaded awful Boomers will soon be gone. Your progeny awaits their turn to be self-righteous ingrates toward you. Hope you have enough guns, because they have plenty of rope.
   5526. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2012 at 02:40 PM (#4334193)
   5527. CrosbyBird Posted: December 29, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4334214)
That's where it started, not with process of service. Koresh and Co. were not owed a duty to have service done like they wanted it to be done, just as they aren't entitled to have society we constituted like they'd like it to be.

And therefore, it justifies killing 70-something people, including children, to demonstrate who is in charge. We showed those people rejecting the authority of the government.

   5528. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2012 at 03:43 PM (#4334218)
And therefore, it justifies killing 70-something people, including children, to demonstrate who is in charge.


Didn't the BD's set their own stockpiles ablaze and essentially kill themselves?
   5529. Dan The Mediocre Posted: December 29, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4334219)
And therefore, it justifies killing 70-something people, including children, to demonstrate who is in charge. We showed those people rejecting the authority of the government.


I guess if they didn't want the kids to die, Koresh and company shouldn't have set the house on fire.
   5530. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 29, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4334223)
And therefore, it justifies killing 70-something people, including children, to demonstrate who is in charge. We showed those people rejecting the authority of the government.


"Honey, we need some beer for the party. I'm going to run to the store."

On the way to the store, brakes fail, car skids out of control and plows into a minivan killing a soccer mom and 5 kids.

"Well, was it worth killing 6 people to get your beer?"
   5531. McCoy Posted: December 29, 2012 at 03:53 PM (#4334224)
Right, let's put 20 million more people into the labor market

Well, yes. Right now we're paying them to do nothing while they also largely hoard their wealth and enter the most expensive government subsidized part of their life
   5532. tshipman Posted: December 29, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4334227)
"Well, was it worth killing 6 people to get your beer?"


Yes?

I mean, assuming it was good beer.
   5533. Morty Causa Posted: December 29, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4334231)
The fault for those killings lie with those that had a duty to submit to legally constituted authority, and who, despite all blandishments, refused to for some 50 days. The government pleaded with Koresh to at least release the children and the women. He didn't. It's unreasonable, even absurd, to hold the government to a duty to walk away, or to have done every thing right (which means everything you in your Monday Morning Quarterback armchair hold them to). It's an axiom in law and in reasoning that you don't judge responsibility by an outcome. Yet, that's all that matters to those that would excuse the Branch Davidians.

There was a legal warrant, there was legal process, and there was a refusal, a deadly refusal, to accept that service. There were negotiations and pleadings for 50 ####### days. It was obvious that Koresh wanted to go to the wall on this. He left the government with no choice--except the unthinkable, i.e., walking away with its tail between its legs. That was not going to happen. Koresh and the BDs sought an apocalyptic Armageddon and they got it, even if it was unintended on the part of the Evil Host. The government is not required to be perfect. It went above and beyond the call on this. Koresh doesn't even pass a minimum threshold that would exonerate him. It's putrid that some would so invert reasoning to subvert responsibility.

Any workable theory between government and governed doesn't countenance such a reductive way of looking at the respective duties and rights of the parties. Your conclusion is entirely result-oriented, and it's entirely one-sided. Because something awful transpired at the end, something awfully wrong had to have been done--and could have been done only by the government. That does not comport with the facts or good reasoning.

EDIT: Seeing the other posts, let me add: Crosbybird is usually so intelligent and so intelligently balanced in putting forth a argument, I can only ascribed his lapse here to a laudable sensitivity to the carnage and to carrying his ideology to a deplorable and unfair extreme, resulting in unjust blame.
   5534. Morty Causa Posted: December 29, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4334235)
Well, yes. Right now we're paying them to do nothing while they also largely hoard their wealth and enter the most expensive government subsidized part of their life


Who these people you speak of? Do we view, say, other investors the same way?

In the past each time a means test was brought up with regards to Social Security benefits, there was an outcry: they had earned it, and it was a contract between the parties and the government that should not be abrogated, certainly not by ex parte and ex post facto way means and effect.

   5535. CrosbyBird Posted: December 29, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4334238)
The fault for those killings lie with those that had a duty to submit to legally constituted authority, and who, despite all blandishments, refused to for some 50 days.

I reject that position. The Branch Davidians, based on their beliefs, had two conflicting duties: one to the large community of the nation, and one to the small community of their compound. Yielding to the government would have made them derelict in their latter duty in service to the former.

You're also shifting the nature of the discussion a bit. I'm not exonerating the Branch Davidians from causing the problem in the first place; I'm not defending a cult of religious nutjobs stockpiling weapons for the apocalypse and marrying children to the leader. I'm saying that nothing the Branch Davidians did merited the level of aggression on the part of government.

The Branch Davidians were bad actors in refusing to defer to the greater power of the government while children were present. Not because they had the duty to obey our glorious leaders, but because children can't properly consent or assume the risk of resistance. That doesn't excuse the absolutely monstrous (by the standards we set for our free country) behavior on the part of the government.

(Much like the tourist who opens his wallet in the center of a busy street and gets robbed. Certainly he's not blameless in his own loss, but his foolishness doesn't excuse the thief's behavior one bit.)

He left the government with no choice--except the unthinkable, i.e., walking away with its tail between its legs.

This is such a ridiculous false binary. There are many, many options between "ignore the Branch Davidians" and "send in a raiding party of armed troops."

The government is not required to be perfect.

The standard I am setting for acceptable government behavior is far, far lower than "not perfect." This event was a result of months of absolute incompetence on the part of the government. You can look at Waco as a clinic in precisely how to create a bloodbath rather than avoid one.

If we are to vest the government with significantly greater power (and deference) than private citizens, then we must also vest that government with a greater responsibility to behave properly. It's not the same standard for all parties. Otherwise, why trust the government to do a better job than individuals?
   5536. CrosbyBird Posted: December 29, 2012 at 04:52 PM (#4334239)
"Honey, we need some beer for the party. I'm going to run to the store."

On the way to the store, brakes fail, car skids out of control and plows into a minivan killing a soccer mom and 5 kids.

"Well, was it worth killing 6 people to get your beer?"


I already know that my car's brakes are failing and need service, and I plan to drive to the store when nobody is on the road to be safe. When I find out that the road actually will be occupied by soccer moms and kids in minivans, I choose to prioritize my plan to get beer over their safety.

Under those circumstances, I think that question you propose is quite reasonable.
   5537. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 29, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4334242)
The Branch Davidians, based on their beliefs,


Their beliefs were bullcrap. Pity so many kids had to die just so messianic morons could remain true to them.
   5538. Morty Causa Posted: December 29, 2012 at 05:34 PM (#4334252)
The fault for those killings lie with those that had a duty to submit to legally constituted authority, and who, despite all blandishments, refused to for some 50 days.


I reject that position. The Branch Davidians, based on their beliefs, had two conflicting duties: one to the large community of the nation, and one to the small community of their compound. Yielding to the government would have made them derelict in their latter duty in service to the former.


It isn’t about their beliefs. Their beliefs in the context of the overall social structure does not hold, much less trump the institutional values of that overall, overweening society and its political and legal structures.

They can’t have it both ways. They can’t live in a counter-organizational setting, but maintain and claim all the rights and privileges that accrue from its rules and policies when it is convenient for them to do so, and then claim those rules they don’t like don’t apply to them, AND that the greater society and structure must necessarily always defer to them in all matters when there is conflict and contest. We’d all like that, that would be sweet, but none of us gets that—nor should we get it. Insisting to the contrary to the point of disobeying and threatening legally constituted authority is at least implicitly a declaration of war, certainly a disavowal of allegiance. And if that’s the way it is, then they should be prepared to live with the consequences. That doesn’t leave them with much grounds for justification to claim quarter or mercy, much less deference.

The Branch Davidians (and the Montana Militia, and others) say the government is the enemy that they must overthrow. They accrue and aggregate weapons, then childishly claim “unfair! unfair!” when that foe takes them seriously. Now, c’mon. Now, which is it: are you a big, bad revolutionary who will go to the wall (and force those close and dear to you to be complicit) for your beliefs and actions, or is this just a religious clown thing?
   5539. Morty Causa Posted: December 29, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4334254)
I already know that my car's brakes are failing and need service, and I plan to drive to the store when nobody is on the road to be safe. When I find out that the road actually will be occupied by soccer moms and kids in minivans, I choose to prioritize my plan to get beer over their safety.

Under those circumstances, I think that question you propose is quite reasonable.


If that's an analogy, what is it an analogy to? Specify the points in your parable that correspond to the matching points in the overarching reality.
   5540. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: December 29, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4334256)
   5541. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 29, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4334257)
I'm saying that nothing the Branch Davidians did merited the level of aggression on the part of government.


I'd say their reaction showed the initial government raid was too tame. A much more aggressive approach would have saved many lives.
   5542. Morty Causa Posted: December 29, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4334259)
I'm saying that nothing the Branch Davidians did merited the level of aggression on the part of government.


And I am saying you are wrong. Killing process servers, refusing to comply in any way, even after tedious, jprolonged negotiations (look, the government did everything it could to give them that golden bridge to retreat--they rejected it at every turn)...well, what level of aggression was merited? No government would have walked away from that? It can't and maintain a claim to legitimacy. And I'm afraid something like this may have to take place (see secessionists and teaparty militias and the like).
   5543. Morty Causa Posted: December 29, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4334260)
   5544. Morty Causa Posted: December 29, 2012 at 06:00 PM (#4334265)
The Davidians had legal recourse. They specifically decided not to avail themselves of it. From the inception, Koresh & Crew were preparing for resistance, not for the submission to a legal warrant, which they then could have contested. The shooting was on ####### TV.

But, whatever, all they had to do was submit to the warrant. Once it became evident they weren't going to do that, a paramilitary operation mindset too over--understandably so. But even so, the government begged them to cease and desist--for 50 days, and for 50 days Koresh & Co. played it for all it was worth. They wanted an apocalypse. In that sense, they asked for what they got--the only thing they didn't do was put it in engraved writing. They gave the government no recourse. Indeed, had the conflagration not eventuated, the criticism would have been, as it was until then, why the government dicked around with them to extent it did. Once the apocalypse happened, and turned bad, as apocalypses are prone to, that was nicely turned on its head.
   5545. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 29, 2012 at 06:03 PM (#4334267)
Every time Joe started yakking about the "biased" polls and ridiculing Nate Silvers's projections, I pointed out that on Intrade he could cash in on his superior understanding and get odds ranging from 5 to 3 to 3 to 1, depending on the time period. And every time I did that, he quickly backed down with one Earl the Pearl spin move or another. He's the original BTF 3-card monte man.

Good grief, Andy. This again?

I didn't bet on Intrade for the same reason I disagreed with Nate's alleged ability to predict the presidential election to a four-decimal-point degree of certainty several months in advance: I believe there's such a thing as a game-changer in elections. (And re: 2012 specifically, I further believed that any such game-changer was highly likely to be detrimental to Romney — e.g., the leaking of his tax returns, etc.)

You, on the other hand, seem to believe that Nate can predict elections to a four-decimal-point degree of certainty several months in advance, and yet it appears you didn't mortgage the house so you could make easy money off Nate's numbers.

One of us has an inconsistent position here — and it isn't me.
   5546. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 29, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4334270)
I'd say their reaction showed the initial government raid was too tame. A much more aggressive approach would have saved many lives.

Utterly absurd. Koresh used to go out in public. The feds could and should have picked him up then.

It's comical that the same lefties who consider Cheney a war criminal because he supported waterboarding a known terrorist are perfectly OK with 75 people dying during the execution of an arrest warrant.
   5547. CrosbyBird Posted: December 29, 2012 at 06:16 PM (#4334274)
And I am saying you are wrong.

Look, there's a fundamental disconnect between our concepts of the proper relationship between the government and the governed. We should just recognize this: you think I'm a naive anarchist and I think you're a spineless state-worshipper.

I think you're placing ridiculous principles like "duty to government" and "respect for legitimate authority" over the responsibility for authority to behave properly and with a sense of reasonable priority.

I struggle to think of what possibly could have been more harmful about the Branch Davidians being able to temporarily escape a search warrant than what ended up happening. In a purely practical sense, with no ideological concerns, the cure was much, much worse than the disease.
   5548. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2012 at 06:18 PM (#4334275)
Morty has a very good point. You can't respond to a service of warrant by starting a shootout that kills four federal agents and then complain that the federal apparatus didn't let you off with a pouty face emoticon.
   5549. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2012 at 06:19 PM (#4334276)
I struggle to think of what possibly could have been more harmful about the Branch Davidians being able to temporarily escape a search warrant than what ended up happening. In a purely practical sense, with no ideological concerns, the cure was much, much worse than the disease.


Was it? We've successfully eliminated David Koresh from the gene pool. In the long term, that's probably a win.
   5550. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: December 29, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4334277)
I get annoyed when wealthy people suggest we eliminate SSI. Let those who say that decline their benefits, if they so desire.

I'm not paying into SSI in some hope that it's a 401K. I pay in to SSI to support the elderly who need it today. And I expect that when I'm older, there will be younger people who feel the same responsibility to my generation.
   5551. Morty Causa Posted: December 29, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4334278)
Sorry, the government did behave responsibly. It attempted to conduct service of process. Exactly what is beyond the pale in attempting to do that. What racheting things up was not government behavior--it was the behavior of the BDs. At any time they could have submitted and surrender. At every juncture, they refused, and made it clear that they would back up that refusal with force.

I think you're placing ridiculous principles like "duty to government" and "respect for legitimate authority" over the responsibility for authority to behave properly and with a sense of reasonable priority.


It has to be said, because apparently it's an elemental something that you just can't grok.

I struggle to think of what possibly could have been more harmful about the Branch Davidians being able to temporarily escape a search warrant than what ended up happening. In a purely practical sense, with no ideological concerns, the cure was much, much worse than the disease.


When? When does authority grant the subject of process, which entails a search, to dictate when and where they will be served and the search conducted? Your view of the relationship between government and armed factions is naive, even childish.

The state is not an alien virus. It is the manifestation of people's will--people, human beings, just like you or I. Your view of the relationship makes the relationship impossible.
   5552. Morty Causa Posted: December 29, 2012 at 06:37 PM (#4334281)
5550:

See my 5521. Please clarify. Which do you mean when you refer to "SSI"? SS or SSI? SSI is the public assistance benefits that are paid from general revenues (not through payroll taxes) to the aged and disabled whose income and resources do not exceed a certain level. Social Security benefits are paid based on those FICA/SE earmarked revenues. Few of us will ever be entitled to SSI (knock on wood), although many of us will need Medicaid, which is based on SSI type criteria, so as to pay nursing homes or extraordinary medical costs. All of us probably will be entitled to Social Security benefits funded by payroll taxes. As we should be.

   5553. Morty Causa Posted: December 29, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4334287)
It was a search warrant. Postponing execution would have done what? Allowed Koresh and Co. to prepare a more effective armed resistance? Get more children in there? What?
   5554. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: December 29, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4334290)
5552, SS. I misspoke.
   5555. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2012 at 07:06 PM (#4334295)
5552, SS. I misspoke.


Was that a parable, or a very subtle joke?
   5556. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: December 29, 2012 at 07:09 PM (#4334299)
Neither?
   5557. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 29, 2012 at 07:10 PM (#4334300)
Every time Joe started yakking about the "biased" polls and ridiculing Nate Silvers's projections, I pointed out that on Intrade he could cash in on his superior understanding and get odds ranging from 5 to 3 to 3 to 1, depending on the time period. And every time I did that, he quickly backed down with one Earl the Pearl spin move or another. He's the original BTF 3-card monte man.

Good grief, Andy. This again?

I didn't bet on Intrade for the same reason I disagreed with Nate's alleged ability to predict the presidential election to a four-decimal-point degree of certainty several months in advance: I believe there's such a thing as a game-changer in elections. (And re: 2012 specifically, I further believed that any such game-changer was highly likely to be detrimental to Romney — e.g., the leaking of his tax returns, etc.)


But you were still trying to have it both ways. First you spent page after page parroting that "unskewed poll" wingnut, as if his laughably partisan "unskewing" had anything serious to contribute to the conversation. But then when I challenged you to put your money where your mouth was, at a point where you could have gotten 3 to 1 odds on your hero, you then started talking about "game-changers" which somehow could only favor Obama, as if God somehow had an interest in the election's outcome.**

What about the first debate, which was supposed to be a "game changer" in Romney's favor? And what poll ever showed that Romney's refusal to release his taxes ever changed any significant number of votes? In any case, all that was known well before November, and was already reflected in the polls.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe that Nate can predict elections to a four-decimal-point degree of certainty several months in advance, and yet it appears you didn't mortgage the house so you could make easy money off Nate's numbers.

I was fairly confident about Obama's chances for all but that one brief flash immediately following the first debate, but unlike you, I would have had to put up those lopsided odds, whereas you would have been receiving them. It was the combination of your repeated assertions that the economy was likely to bring down Obama, along with the long Intrade odds that you could have gotten for that position, that made your entire posting history during the campaign so comical.

**Actually I could possibly be convinced that He did put His Thumb on the scale, given Romney's near-Pagan worship of wealth, but that might be taking my own bias a bit too far.
   5558. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2012 at 07:16 PM (#4334305)
   5559. spike Posted: December 29, 2012 at 07:16 PM (#4334306)
5557, easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, my friend.
   5560. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: December 29, 2012 at 07:21 PM (#4334309)
I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND!
   5561. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2012 at 07:22 PM (#4334310)
I give up!
   5562. Tripon Posted: December 29, 2012 at 07:34 PM (#4334316)
Is Joe mocking Nate Silver for getting his prediction right?
   5563. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: December 29, 2012 at 07:47 PM (#4334319)
The other Joe, I hope you mean.
   5564. Lassus Posted: December 29, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4334321)
Morty has a very good point. You can't respond to a service of warrant by starting a shootout that kills four federal agents and then complain that the federal apparatus didn't let you off with a pouty face emoticon.

I do find it odd that this little precursor to the whole affair is basically brushed aside by GF and CB.


Also, as a really off-topic topic, I did manage to have lunch with formerly dp today. Our plans for the child socialist indoctrination camps needed some firming up.
   5565. thok Posted: December 29, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4334322)
I believe there's such a thing as a game-changer in elections.


You do realize that Nate Silver agrees with you to some extent and has the probability of a game changer implicitly built into his model, right? That's part of the reason his model started strongly increasing the probability of Obama winning near the end of the campaign: every single day that passed without a potential game changer favored Obama at that point.

If the election had taken place on November 10th (the day after the Petraeus resignation), I'm certain Nate would have pointed out that such an event could mess up his model. If the election took place on November 17th, the effect of the Petraeus resignation would have been factored into the model via changing poll results.
   5566. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 29, 2012 at 07:54 PM (#4334324)
But you were still trying to have it both ways. First you spent page after page parroting that "unskewed poll" wingnut, as if his laughably partisan "unskewing" had anything serious to contribute to the conversation.

I went to UnskewedPolls.com precisely one time for about 30 seconds and can't even name the guy who ran it. I'm quite sure I didn't "spend page after page parroting that 'unskewed poll' wingnut."

But then when I challenged you to put your money where your mouth was, at a point where you could have gotten 3 to 1 odds on your hero, you then started talking about "game-changers" which somehow could only favor Obama, as if God somehow had an interest in the election's outcome.**

Here you go again with your Pool-Hall Andy routine. Also, Romney is my "hero" about as much as Andrew Cuomo is my hero — i.e., not at all.

I was fairly confident about Obama's chances for all but that one brief flash immediately following the first debate, but unlike you, I would have had to put up those lopsided odds, whereas you would have been receiving them. It was the combination of your repeated assertions that the economy was likely to bring down Obama, along with the long Intrade odds that you could have gotten for that position, that made your entire posting history during the campaign so comical.

Nice try. I would have been getting "lopsided odds" in a projection system whose accuracy I doubted (and still doubt). You, on the other hand, claim to believe in that system 100 percent, yet didn't "put your money where your mouth was." If you want to see someone with an inconsistent position, go look in the mirror.
   5567. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: December 29, 2012 at 08:04 PM (#4334328)
Dance, monkey!
   5568. Lassus Posted: December 29, 2012 at 08:05 PM (#4334329)
Gawd! Work with me here, people!

The Crash Test Dummies are no Dishwalla.


Here you go again with your Pool-Hall Andy routine.

Andy's been in pool halls longer than you've been alive. If he says betting $75 to make $25 is a sucker's bet, I'm listening.
   5569. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 29, 2012 at 08:06 PM (#4334330)
You do realize that Nate Silver agrees with you to some extent and has the probability of a game changer implicitly built into his model, right? That's part of the reason his model started strongly increasing the probability of Obama winning near the end of the campaign: every single day that passed without a potential game changer favored Obama at that point.

If the election had taken place on November 10th (the day after the Petraeus resignation), I'm certain Nate would have pointed out that such an event could mess up his model. If the election took place on November 17th, the effect of the Petraeus resignation would have been factored into the model via changing poll results.

No, the probability of an Obama win increased at the end of the campaign because (1) there was no movement toward Romney in the polls and (2) Nate's model is largely built on the idea that elections are stable. I've seen nothing to suggest that Nate's model somehow tries to assess the chances of a game-changer such as the Petraeus scandal or the Bush DWI or something like that. How could it? It's a data-based model.
   5570. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: December 29, 2012 at 08:09 PM (#4334332)
Also, as a really off-topic topic, I did manage to have lunch with formerly dp today. Our plans for the child socialist indoctrination camps needed some firming up.


Groovy. I'm totally on the death panels thing. I've blocked off early February, possibly into March, for hunting down Wallbanger.
   5571. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 29, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4334335)
Andy's been in pool halls longer than you've been alive. If he says betting $75 to make $25 is a sucker's bet, I'm listening.

This goes directly against the idea that Nate's numbers are valid for betting purposes. If Andy was sure that Nate was right, this not only wasn't a "sucker's bet," it was easy money.
   5572. thok Posted: December 29, 2012 at 08:30 PM (#4334339)
How could it? It's a data-based model.


By looking at game changers from previous years and using that to determine how stable an election should be. If elections were really as unstable as you think they are, then the poll numbers in June should be mostly worthless at predicting the eventual election result.

Basically, the game changer is part of what's going into "If the polls claim Obama leads Romney 53%-47% with two weeks remaining, what are the odds that Obama will win?" If game changers are more common, then then Obama's odds get lower, even if the polls are saying the exact same thing.
   5573. Morty Causa Posted: December 29, 2012 at 08:35 PM (#4334340)
Those trying to shift all the culpability from the Branch-Davidians to the government want to reduce it to a game of "Mother, May I"? That's not only has no authority in law, it's ridiculously childish as an intellectual stance. It amounts to a Groucho Marx singing "Whatever it is, I'm against it--unless I'm not--guess which?"

We have a warrant to search this place? It's no good. Object to it in a court proceeding; you have your legal remedy. No, no, it's against God's law. Who says so? God. How do I know that? I'm telling you. I don't believe you, and all I know is the government says for me to do this.

Why didn't you serve it on him in X spot? Serve it sometime later. What difference would that make? Besides, it's to search a place? Usually, when you have such a warrant, you go to the place itself?

You'll be shot. Ooooo, that's bad form. Is there a way we can come to terms? We'll let you know when it's okay to come. Hmmmm, you decide if and when and where? Yeah,... What's the point of legal proceedings? We're talking big ideas here--don't come with your petty-#### legalisms.

Besides, there are kids there? What difference does it make? We're not after them? When won't they be there? Are you after seeing them hurt for some ideological point? Nooo,... But you'll them hostage and use them as a shield? When won't they be--when won't that apply? Maybe, that's why we should conduct that search right now, before you prepare an armed resistance?

What if it doesn't work? What do you suggest? Well, you could forget the whole thing. Just until we voluntarily let you search? Hmmm, when will that be? We'll have to think and pray and think and pray--could take a while. Thanks, but it kind of defeats the point of a the surprise of a search warrant (which expires), doesn't it? We would like to catch you with the goods, you know.

But think of the children! Well, that's takes a lot of nerve--to place the burden on us for whatever happens to the children when you have complete custody and control over them.

But, again, you don't have good reason to search? And, again, object to the warrant in a judicial proceeding, is my reply. But, that might go against us--no, we're just right and you're just wrong. It's axiomatic that the individual is always right and the government is always wrong. That's a held of a way to run a railroad--or a country. Our dictates supersede yours. Anybody but a fascist pig understands that.

Oink, oink. Ready or not, we're coming in. Justice delayed is justice denied.
   5574. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: December 29, 2012 at 08:39 PM (#4334341)
what poll ever showed that Romney's refusal to release his taxes ever changed any significant number of votes?

It was the biggest nothing in the history of nothingness, but that didn't keep every diehard Dem on my FB feed (my main election-news source) from posting about it every damn day. Sweet Jesus, that was tiresome.
   5575. Morty Causa Posted: December 29, 2012 at 08:49 PM (#4334348)
No, it wasn't. It was wonderful to see that no one who supported Mitt, or was against Obama, rather, had an answer for that. You could just picture them mentally strumming their lips. Then, when Mitt did release what he did, and other stuff came out, too, it was beautiful. Solidified the faithful, and left the paynim with their dick in their hands. You can't ever tell how much, but it had to have some effect. And, of course, in presidential elections, every little bit counts.
   5576. spike Posted: December 29, 2012 at 08:49 PM (#4334349)
I rather think it was one more thing that kept it from ever becoming a race - it would darn sure help keep it from changing how you felt about Mitt.
   5577. Morty Causa Posted: December 29, 2012 at 08:59 PM (#4334353)
   5578. Gonfalon B. Posted: December 29, 2012 at 09:17 PM (#4334358)
   5579. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 29, 2012 at 09:23 PM (#4334360)
Andy's been in pool halls longer than you've been alive. If he says betting $75 to make $25 is a sucker's bet, I'm listening.

This goes directly against the idea that Nate's numbers are valid for betting purposes. If Andy was sure that Nate was right, this not only wasn't a "sucker's bet," it was easy money.


Add gambling odds to the list of things Joe doesn't understand.
   5580. a bebop a rebop Posted: December 29, 2012 at 09:30 PM (#4334361)
By the way, at no point did Nate Silver claim four decimal-point accuracy. He published error bars explicitly for the purpose of quantifying our uncertainty.

And 5572 nails the question of "game-changers."
   5581. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 29, 2012 at 09:34 PM (#4334367)
By looking at game changers from previous years and using that to determine how stable an election should be. If elections were really as unstable as you think they are, then the poll numbers in June should be mostly worthless at predicting the eventual election result.

"By looking at game changers from previous years"? There could have been zero game-changers in previous years and that wouldn't remove or lessen the possibility of one occurring in 2012.

Also, I never said elections were very "unstable"; I said I didn't think they could be predicted to four-decimal-point certainty many months in advance.

What were the odds of Obama's 2004 U.S. Senate opponent's divorce records being leaked and driving him from the race? There weren't any, because it couldn't be quantified. (Well, the odds might have been 100 percent in sleazy Chicago, but the point still stands generally.)

Basically, the game changer is part of what's going into "If the polls claim Obama leads Romney 53%-47% with two weeks remaining, what are the odds that Obama will win?" If game changers are more common, then then Obama's odds get lower, even if the polls are saying the exact same thing.

Perhaps, but there's no evidence that Nate was adjusting his numbers accordingly. I never saw Nate saying that based on the poll numbers, Obama was an 82 percent favorite to win, but the odds of a game-changer reduced his chances to 80 percent or 78 percent.

***
Add gambling odds to the list of things Joe doesn't understand.

Nonsense. Gambling odds are meant to attract equal action to both sides of a bet. Andy's claiming I should have been betting on Romney based on numbers I didn't believe, despite his own refusal to bet on numbers he proclaims to have trusted 100 percent.
   5582. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 29, 2012 at 09:38 PM (#4334368)
Nonsense. Gambling odds are meant to attract equal action to both sides of a bet. Andy's claiming I should have been betting on Romney based on numbers I didn't believe, despite his own refusal to bet on numbers he proclaims to have trusted 100 percent.


Precisely. You didn't believe Obama was a 3-1 favorite. You thought Romney was even or ahead. You could have gotten a 3-1 payoff on your (perceived) even money bet. For Andy to bet on Obama, it would have been break even at best.
   5583. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 29, 2012 at 09:38 PM (#4334369)
But you were still trying to have it both ways. First you spent page after page parroting that "unskewed poll" wingnut, as if his laughably partisan "unskewing" had anything serious to contribute to the conversation.

I went to UnskewedPolls.com precisely one time for about 30 seconds and can't even name the guy who ran it. I'm quite sure I didn't "spend page after page parroting that 'unskewed poll' wingnut."


Joe, here's another pool hall sucker bet I'll offer you.

True or false? Joe Kehoskie spent many pages on previous political threads trying to convince us that the polls were skewed towards sampling too many Democrats and not enough Republicans.

True or false? Joe Kehoskie spent many other pages trying to say that the party split in the turnout in 2012 was going to be closer to 2010 than to 2008, and that one of the big problems with the non-Rasmussen polls was that their sample size percentages didn't reflect that reality.

Romney is my "hero" about as much as Andrew Cuomo is my hero — i.e., not at all.

You may not have framed copies of his Upper Bain rookie card on your wall, but you seemed to echo nearly every single talking point he made in his campaign, including his "47%" speech. A pure coincidence, I'm sure.

I was fairly confident about Obama's chances for all but that one brief flash immediately following the first debate, but unlike you, I would have had to put up those lopsided odds, whereas you would have been receiving them. It was the combination of your repeated assertions that the economy was likely to bring down Obama, along with the long Intrade odds that you could have gotten for that position, that made your entire posting history during the campaign so comical.

Nice try. I would have been getting "lopsided odds" in a projection system whose accuracy I doubted (and still doubt).


Joe, it wasn't Nate Silver who was offering those 3 to 1 odds. It was Intrade. And to the extent that those odds reflected Nate's projections, they offered you an opportunity to cash in on your skepticism about Nate. It's like he was handing you free money----unless that disbelief in his projections on your part was nothing but an act, undertaken for the sole purpose of convincing yourself that Romney's chances were being unfairly "skewed" by Nate.
   5584. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 29, 2012 at 09:39 PM (#4334371)
Perhaps, but there's no evidence that Nate was adjusting his numbers accordingly.


Of course there is. He called the election about as perfectly as one could (even in the face of a monster storm "game changer"), and had been spot on for months.
   5585. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 29, 2012 at 09:44 PM (#4334374)
You didn't believe Obama was a 3-1 favorite. You thought Romney was even or ahead. You could have gotten a 3-1 payoff on your (perceived) even money bet. For Andy to bet on Obama, it would have been break even at best.

Discounting the vig, at the time I made my challenge Joe would have had to post $100 on Intrade to win $300, while I would have had to post $300 to win $100. Or, if we'd each posted $300, I would have won $100 while Joe would have won $900. For someone who was unskewing right and left and ridiculing Nate's projections at every opportunity, Joe sure seemed to have a rather weak set of convictions.
   5586. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 29, 2012 at 09:46 PM (#4334376)
Precisely. You didn't believe Obama was a 3-1 favorite. You thought Romney was even or ahead. You could have gotten a 3-1 payoff on your (perceived) even money bet. For Andy to bet on Obama, it would have been break even at best.

I guess you just missed the entire discussion about game-changers rendering odds moot.

Of course there is. He called the election about as perfectly as one could (even in the face of a monster storm "game changer"), and had been spot on for months.

Huh? Show me where Nate was adjusting his numbers based on the threat/possibility of a game-changer. The fact that Nate was right doesn't mean that his model had accounted for every possibility. Such a claim is absurd on its face. (Hell, the guy in #5565 whom people are high-fiving explicitly stated that a well-timed game-changer probably would have blown up Nate's model.)
   5587. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 29, 2012 at 09:48 PM (#4334378)
Every Single Game Changer of the 2012 Election

There were 68 of them.


And that's not even counting the dozen or so that Yankee Redneck uncovered.
   5588. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 29, 2012 at 09:53 PM (#4334380)
Joe, here's another pool hall sucker bet I'll offer you.

Classic Andy. Makes a false claim, but then comes back with the Dan Rather "fake but accurate" defense.

You may not have framed copies of his Upper Bain rookie card on your wall, but you seemed to echo nearly every single talking point he made in his campaign, including his "47%" speech. A pure coincidence, I'm sure.

LOL. I was in the "anyone but Romney" camp throughout the primary, up to the point of publicly begging others to get into the race even as the primary was becoming a fait accompli for Romney. I preferred Romney over Obama, but the idea that I was a huge supporter of Romney, let alone Romney being my "hero," is utterly dishonest.

Discounting the vig, at the time I made my challenge Joe would have had to post $100 on Intrade to win $300, while I would have had to post $300 to win $100. Or, if we'd each posted $300, I would have won $100 while Joe would have won $900. For someone who was unskewing right and left and ridiculing Nate's projections at every opportunity, Joe sure seemed to have a rather weak set of convictions.

Yes, except I explicitly didn't believe in the numbers being presented, while you claimed to believe in them 100 percent. The only one here with a "weak set of convictions" is you.
   5589. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 29, 2012 at 09:53 PM (#4334381)
I guess you just missed the entire discussion about game-changers rendering odds moot.

Show me where Nate was adjusting his numbers based on the threat/possibility of a game-changer.


See 5572. How often do you think "game changers" occur anyway? I can't recall any in the last month of a presidential election ever.

Joe, I'd lover to play poker with you. You'd be the guy who flops a full house but is afraid to be because his opponent could get 4 of a kind on the river.

   5590. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 29, 2012 at 09:55 PM (#4334383)
I guess you just missed the entire discussion about game-changers rendering odds moot.

But again, unless you were sincerely convinced that every last minute "game changer" was going to favor Obama, why should that have affected your views on the real odds of the race? Did you really ever believe that the 3 to 1 odds (on Intrade) favoring Obama reflected the real odds in the race? Was there ever a point during the campaign where you thought that taking 3 to 1 odds on Romney would have been an unacceptable risk, given the "real" odds in your feverishly unskewing mind?
   5591. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 29, 2012 at 09:59 PM (#4334386)
Joe, I'd lover to play poker with you. You'd be the guy who flops a full house but is afraid to be because his opponent could get 4 of a kind on the river.

Coming from one of the most passive-aggressive guys on a site full of passive-aggressive guys, this is funny.

See 5572. How often do you think "game changers" occur anyway? I can't recall any in the last month of a presidential election ever.

Short memory, huh? The Bush DUI story almost assuredly cost him the popular vote.

***
But again, unless you were sincerely convinced that every last minute "game changer" was going to favor Obama, why should that have affected your views on the real odds of the race? Did you really ever believe that the 3 to 1 odds (on Intrade) favoring Obama reflected the real odds in the race? Was there ever a point during the campaign where you thought that taking 3 to 1 odds on Romney would have been an unacceptable risk, given the "real" odds in your feverishly unskewing mind?

Asked and answered, about a dozen times.
   5592. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 29, 2012 at 10:01 PM (#4334387)
Yes, except I explicitly didn't believe in the numbers being presented,

Funny, but I seem to recall that your skepticism was directed towards the idea that Obama was as solid a favorite as Nate had claimed. Your point about "not believing the numbers" would be coherent only if your skepticism had been aimed in the other direction, since the Intrade odds usually paralleled Nate's projections to a fairly large degree.

while you claimed to believe in them 100 percent. The only one here with a "weak set of convictions" is you.

First, I'm not sure where you got that "100 percent" idea. All I ever said about Nate was that (a) his prior track record was impressive, certainly more so than Rasmussen's; and (b) his methodology made sense. That certainly doesn't equate to feeling confident enough to lay 3 to 1 odds on Obama's election.
   5593. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 29, 2012 at 10:06 PM (#4334390)
But again, unless you were sincerely convinced that every last minute "game changer" was going to favor Obama, why should that have affected your views on the real odds of the race? Did you really ever believe that the 3 to 1 odds (on Intrade) favoring Obama reflected the real odds in the race? Was there ever a point during the campaign where you thought that taking 3 to 1 odds on Romney would have been an unacceptable risk, given the "real" odds in your feverishly unskewing mind?

Asked and answered, about a dozen times.


More like evaded, spun, and ducked. You consistently held that Romney's "unskewed" odds were much better than Nate's projections, which were reflected on Intrade. To a rational person, such a thought would present a golden opportunity, given your alleged convictions, but perhaps not given your available discretionary bankroll.
   5594. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 29, 2012 at 10:08 PM (#4334393)
More like evaded, spun, and ducked. You consistently held that Romney's "unskewed" odds were much better than Nate's projections, which were reflected on Intrade. To a rational person, such a thought would present a golden opportunity, given your alleged convictions, but perhaps not given your available discretionary bankroll.

I never considered or portrayed Romney as anything other than a very slight favorite, based almost entirely on the stagnant U.S. economy. I considered Romney to be a relatively poor candidate who was prone to making unforced errors, and he was running against a group of cutthroat Chicago operatives who likely had access to Romney's tax returns, among other things. I've said all of the preceding what seems like countless times here, but I guess you just can't resist reprising the pool-hall tough-guy role at every opportunity.

First, I'm not sure where you got that "100 percent" idea. All I ever said about Nate was that (a) his prior track record was impressive, certainly more so than Rasmussen's; and (b) his methodology made sense. That certainly doesn't equate to feeling confident enough to lay 3 to 1 odds on Obama's election.

Oh, backtracking on your confidence in Nate, huh? How convenient.
   5595. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 29, 2012 at 10:24 PM (#4334402)
I never considered or portrayed Romney as anything other than a very slight favorite, based almost entirely on the stagnant U.S. economy.

If you considered a sports team a "very slight favorite" to win a best of seven series, I'd think that being offered 3 to 1 odds would seem too good to resist.

First, I'm not sure where you got that "100 percent" idea. All I ever said about Nate was that (a) his prior track record was impressive, certainly more so than Rasmussen's; and (b) his methodology made sense. That certainly doesn't equate to feeling confident enough to lay 3 to 1 odds on Obama's election.

Oh, backtracking on your confidence in Nate, huh? How convenient.


So the guy who doesn't want to lay 3 to 1 odds is backtracking, while the guy who doesn't want to take 3 to 1 odds is.....????
   5596. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 29, 2012 at 10:26 PM (#4334404)
Short memory, huh? The Bush DUI story almost assuredly cost him the popular vote.
And Hurricane Sandy almost assuredly cost Romney the election.
   5597. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 29, 2012 at 10:32 PM (#4334410)
If you considered a sports team a "very slight favorite" to win a best of seven series, I'd think that being offered 3 to 1 odds would seem too good to resist.

Do you even read the comments you so dutifully copy into each reply? I considered Romney a very slight favorite but feared that (1) he'd implode and/or (2) his cutthroat opponents would leak his tax returns or come up with some other October or November surprise. (I also saw Romney as a slight favorite based on the stagnant economy, a topic the media did everything it could to not cover.)

So the guy who doesn't want to lay 3 to 1 odds is backtracking, while the guy who doesn't want to take 3 to 1 odds is.....????

You can repeat this a thousand more times but the facts won't change. You consistently claimed to have high confidence in Nate's opinion of the state of the race, yet you apparently wagered $0 based on Nate's numbers.
   5598. Lassus Posted: December 29, 2012 at 10:36 PM (#4334412)
Short memory, huh? The Bush DUI story almost assuredly cost him the popular vote.

I probably could be wrong, but I really don't remember people giving two shits about that at election time.
   5599. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 29, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4334416)
I probably could be wrong, but I really don't remember people giving two shits about that at election time.

You got that first part right.
   5600. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 29, 2012 at 10:45 PM (#4334417)
If you considered a sports team a "very slight favorite" to win a best of seven series, I'd think that being offered 3 to 1 odds would seem too good to resist.

Do you even read the comments you so dutifully copy into each reply? I considered Romney a very slight favorite but feared that (1) he'd implode and/or (2) his cutthroat opponents would leak his tax returns or come up with some other October or November surprise. (I also saw Romney as a slight favorite based on the stagnant economy, a topic the media did everything it could to not cover.)


So IOW even though you still considered Romney a favorite, you were so afraid of some hypothetical implosion** or dirty trick that you considered that sufficient to resist 3 to 1 odds? All I can say is that that must have been one hell of a powerful fear.

**Even though the most notable implosion of mid-campaign was Obama's sleepwalk through the first debate.

So the guy who doesn't want to lay 3 to 1 odds is backtracking, while the guy who doesn't want to take 3 to 1 odds is.....????

You can repeat this a thousand more times but the facts won't change. You consistently claimed to have high confidence in Nate's opinion of the state of the race, yet you apparently wagered $0 based on Nate's numbers.


And you can keep pretending that being asked to post 3 to 1 is the same as being offered 3 to 1, but I doubt if many mathematicians would agree with you.
Page 56 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(2199 - 1:52pm, Apr 23)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogThe Five “Acts” of Ike Davis’s Career, and Why Trading Ike Was a Mistake
(17 - 1:49pm, Apr 23)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for 4/23/2014
(25 - 1:48pm, Apr 23)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogCameron: Numbers don't lie: The decline of Pujols is stunning
(221 - 1:46pm, Apr 23)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogMLB takes a swing at the video game business
(4 - 1:46pm, Apr 23)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(483 - 1:42pm, Apr 23)
Last: smileyy

Newsblog4 balls, you’re out!
(6 - 1:37pm, Apr 23)
Last: A triple short of the cycle

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-23-2014
(5 - 1:33pm, Apr 23)
Last: esseff

NewsblogJ.R. Gamble: Albert Pujols' 500-Homer Chase Is A Bore, But That's Baseball's Fault
(48 - 1:30pm, Apr 23)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(195 - 1:29pm, Apr 23)
Last: zack

NewsblogMorosi: Diamondbacks' growing gloom might mean doom for manager or GM
(8 - 1:10pm, Apr 23)
Last: zonk

NewsblogThe rise and fall of Ike Davis' New York Mets | Capital New York
(19 - 1:05pm, Apr 23)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogJosh Lueke Is A Rapist, You Say? Keep Saying It.
(110 - 1:04pm, Apr 23)
Last: Blastin

NewsblogRoyals G.M. Dayton Moore believes hitting will come around
(16 - 12:37pm, Apr 23)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogMatt Harvey of New York Mets deletes Twitter account after controversial tweet
(12 - 12:36pm, Apr 23)
Last: Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.0024 seconds
52 querie(s) executed