User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7569 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Harvey's a better guy to answer this, but I suspect the GOP elites are of two minds, generally. On the one hand, they're aghast that the Old South voting bloc that they agreed to let sleep in the horse stables have had the audacity to take over the throne room; on the other, they probably realize the deep demographics aren't likely to change, and their only path back to executive power may very well rest on those gerrymandered districts being in their ranks if they ever get the "electoral college by districting" thing done.
This is the text of the law:
Exercise of religion is defined in the following way:
So the case(s) would seem to hinge on whether preventing a second party from having her birth control paid for by a third party constitutes an exercise of religion on the part of the first party. Seems like more than a bit of a stretch when you look at it that way, doesn't it? Of course, the argument of the plaintiff(s) is that they are the one(s) doing the paying, but we call them third party payers for a reason, don't we?
Harveys I didn't mean to put words in your mouth when I said I thought you were pointing to external factors causing the House Reps to divide. I was responding to what you wrote here:
But if that's not what you meant, then I take it back. I don't think there's much difference in our positions on this, and I certainly don't think you're cheering on the people in the Congress.
You're right to point to the incentive structure of the House members. The problem at this point is democracy. The House Republicans didn't exactly hide their beliefs the last 2 years. People who voted for them must have liked what they're getting. It's always tempting to blame individual bad actors, but sometimes the fault truly lies in the people themselves.
Or the anti-democratic way that the House is being run. Democracy should mean that a bill needs the votes of 218 of 435 congresspersons to pass, not 218 of 242.
i don't regard the president as an external factor
he's part of the negotiation. how is that external??
But what is he confident of? They're voting on an amendment first, right? And amendment that would cut $330B in spending and effectively kill the bill, since it's been made clear that the Senate will not reconsider an amended version.
Semantics? The President is external to the House Republican Conference.
the spending cut stuff was trashed
In the Tuesday night session, the speaker and Mr. Cantor, of Virginia, both cautioned colleagues that the Senate might not take up the amended legislation. That would leave the House to blame for standing in the way of a bill that sailed through the Senate and been blessed by the administration, opening the GOP to fresh blame.
The strategy forced Mr. Boehner's rank-and-file to confront the risks of their intransigence. By Tuesday evening, Republicans rose in the closed-door session to say they wanted to vote solely on the Senate-passed measure.
they only called out cutting your internet access
very strange
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said there was a "strong majority" of Democrats who would support the bill and that she was "confident it will pass" if it comes to a House vote.
i know senator shelby has been telling to not be cowed
Pelosi is not in the business of helping Boehner, she's in the business of governance.
These guys are clowns.
New year, same absurd worship of government types.
The government, of course, is not permitted to privilege "common" religious beliefs over uncommon ones. And in fact, the RFRA requires that exceptions be considered "for every individual's beliefs." The standard is whether the government has a compelling interest in infringing on those beliefs, and whether it has chosen the least restrictive method of doing so.Actually, that's exactly what the RFRA requires. (Only for federal law, not state, so speeding would generally not qualify. But many states have their own RFRAs.)
I don't like all the "Inside Baseball" stuff. I don't really care if Boehner keeps his job or not.
Governance matters. It's important to get things right, and has a huge effect on society. Look at Japan 20 years ago. It bothers me that the Republican party is made up of complete clowns who are mostly out of control. They seem to think that governing is an inconvenience. That bothers me.
Do you hold local and state leaders to the same standard when it comes to "governance," or do the liberals who've had a decades-long stranglehold on failed or dying cities like Detroit, Newark, etc., get a free pass?
This is non-responsive and incoherent, but I said my last one would the last time, so it is.
Well, clearly there's no compelling interest for the government to curtail my religious expression and right to ride my motorcycle 140 on clear days with no traffic, and more importantly, my divinely given right to cruise the breakdown lane to ride around any traffic jams Lord Satan puts in my Holy Path.
Edit: In favor: 172 Dem, 85 Rep
Opposed: 16 Dem, 151 Rep
1963-2012 (50 years):
Republican Governors of Michigan: 1963-1982, 1991-2002, 2011-present (30 of 50 years)
Republican Governors of New Jersey: 1970-1973, 1982-1989, 1994-2001, 2010-present (24 of 50 years)
In Michigan, Republicans held the majority in the State Senate from 1963-1964, 1967-1974, and 1985-present (39 of 50 years).
Michigan Republicans held the majority in the State House from 1963-1964, 1967-1968, 1993-1997, 1999-2006, and 2011-present (18 of 50 years).
Couldn't find New Jersey state legislature results from 1963-81, but since then the Republicans have held the General Assembly majority for 14 of 31 years, and the Senate majority for 11 of 31 years.
However, Newark has had a Democratic mayor every year since 1896. The suffrage movement poisoned that town.
On the other side, Grover Norquist also invokes his ability to alter reality with his words, decreeing that voting for this deal is voting for a tax cut.
You've developed a very odd habit of posting "gotcha" replies that are missing the "gotcha" part.
Detroit and Newark have had Dem mayors for decades. The idea that the governor of Michigan is more responsible for Detroit than the mayor of Detroit is typical lefty nonsense, along the lines of George W. Bush being more responsible for Katrina than the local idiots who not only failed to plan, but packed tens of thousands of people into the Superdome.
***
David, haven't you heard? The only spending and debt problem currently facing the U.S. is that we don't have enough spending or debt. Just ask any BBTF liberal.
Yes. I complain about silly things in San Francisco all the time. Like requiring buildings to be downzoned. Like making condo conversions difficult.
No, the original quote was likely accurate, whether Obama knows it or not.
Liberals love government like my lungs love air.
It may be nonsense, but there is nothing typical or lefty about it.
On the other hand, it is fairly typical for righties to blame all the problems of inner cities on failed social welfare programs. And it is also true that those programs are primarily run by state governments rather than city governments. So if the programs have failed, isn't it fair to blame the government entities that are actually responsible for them?
Because the alternative is no deal, where taxes are raised a lot more, and spending is not cut.
Also, the deal does reduce the deficit, so you know.
Like it, love it, want it, whatever. The point is they can't get enough of it. They never can. They never do.
"Sound that horn, son, and, Brethren, leave us go amongst them!" The Searchers.
The Republican governors of Michigan and New Jersey are to blame for the failed social welfare programs created by their liberal predecessors?
***
If liberals really loved government, you may have been spared my nonsense?
It looks like Santa didn't bring you a better supply of rejoinders. Maybe next year.
Personally, I prefer seeing adults rant about their principles to seeing adults insist that basic words mean the opposite of what they actually mean, like 'Mefisto' and 'Bitter Mouse,' et al., did for the last five pages. But to each his own, I guess.
You've developed a very odd habit of posting "gotcha" replies that are missing the "gotcha" part.
Detroit and Newark have had Dem mayors for decades. The idea that the governor of Michigan is more responsible for Detroit than the mayor of Detroit is typical lefty nonsense, along the lines of George W. Bush being more responsible for Katrina than the local idiots who not only failed to plan, but packed tens of thousands of people into the Superdome.
So when you specifically said "state leaders," Joe, what you meant was "ignoring state leaders." Gotch... um, ahem, duly noted.
And when you posted a reply that ignored the emphasis I placed on cities in #6030 and instead gave a long rundown of governors and state legislatures, that was just a good-faith error on your part, right?
Or are you claiming that Detroit and Newark having Dem mayors for 40 out of the last 40 years is irrelevant, while the GOP having the governorship for 30 out of 50 years (Michigan) or 24 out of 50 years (New Jersey) is highly dispositive of something? (Let me guess: Detroit would be awesome right now if only that awful Republican John Engler hadn't been governor from 1991 to 2002.)
Tea party backers swallow a bitter pill in ‘cliff’ bill
Too bad it wasn't a strychnine pill, but you can't win em all.
It's hardly a long range solution to anything, but at least it temporarily removes the threat of blackmail from the table.
Question: Is the mayor of Detroit a state leader, Joe? How about the mayor of Newark?
Do you really believe this silly pedantry is clever? In #6030, I plainly referred to the "liberals who've had a decades-long stranglehold on failed or dying cities like Detroit, Newark, etc." I didn't say anything about the state governments in those places. Indeed, I didn't mention any state-level examples at all.
But regardless, I'll ask again: Are you claiming that Detroit and Newark having Dem mayors for 40 out of the last 40 years is irrelevant, while the GOP having the governorship for 30 out of 50 years (Michigan) or 24 out of 50 years (New Jersey) is highly dispositive of something? Are you suggesting Detroit and Newark would be awesome today if only the GOP hadn't controlled the Michigan governorship for 30 out of the last 50 years, or the N.J. governorship for 24 out of the last 50 years?
Or are you claiming that Detroit and Newark having Dem mayors for 40 out of the last 40 years is irrelevant, while the GOP having the governorship for 30 out of 50 years (Michigan) or 24 out of 50 years (New Jersey) is highly dispositive of something?
Your question is stupid. And the only reason you're "asking again" in #6061 is because you edited your previous post to include it. It wasn't there when I replied.
But finally, at long last, I have to stop ducking the question. I'm "claiming" (that is, citing) that Michigan and New Jersey have both had substantial amounts of Republican governance in their Governors' mansions and state legislatures over the past 50 years. And thus, your statement wondering whether "local and state leaders" weren't properly being held accountable for the problems of two cities was at least half wrong.
Joe, who made you type "state leaders"? Was it Ray Nagin?
I added it about 2 seconds after clicking "submit."
Speaking of "stupid," this certainly is. Given that I specifically referred to "liberals who've had a decades-long stranglehold on failed or dying cities," coming back with a list of state governments that have not been subject to a one-party "stranglehold" served no purpose.
Only because of the presence here of pedants like you.
For about the fifth time, I gave no state-level examples in #6030, only city-level examples.
The point of #6030, which anyone with a second-grade grasp of reading would comprehend, was that liberals have had a "decades-long stranglehold" on some places that are struggling. I gave some city-level examples but no state-level examples. (And mentioning the word "state" in the first half of the sentence didn't mean that word attached to the examples given in the second half of the sentence.)
Given that Michigan and New Jersey currently have Republican governors, I clearly wasn't referring to the state governments of Michigan or New Jersey as having been subject to a "decades-long stranglehold" by liberals, so it's unclear to me what you thought you were accomplishing or refuting by coming back with the recent state-level histories of Michigan and New Jersey.
What did the word "state" in the first half of the sentence mean?
Asked and answered, about three times. The fact I didn't give state-level examples didn't render the city-level examples incorrect.
Unless you mistakenly assumed I didn't know Republican Chris Christie and Republican Rick Snyder are the governors of New Jersey and Michigan, respectively, this whole exchange has — as usual — been nothing more than an exercise in pedantic nonsense.
Henceforth, when you're involved, I'll heed Mark Twain's advice.
You've explained, about three times, what "state leaders" didn't mean. But that's not what I asked. I'm asking you what it DID mean.
I don't understand why you're arguing with him about this. I answered you that yes, I was frustrated with some of the results of extended liberal governance. The most frustrating part about poor liberal governance is that you end up spending more money on poor people than if you just gave money to them, and the poor people would prefer the money.
This is dumb to cite because it's current law baseline, rather than current policy, which has been the point of discussion.
"State leaders" means state leaders. The fact I didn't give any state-level examples didn't change the meaning of "state leaders" to "city leaders."
If you insist on a state-level example, I'll offer up California, a state that's being run into the ground by a legislature that's been controlled by Dems for 39 of the past 40 years.
***
No doubt about this. The wide disparity between the per-household welfare spending and what those households allegedly receive is fairly staggering. Either poor people are getting a lot more than liberals generally admit or the bureaucracy is huge and inefficient.
Obama had strong popular support for returning to Clinton-era tax rates over $250K per year. And he was just re elected quarterback by about 4 million votes explicitly running on raising those taxes. He had all the leverage in this situation.
Yet he moved all the way to 400/450 without gaining any breathing room on the debt ceiling or much on the sequester austerity punch that's likely to sock the economy into recession if unaddressed. Worse yet, he punted on estate taxes thanks in part to "moderate" Dem senators who weren't on the democrats side in this. Estate taxes don't raise trillions in revenue, but they are one of the most important mechanisms for preventing the permanent bifurcation of society into isolated wealthy elites, and everyone else.
All this, and the GOP is the one licking it's wounds like it lost everything. Did conservatives really plan to drown government in the bathtub? Without the infrastructure, where would the tub water come from?
Ah, of course. Now it makes total sense.
"State leaders" means state leaders.
It's official: the words exist. Alas, the question was why "state leaders" were invoked in the sentence at all. But an honest answer would have spoiled my fun. Thanks for never, ever, ever backing down, not even from the most insignificant throwaway error pulled from your tush. You are a delight.
Henceforth, when you're involved, I'll heed Mark Twain's advice.
We can assume you're not referring to this:
"Always acknowledge a fault. This will throw those in authority off their guard and give you an opportunity to commit more."
Assuming that last sentence was sarcastic, the California state senate has been led by Dems for the last 40 years and the state assembly has been led by Dems for 39 out of 40 years. You don't consider state legislative leaders to be "state leaders"?
I just gave you an example of the state leaders to whom I was referring, but apparently you don't consider the leaders of the California legislature to be "state leaders." But in any event, it was amusing to watch you make a federal case out of the fact that my one-sentence comment in #6030 wasn't as comprehensive as you would have preferred.
Wait a minute — I thought worrying about budget deficits during stagnant economic times was something only idiot Republicans would do, but now it's a symbol of excellent liberal governance? The shifting political principles are tough to keep up with around here.
Followed shortly by a long discourse wherein Joe states...
Because Joe does Principle and I never do. I only parse words. New Year, same BS.
Well, Ray Ray, if you, Davey and the Joek are all telling telling us the way the world is, it clearly *must* be true.
I assume, now that we've established this principle whereby the most avidly anti-voices of any given debate determines the terms and meanings of all things you will gladly admit that you and other conservatives hate women.
become ...
Suggesting someone is doing their job is worship? The reason I sometimes parse words is that they are important. Taxes are not stealing and calling them that is wrong. Suggesting Nacy Pelosi is doing her job is not worship. Wanting a safety net enhanced is not love of government, it is love of what the government can do.
I would love to talk principles, but I would rather not let BS go through unchallenged.
Similarly something, not government, is in charge of the military, because (a) many Liberals here on BBTF have spoken about wanted to cut spending on the Military, and yet (b) we love the government and always want it to grow. A military junta has taken over or something I guess, or maybe Ray, Dave, and Joe are wrong.
You fail to understand that David and Joe were both snapping their fingers, rubbing their bellies counterclockwise and tapping their right big toe three times. That makes them super-always-right and you a big, stupid poopyhead.
No, they just *love* them some authoritarian government, that's all.
But tub water does not come from government. Government doesn't produce; it takes things that other people have produced and redistributes it.
most economists think a country is in a danger zone once the debt to gdp gets over 110 percent and 120 or higher is a huge red flag.
the u.s. is over 100.
servicing debt takes away the govt's ability to do things that citizens really want. it creates all kinds of distractions and frustrations.
right now i have a simple goal. to get the debt to gdp percentage under 100 percent. i think if you reduce some of the debt you will also allow the economy to improve and hence greater gdp.
just a tweak here and there really
not even a flesh wound (little monty python reference)
Like corporations, then?
HW, what you are saying is not crazy. As a rule of thumb I think debt as a percentage of GDP is good to look at. But isn't the problem with too much public debt the crowding out of private investment (through high interest rates)? In other words you are looking at an underlying factor (good), but there is a factor more relevent (less underlying?) that is even easier to look at in the interest rate.
And clearly the interest rate (and the financial markets that drive it) are not concerned with there being too much debt. Maybe you think the financial markets for interest rate are inefficient, sending the wrong signal, have too much lag, or are too influenced by short term governmental action (or something else), but if you think those markets are efficient then shhouldn't you care more about the interest rate than the ratio you mentioned?
Maybe a better question, is when those two factors (debt ratio and iterest rates) seem to disagree, wy are you choosing the signaling of one over the other? Not a gotcha, and honest question, because I am not sure there is a right or wrong answer, so I am interested in your take.
Well, if you exclude "intergovernmental borrowing" (i.e., financing debt via the SS Trust fund) - it's under 100 (without looking up the current tally, I think it's around 70-75).
experience. one of the advantages of being around a long time is watching countries struggle with debt. and yes there are wild and huge and dramatic differences between the u.s. and every other country but fundamentally i have watched dozens of countries over the years go through all kinds of contortions due to debt as a percentage of gdp
and note i am not setting a stretch goal that would require all kinds of dramatic change such as 60 percent. just under 100. which is where it was not that very long ago and is a very reasonable percentage.
like kennedy saying he wanted to have the u.s. be on the moon in ten years i like setting concrete targets that are both easily understood and attainable.
no accounting tricks please
In any negotiation shouldn't the assumption be both sides gave and got something? Even if some of what was gained was the patina of bipartinsanship and the joy of making a deal.
My water comes from the government, but the larger point is pretty much correct. The government is not a very good producer. It should be good at establishing and regulating "spaces" (where spaces is a generic term for markets, citizens rights, national borders and so on), correcting for externalities (the classic example is air pollution from a factory is a cost not born by the factory owner, thus it is an externality), investing in the capital (including people) of the nation, and running/regulating any "natural monopolies", and ensuring the welfare of its citizens.
Or as we discussed a while back ...
EDIT: Minor change to a sentance to hopefully make it clearer.
I actually don't have much of a problem with it as a goal, depending on the timeline. As a Keynsian though I don't want to be hostage to that goal. When the economy is doing poorly (especially from ademand side issue like we have now) I want to run up the debt, when the economy gets better I am completely on board (despite what some think) with cutting back and getting under 100. So if your goal is tomorrow (this year) I am against, but if it is two years (with adjustments if the economy gets better or worse) then I am totally on board, because I agree that goals are critical.
I guess I just feel the same way -- like it's also an accounting trick to lump entitlements in with discretionary spending... i.e., there's a difference between things we've actually 'bought' on the national credit card (be they wars, highways, or food stamps) and things that are promised benefits.
financial marketsFederal Reserve targets and QE purchases that drive it) are not concerned with there being too much debtFTFY
Anyone who says that one side or another of a negotiation "got nothing" simply means "I was really hoping that my side would have gotten more." It's like baseball trades. David is reading the "cliff" negotiations, from the GOP POV, the same way Mets fans read the trade market. But you're not going to get Giancarlo Stanton for John Neise.
You're confused. You don't want to cut spending, even in a recovery/expansionary economy, because you love government. David said so. And David is like, the voice of g*d on Earth and knows all, dontchaknow?
Ummm, no. the Fed and such are part of the market, but history is repleat with times the Federal reserve tries to swim upstream and basically get rolled. I said financial market specifically because the marketplace is a combination of private and public and ignoring either gets you in trouble. I could have been more clear though I admit.
We spend too much on defense. Agricultural subsidies are ridiculous (mostly), especially ethanol. TSA and much of homeland security stomps around on civil liberties in their clown shoes and something needs to be done. Our safety net could use work (streamlining) to better line up a hard floor of benefits with incentives to move off the net. Our drug/justice/prison system is grotesque, managing to waste money, make people less safe, and harm our civil liberties.
Our election laws (patchwork crap) is inefficient and disenfranchises too many. Campaign financing is a rat's nest that needs to be redone, respecting first amendment rights while limiting corporate influence and reducing the need for our public officials to spend all their damn time fundraising (I would rather they occasionally do what they were elected to do).
All of those things above (and many more) are wrong with our current government and reducing (streamlining) spending in selected areas could really help. I love the US and expect better than we are getting honestly, but government? Government is a means to and end and not the end itself.
Bringing Medicare spending under control is difficult, but doable if mature adults on both sides are working to address a long term issue in a responsible way.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main