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

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM | 11298 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mr president, off-topic, politics, sabermetrics, usa

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 105 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 >  Last ›
   10401. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 27, 2012 at 10:47 PM (#4311093)
And as far as I'm concerned, Kraken is the only rum in the world.
   10402. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 27, 2012 at 10:47 PM (#4311094)
Absolutely, never give a redneck clear liquor.


Now, there's always a place for moonshine.
   10403. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 27, 2012 at 10:49 PM (#4311097)
sorry to hear you are a candy8ss


It's taken me far too long to formulate a good retort here, but it occurs to me that you could have developed a taste for gin during your Dickensian youth.
   10404. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 11:05 PM (#4311101)
Sam, when are you in NYC next? I'll introduce you to some good port.
   10405. Srul Itza Posted: November 27, 2012 at 11:14 PM (#4311103)
If you want to aspire to American ideals you need to jettison the idea that simply being a member of your "group" is some sort of inherent mark of superiority to be championed above all else. At least, that's the way I see it, and the way such things were discussed in my grandparents' household where I grew up. I suppose this sort of mindset is why so many Jews supported the Civil Rights movement.


The reason so many Jews supported the Civil Rights movement is that (a) it was the right thing to do because (b) we well remembered being the ones discriminated against, in many places over many ages.

That did not, however, stop Jews from also supporting their own, and being tribal or clannish as the case may be. Jews supported charity, but they supported Jewish charities first and foremost. When I was growing up, the defining question with respect to any politician, issue or event was -- "Is it good for the Jews?"
   10406. Srul Itza Posted: November 27, 2012 at 11:16 PM (#4311105)
All you people thinking that the Republicans are dead probably have no idea that Bishop Rick is thinking of running again in 2016.


From your lips to G-d's ears. Please, let it happen, and let him get the nomination.

And let Bobby Jindal be his VP nominee.
   10407. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 27, 2012 at 11:20 PM (#4311107)
And as far as I'm concerned, Kraken is the only rum in the world.

My girlfriend's worst alcohol experiences all involve Kraken. I assume this supports your statement.
   10408. spike Posted: November 27, 2012 at 11:20 PM (#4311109)
All you people thinking that the Republicans are dead probably have no idea that Bishop Rick is thinking of running again in 2016.

And picking up right where he left off on the ol' campaign trail.
   10409. spike Posted: November 27, 2012 at 11:21 PM (#4311110)
And all this booze talk - boy, did I pick a bum week to go on the wagon.
   10410. Tilden Katz Posted: November 27, 2012 at 11:25 PM (#4311114)
Rick's just upholding Christ's condemnation of the handicapped, can't blame him there. And any US sovereignty should be ceded to King Ratzinger not the United Nations.
   10411. Srul Itza Posted: November 27, 2012 at 11:31 PM (#4311117)
If the subject of the voting patterns of Asian-Americans is still on the table, speaking from America's "most Asian state", as someone put it, I have yet to see evidence that Chinese-American, Japanese-American, Filipino-American, Indian-American, etc. voters vote in lock-step with each other.

Out here, everyone votes for the Democrat. In the incoming state legislature, 44 of 51 representatives are Democrats, and 24 out of 25 of the Senators. It was not always quite that one-sided since I have been here, but it has pretty much always been a super-majority. There are historical reasons for it, dating back to the Republican party's identification with the Big 5 companies that controlled the State for many years, until the Democratic Revolution of 1955, led in part by the returning AJA's, including Dan Inouye.
   10412. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 27, 2012 at 11:37 PM (#4311120)
That did not, however, stop Jews from also supporting their own, and being tribal or clannish as the case may be. Jews supported charity, but they supported Jewish charities first and foremost. When I was growing up, the defining question with respect to any politician, issue or event was -- "Is it good for the Jews?"
Obviously, this makes you a religious bigot and a bad American.
   10413. spike Posted: November 27, 2012 at 11:48 PM (#4311124)
And Mickey Baker died today - I may have to rethink this wagon business. He was my hero, and one of the truly great session players, as well as a pioneer in rock and roll guitar
   10414. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 27, 2012 at 11:48 PM (#4311125)
Because choosing a charity to donate to is just like choosing political representation? Because "Is it good for the Jews?" is the same as "Is he Jewish?"

Saul, Sie hat fil seykhl vi in kloyster mezuzes.
   10415. Lassus Posted: November 27, 2012 at 11:51 PM (#4311126)
Vodka is pointless unless you're literally in Russia.

You mean Poland. Having to deal with the Russians refined theirs with pain.
   10416. Tripon Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:14 AM (#4311136)
Random stray thought: It is kinda interesting that Mitt Romney picked La Jolla in California to retire for a while. The Republican Representative who likened California to Greece decides to live and settle in it after his defeat.
   10417. Steve Treder Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:14 AM (#4311137)
Gin, vodka, bourbon, rum, bla bla bla.

Single-malt Scotch makes them wet their panties.
   10418. Steve Treder Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:16 AM (#4311140)
The Republican Representative who likened California to Greece decides to live and settle in it after his defeat.

Wait, he's a shallow and spineless hypocrite?

Who knew?
   10419. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:52 AM (#4311158)
   10420. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 28, 2012 at 01:56 AM (#4311160)
Because choosing a charity to donate to is just like choosing political representation? Because "Is it good for the Jews?" is the same as "Is he Jewish?"
It's good for Asians-Americans to vote for Asian-American candidates precisely because, all things being equal, Asian-American candidates better represent Asian-Americans.

As for comparing Asian-Americans to Jewish-Americans, I'd love it if we ever got to a point where voters simply didn't care about the ethnic persuasion of Asian-American candidates the way they don't particularly care about a Jewish candidate's religion, and Asian-Americans were active in regional and national politics in the way Jewish-Americans are, but that's just not the reality. There were 39 Jewish members of Congress this year, and exactly one Asian-American congressperson. That's a

You might think it's racist for me to want to vote for Asian-Americans; I would argue the refusal to acknowledge the near-total exclusion of Asian-American representation at federal levels as a problem is more racist.
   10421. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:09 AM (#4311164)
It's good for Asians-Americans to vote for Asian-American candidates precisely because, all things being equal, Asian-American candidates better represent Asian-Americans.


All things being equal eh? Well that's a new qualifier. I suppose everyone would vote for a candidate for all sorts of frivolous reasons, all things being equal. And here I was thinking that your devotion to nominees was solely based on their racial characteristics, when you've now clarified that this particular ethnic dedication is really more of a tiebreaker, all things being equal and all.

I cheerfully withdraw my contentions. Excelsior!
   10422. tshipman Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:13 AM (#4311167)
You might think it's racist for me to want to vote for Asian-Americans; I would argue the refusal to acknowledge the near-total exclusion of Asian-American representation at federal levels as a problem is more racist.


I think it's weird that you're treating Indian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Japanese-Americans and Philippinos as all the same. How does electing a Mongolian make a Taiwanese kid know that the process is open to him.

I'm relatively sympathetic to your argument, but I don't understand why you're lumping in everyone from the largest continent on Earth together. Indian people have more in common with Celts than Chinese.
   10423. Tripon Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:36 AM (#4311172)
YR, that was literally the most mind numbing thing I read this month.
   10424. zenbitz Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:36 AM (#4311173)

It's fine to vote for anyone because of their race/ethnicity/gender/sexuality as long as
a) that person is otherwise qualified and acceptable to you to do the job.
b) that persons' race/ethnicity/gender/sexuality etc. is underrepresented in government.

Like, it would be kinda weird to vote for an Asian man for San Francisco Board of Supervisors (even Mayor?) BECAUSE that person was Asian. But Congress? Senate? Governor? Sure, nothing wrong with that. It's a little arbitrary, but so it whole process.

This is the whole basis for affirmative action and diversity programs. No, "one" (i.e, RAY) can argue that these types of things are wrong FROM FIRST MORAL PRINCIPLES... but it's an imperfect world we live in.

It's like like politicalfangraphs.com publishes the pZips projections for the Senate so we can objectively compare candidates.

One of the reasons I voted for Obama (in 2004) was that I thought that a Black dude as president makes a great example to the nation and the rest of the world. I think the same would be true of Hilary. Of course, I wouldn't vote for a Romney or McCain of any color... but I might have been more likely to toss my vote away like I did in 1996 (rather than vote for Clinton) or 2000 (voted for Nader).

   10425. zenbitz Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:42 AM (#4311177)
I think it's weird that you're treating Indian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Japanese-Americans and Philippinos as all the same. How does electing a Mongolian make a Taiwanese kid know that the process is open to him.


This may seem "wrong" - BUT IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL BROWN PEOPLE. I mean, I could say "Yellow" people, but actually I think electing a kid from Guatemala has nearly the same effect on the Taiwanense as the Mongolian.

Brown people - including all shades of Asian - etc - sure as #### know they are not the same color as the vast majority of the movers and shakers in the US (and Europe as well). I met a woman who was SE Asian of some variety who worked for Roche in New Jersey. PhD, biochemistry or molecular biology. Mid-level in the company (not a director or anything) They were restructuring or something and offered to move a bunch of folks to Switzerland. She refused -- "too brown" she told me.
   10426. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 28, 2012 at 02:58 AM (#4311179)
And here I was thinking that your devotion to nominees was solely based on their racial characteristics, when you've now clarified that this particular ethnic dedication is really more of a tiebreaker, all things being equal and all.
It's your fault for assuming I'd be so stupid as to vote based solely on one criteria. All things being equal — the candidate being within a reasonable range of what I'd consider sanity — I'd happily vote for non-crazy Asian-American conservatives if given the chance even if their policy stances don't necessarily agree with my own. I would hate for you to think I was a good American.

I think it's weird that you're treating Indian-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Japanese-Americans and Philippinos as all the same. How does electing a Mongolian make a Taiwanese kid know that the process is open to him.
Because the inclusion of one ethic outside into the process suggests that more is possible.

Like, it would be kinda weird to vote for an Asian man for San Francisco Board of Supervisors (even Mayor?) BECAUSE that person was Asian. But Congress? Senate? Governor? Sure, nothing wrong with that. It's a little arbitrary, but so it whole process.
Zenbitz gets it. I live in a small city were nearly two-thirds of the population is of Asian descent, and the city council is lousy with Asians. I don't feel a particular need to push any agendas here.
   10427. OCF Posted: November 28, 2012 at 03:37 AM (#4311181)
BUT IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL BROWN PEOPLE.

Unless, of course, they're white Latinos. I've made enough ethnicity-crossing mistakes trying to match the names on my class roster with the faces in front of me to understand the sentiment. (Filipinos with Spanish names are especially likely to be confusing.) I will say at this point that if I ever saw an all-white class (I won't, of course), I'd find it weird.
   10428. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 04:41 AM (#4311183)
Second, when I initially described the increase in HoR incumbency as "marginal," and your response is "well if it is SO POWERFUL, how do you explain X?" (see 10148) that is dishonest - you've mischaracterized me as taking the position that HoR incumbency is "so powerful." I don't mind explaining things like this over and over, because it makes you look silly. — BurlyBuehrle

Huh? Have you been studying under Lassus in the BBTF School of Pedantry? This entire discussion has been over your (and Gonfalon Bubble's) theory that incumbency is more powerful now than it was decades ago (a theory with which I disagree). Given that, how exactly was my use of the word "powerful" some sort of dishonest offense?

That you can't even concede that 94 > 91 is one demonstration (among many) of your obtuse refusal ...

94 is obviously bigger than 91, but the relevance of that obvious truth to this discussion is up for debate. Your entire theory is based on a measly 3-percentage-point difference in a statistical analysis of two imbalanced samples with cherry-picked endpoints. You also steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that a lot of at-risk incumbents have, in recent years, tended to retire rather than risk losing and being tossed out of office. And yet I'm the one arguing dishonestly. Utterly comical.

Suppose every congressman with a less than a 30 point lead in the polls chose to retire rather than take a small risk of losing. Would you then look at the 100% success of the remaining incumbents as proof of anything?
That figure would still mean exactly what it means -- that every single incumbent who chose to stand for re-election was, in fact, re-elected. Maybe we're talking past each other on what "incumbency" means. I take it to mean "if an incumbent stands for re-election, how likely is s/he to win?" The most pertinent figure in that analysis, for me, is not "how often has Congress flipped parties?" or "how many incumbents choose not to run?" but rather "how many incumbents win re-election when they run?"

In the eternal words of John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!"

In 1994, 20 Dem incumbents retired and watched as their seats were won by Republicans. In 2010, in addition to the 52 Dem incumbents who lost reelection, an additional 12 Dem incumbents retired and watched as their seats were won by Republicans.

Are you seriously claiming that despite your belief that incumbency is more powerful now than it was 20 or 30 years ago, all those Dems — 32 just in the two elections in 1994 and 2010 — walked away from House seats they were likely to retain, and did so knowing that their seats were likely to be won by Republicans?

The interesting part is why are more incumbents choosing to retire rather than risk losing (if this is indeed happening)? Are there fewer/less lucrative jobs in media and consulting and lobbying for incumbents who lost their final election?
It is an interesting thought experiment, but it isn't happening. Since at least 1940, the percentage of incumbent Representatives who have run for re-election has been constant in the high-80s/low 90s; it hasn't changed at all. You can look at the figures here http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/95-361_19950308.pdf, if you like.

That study was conducted in 1995. You're citing a 17-year-old study to advance your theory that incumbency is stronger now than it was 30 years ago?

So, the "choose not to run again" explanation doesn't really square with the facts.

LOL. In your world, strong incumbents just happen to get sick of the trappings of office and retire in years that large numbers of incumbents from their party get tossed out of office. Very convenient, that.
   10429. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 28, 2012 at 05:23 AM (#4311185)
I say this as someone who likes partisanship. I think parties should try to win the political argument. I think elections should have consequences. I am not advocating a mushy bipartisan centrism. But the relentless and poisonous hatred that leaks into how the country is governed is very unhealthy.
Yes it is.

I'm now hearing that Republicans are doing their damnedest to push Kerry for Secretary of State while blocking Rice essentially because Kerry joining Obama's cabinet makes it more likely that Scott Brown will be able to win the resulting open Massachusetts' Senate seat. While this stretches my credulity, the state of the GOP is such that it wouldn't remotely suprise me. After all, it's only a small subset of McConnell's 'our primary goal over the next four years is to ensure Obama is a one term President,' and holding our credit rating hostage.

the private utilities had contractors pour into the northeast from everywhere and folks were still complaining. and it wasn't the government's fault nor the utilities. people had unreasonable expectations.
This is correct, and often true of people used to continuous electrical service, instant on appliances, DSL, 500 channels of cable, and so on, especially in areas rarely hit by natural disasters. An infrastructure that took decades to establish isn't always repaired in a couple of days.

TGF: 10202 is a very good post. It is thoughtful and interesting.
You're aware that The Good Face isn't a black woman, right?

Agree with others on 10002. Not that similar things haven't been said by others on the right. Any notion that the Republicans are doomed is stupid.
Seriously, though, this is absolutely true. Look at how poorly the Republicans played their hand, and how many disadvantages they had in 2012, and they still, somehow, came close. The party pretty much did everything wrong, and got 47% of the vote. Nominated the most loathed candidate in decades, had no idea where they stood in polling and therefore didn't bother to make adjustments, had state parties running 50 different GOTV efforts, faced an improving economy, a signficant majority of voters blamed sluggish improvements on Bush, not Obama, their economic platform was 'let's party like it's 2007!', their abortion platform was basically, 'no, never', it goes on and on.
   10430. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 08:36 AM (#4311200)
I agree. I've never articulated the idea that my "group" is superior and should be championed above all else. I just want my group to be considered an equal to everyone else's groups. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen in real life, and just shouting "Bad American!" isn't a very useful real world solution.

And yet, "your group" keeps voting for politicians who make no secret of their belief that "your group" is already over-represented in America’s best schools and best jobs, and vow to take corrective measures. Quite strange.

It's good for Asians-Americans to vote for Asian-American candidates precisely because, all things being equal, Asian-American candidates better represent Asian-Americans.

All things being equal, do white candidates better represent white Americans? (Let me guess: It’s racist to even ask such a question.)

If a white person even hinted that she voted for a candidate because of the candidate’s skin color, she’d be labeled a racist without a second thought. But “Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim” admits he’d vote for candidates of the opposite party based solely on ethnicity, and he’s “giving a gift to his children,” or something — and his fellow lefties are "loath to judge."

The double standards crafted by and for the left get more shameless by the day.
   10431. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 28, 2012 at 08:51 AM (#4311203)
You're aware that The Good Face isn't a black woman, right?


Jack this made me laugh, which may be a sign of my bad-person-ness.
   10432. Lassus Posted: November 28, 2012 at 08:59 AM (#4311206)
Huh? Have you been studying under Lassus in the BBTF School of Pedantry?

I haven't posted here in years.

   10433. Greg K Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:00 AM (#4311207)
But “Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim” admits he’d vote for candidates of the opposite party based solely on ethnicity, and he’s “giving a gift to his children,” or something — and his fellow lefties are "loath to judge."

To be fair, the debate on the merits of his stance is taking place within the lefty element on this thread.
   10434. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:07 AM (#4311210)
To be fair, the debate on the merits of his stance is taking place within the lefty element on this thread.

How many of the several dozen lefties in this thread have called him a racist, which they would have done within about 3 milliseconds if a white person made similar statements?
   10435. formerly dp Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:12 AM (#4311212)
How many of the several dozen lefties in this thread have called him a racist, which they would have done within about 3 milliseconds if a white person made similar statements?
This quest to out-idiot yourself on a daily basis must grow tiring after a while.

Or not, I guess.
   10436. Lassus Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:12 AM (#4311213)
How many of the several dozen lefties in this thread have called him a racist, which they would have done within about 3 milliseconds if a white person made similar statements?

Reverse racism isn't an argument worthy of a restaurant dumpster.
   10437. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:14 AM (#4311215)
All things being equal, do white candidates better represent white Americans?


Yes. It is easier to represent (in arguments on the internet or in the halls of power) people with the same life experience as oneself. Female politicians - everything else being equal - represent women better than men do, and so on. Which does not mean all women represent women better than men or anything like that, the qualifier everything else being equal is doing much heavy lifting here.

But “Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim” admits he’d vote for candidates of the opposite party based solely on ethnicity, and he’s “giving a gift to his children,” or something — and his fellow lefties are "loath to judge."


Except for all the liberals who are judging (Not all of which I agree with - a fractious lot we are). I still think an argument can be made - on diversity grounds - to assigning extra credit to candidates who are not the dominant group in power (not always white & male as discussed upthread).

Personally the only judgement I have made of LA El Hombre is he either doesn't know Jindal well enough or his "too crazy" line is well right of mine, but since it was all hypothetical I figured no biggie, which is why I (and others) called out the shameful and unamerican comments as out of line (Maybe you thought it was Conservative Mouse doing that posting or something).

So what exactly double standard are you claiming to see?
   10438. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:18 AM (#4311217)
How many of the several dozen lefties in this thread have called him a racist, which they would have done within about 3 milliseconds if a white person made similar statements?


Well I didn't call him racist. To the best of my recollection I have never called anyone racist in this thread. Racism clearly exists, but it is a fools game to parse out the motivation of specific acts (except the truly out there ones, obviously).
   10439. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:24 AM (#4311219)
This quest to out-idiot yourself on a daily basis must grow tiring after a while.

Or not, I guess.

I took yesterday off.

Anyway, it's always fun to hear from the Alinsky wannabes. Have you ever won a debate on the merits or do you just sling insults? Perhaps we can discuss the topic of media bias again, so you can make a fool of yourself for the hundredth time.
   10440. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:25 AM (#4311220)
I am still not saying the GOP is doomed but this Pew study has data about age and voting patterns that should worry the right going forward. It is a companion to this study from a while back.

Youth liked Clinton, disliked Bush, and like Obama. That is many years of generational bad news. I don't think attitudes are set in stone or anything, but the GOP better hope those attitudes are very changeable. Maybe The Good Face should add a point about the GOP figuring out a message for the youth (though it was sort of addressed if I remember right but some of the other points).
   10441. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:31 AM (#4311225)
And since we were talking about Asian American voting habits, here is an article I ran into by coincidence.
   10442. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:34 AM (#4311226)
Maybe The Good Face should add a point about the GOP figuring out a message for the youth (though it was sort of addressed if I remember right but some of the other points).

"The youth" is drowning in student-loan debt and can't find good jobs. At some point, being cool might not be enough for the Dems.
   10443. spike Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:36 AM (#4311229)
So what exactly double standard are you claiming to see?

He's not interested in a double standard - the perceived "racism" of any individuals on the left he is claiming is used to justify continuing institutional racism. Forwarding the idea that "lefties are racist!" serves the dual purpose of inoculating himself from criticism on this score because of "hypocrisy!" as well as "proving" that this is the natural order of things.
   10444. formerly dp Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:41 AM (#4311233)
Perhaps we can discuss the topic of media bias again, so you can make a fool of yourself for the hundredth time.
IIRC, that was the one where you demonstrated your inability to read an article more than 500 words long, and engaged in exactly the sort of confirmation bias the scholarship said you would. Bubble living at its finest.
   10445. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:46 AM (#4311234)
He's not interested in a double standard - the perceived "racism" of any individuals on the left he is claiming is used to justify continuing institutional racism.

Yes, yes, Asian-Americans have been oppressed so much, they're the highest-educated and highest-earning demographic in America, despite generally having weaker roots in the U.S. than their black, white, and Latino counterparts.
   10446. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:51 AM (#4311239)
Joe, you realize there is more to life than money, right? A group can make lots of money and still be the victim of oppression.
   10447. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:51 AM (#4311240)
IIRC, that was the one where you demonstrated your inability to read an article more than 500 words long, and engaged in exactly the sort of confirmation bias the scholarship said you would. Bubble living at its finest.

No, actually it was the one where you made an inadvertent admission against interest:

The way more interesting conversation here is around the systemic factors that go into determining which stories get covered, how they get framed, ect. Those are where the biggest flaws with US journalism lie today.

Hmm, what would we call it when certain stories are reported and others aren't, or when stories are "framed" in a certain way? Ah, yes: Media bias.
   10448. Greg K Posted: November 28, 2012 at 09:58 AM (#4311242)
I don't know if you can inadvertently admit something that is the main point of your argument.

Not to speak for him, but I don't think he was disputing the existence of "Media Bias", I think he was disputing whether seeing liberal ideology as the source of that bias is a useful perspective.
   10449. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:00 AM (#4311244)
Not to speak for him, but I don't think he was disputing the existence of "Media Bias", I think he was disputing whether seeing liberal ideology as the source of that bias is a useful perspective.

No, he was disputing the existence of media bias.
   10450. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:04 AM (#4311246)
And as far as I'm concerned, Kraken is the only rum in the world.
I mean, it's an acceptable spiced rum, but spiced rum is dumb. If you want to add flavors to your rum, make a damn cocktail.

Demerara rum (Lemon Hart is my favorite brand), that's rum. Rich and dark without being cloying. It mixes well (it's the fundamental base spirit in both versions of the Zombie), and in particular it mixes well with other rums. Jamaican amber rums (Appleton), light Virgin Islands rums (Cruzan is a really solid option at its price).

I have a bottle of Smith & Cross pot-still rum that has some of the character of a single-malt scotch, it's a whole lot of fun. I recently mixed a version of a Last Word cocktail, but substituted Smith & Cross for the gin and increased the amount of base liquor - 1 rum, .5 green chartreuse, .5 cointreau, .5 lime. (I realized that the Last Word recipe looked a lot like a daiquiri or rum daisy, just with gin instead of rum and added chartreuse. So it totally works, and the smokiness of the rum mixes well with the aromatic chartreuse.)
   10451. Greg K Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:13 AM (#4311254)
A good friend of mine is a bit of a rum aficionado (well...an aficionado of all boozes, but rum is high up there). He's actually friends with the heir to some Dominican rum family. If I was better at name-dropping I'd recall which one, but apparently it's an impressive lineage. I'm not a huge fan of rum myself, but one thing he turned me on to is Stroh. I'm not sure what type of liquor it is classified as...simulated rum? But it smells like Christmas and is ####### delicious.

Now, place-name-dropping I'm much better at...a couple years ago I went up to the mountain monastery where they make (or used to make?) Chartreuse. A really cool place, even if you don't like the drink. The monks' quarters are a bit like the sky cells in the Eyrie. A door connects you to the common hallway, and your cell consists of three walls and open air off the side of the mountain.
   10452. spike Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:21 AM (#4311262)
but one thing he turned me on to is Stroh.

I lived in South Africa for a year, and Stroh Rum is quite popular there for it's extremely high ABV (available in 160 proof) and relatively low cost.
   10453. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:34 AM (#4311271)
To follow up on that Tom Ricks / FOX video, this might make ruffled righties feel a bit better. It would only surprise anyone who's not familiar with Tom's career and writings:

Tom Ricks to MSNBC: You’re just like Fox, only not as good at it

Most of those chortling over Tom Ricks’s highly unusual ninety seconds on Fox News this week were wowed by the way he spoke liberal truth to conservative power, informing his astonished interviewer, Jon Scott, that the Sept. 11 tragedy at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, had been “hyped” for political reasons, especially by … Fox itself. Then, for an encore, he apprised viewers that their preferred news source “functions as a wing of the Republican Party.” Out came the cane, and off went Ricks.

But that was no mere partisan smackdown; it was more subversive than that, and even more bracing. Because as it turns out, Ricks doesn’t want to play on either the red or the blue team, and has no loftier view of Obama-cheering MSNBC than of Obama-jeering Fox.

When I talked to him Tuesday, he said yeah, actually, he had had some other TV invites, but we shouldn’t waste too much time clicking around looking for his next appearance: “MSNBC invited me, but I said, ‘You’re just like Fox, but not as good at it.’ They wrote back and said, ‘Thank you for your candor.’”


A link within that link tells of the immediate aftermath of Ricks's FOX appearance:

On his way out of the Fox News studio, Ricks says he was asked by a Foxer whether he really thought that the network had overdone the Benghazi story. Affirmative, replied Ricks. “Two months of pretending this is like Watergate, compared to the fact that hundreds died in Iraq .?.?.,” Ricks tells this blog, summing up his logic. The story behind Benghazi, says Ricks, is a trend toward grassroots diplomacy, in which U.S. personnel immerse themselves more than ever in the day-to-day life of foreign countries. “We’re doing the type of diplomacy that puts our diplomats at risk and as far as I can tell, Fox doesn’t give a s___ about that,”....


BTW here's the link to Tom's Defense Blog, which is read all across the political spectrum.
   10454. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:37 AM (#4311275)
Sam, when are you in NYC next? I'll introduce you to some good port.


I'm in Princeton this week and next. It's a 45 minute ride on Jersey Transit to the city. Tuesday and Wednesday nights work best. Thursday's travel day.
   10455. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM (#4311276)
You mean Poland. Having to deal with the Russians refined theirs with pain.


I consider Poland to be a province of Mother Russia.
   10456. BrianBrianson Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:42 AM (#4311277)
"The youth" is drowning in student-loan debt and can't find good jobs. At some point, being cool might not be enough for the Dems.


We know (okay, I'm 30, but I'm only a year out of school), but we've also noticed they're better at producing jobs than Republicans, and support us better when we can't, both of which go a long way. Republicans may be good for the stock market (-ish), but Democrats are much better at the unemployment rate (and the median salary, if maybe not the mean).
   10457. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:45 AM (#4311279)
YR, that was literally the most mind numbing thing I read this month.


Dude, he uses his super scientific ToughtPrint technique to 'read between the lines.' It's not like he's just making #### up.
   10458. Lassus Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:47 AM (#4311281)
“MSNBC invited me, but I said, ‘You’re just like Fox, but not as good at it.’"

Dude knows what he's talking about.
   10459. Ron J2 Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:48 AM (#4311284)
When in history have rich people not had it the best?


Chris Rock offered a counter-point. I think he was mostly serious when he said that the white folks in his audience wouldn't want to switch places with him.

I'm not saying I agree. But I have no idea what kind of petty issues he has to deal with because of race.

"Black Like Me" made a powerful impression on me when I first read it, but I have no idea how it would play out today. Particularly for a wealthy black man.
   10460. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM (#4311285)
I've never done any real exploration of the rum world.

The most disturbing thing posted in 10450+ entries in this thread is that spike is on the wagon.
   10461. spike Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:52 AM (#4311286)
One of my favorite Obama quotes is (paraphrasing) "I don't know if I am 'black enough', but cab drivers in this city sure don't seem to have any doubts"

/edit - I have 4 gigs in the next 8 days, including one at the Clermont Lounge - we'll see how long this wagon business lasts.
   10462. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM (#4311291)

I consider Poland to be a province of Mother Russia.


You are dead to me.
   10463. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:00 AM (#4311292)
Not a big hard liquor drinker, but my favourite rum is Havana Club Añejo 7 Años. Sorry Yanks.
   10464. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:01 AM (#4311295)
YR, that was literally the most mind numbing thing I read this month.

Dude, he uses his super scientific ToughtPrint technique to 'read between the lines.' It's not like he's just making #### up.


I think the only invocation of science came when another poster said evolutionary theory made voting for Hindis adaptive or something. I think I'm mainly offering opinion here, but I do notice my request for the neurophysiological correlate of these hard-coded evolutionary adaptations went unfilled.
   10465. The Good Face Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4311301)
For sipping - Hudson Baby is very good (but technically not made in Kentucky.) You can't go wrong with Woodford Reserve either.


Black Maple Hill for regular drinking. Pappy Van Winkle for fancy drinkin'. You're welcome.

And as far as I'm concerned, Kraken is the only rum in the world.


I don't often drink rum, but when I do, I prefer Pyrat.
   10466. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4311303)
And here I was thinking that your devotion to nominees was solely based on their racial characteristics, when you've now clarified that this particular ethnic dedication is really more of a tiebreaker, all things being equal and all.

It's your fault for assuming I'd be so stupid as to vote based solely on one criteria. All things being equal — the candidate being within a reasonable range of what I'd consider sanity — I'd happily vote for non-crazy Asian-American conservatives if given the chance even if their policy stances don't necessarily agree with my own. I would hate for you to think I was a good American
.

Well now that I've been informed that there is no such thing as a "good American" I think you can allay such fears.

But of course you didn't offer such nuance in your original post outlining your racist voting preferences. Now it's "all things being equal" and "non-crazy", but earlier you were claiming support for anti-science religious zealot Jindal simply because you liked his inborn genetics above all else:


I wanted to note that I'm thrilled that the Asian-American vote is being discussed. We've been a politically irrelevant vote for pretty much my entire life. Even though the numbers are still small, the fact that we matter even a little bit is very exciting to me. And if I had the chance, I'd vote for Jindal. Even if I don't agree with most of his politics, it's important to me that a face that looks like his becomes normal in American politics.


Suit yourself. I don't see how you do anyone a service by elevating racial heritage above such significant considerations as, you know, objective reality, but I'm sure plenty of black voters supported Marion Berry post-crack bust because he too had the correct ethnicity, which trumped all other concerns as to character or competence, as is their right.
   10467. formerly dp Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM (#4311306)
No, actually it was the one where you made an inadvertent admission against interest:
The way more interesting conversation here is around the systemic factors that go into determining which stories get covered, how they get framed, ect. Those are where the biggest flaws with US journalism lie today.Hmm, what would we call it when certain stories are reported and others aren't, or when stories are "framed" in a certain way? Ah, yes: Media bias.
And this is precisely why you're not worthy of serious engagement. I never claimed that there can't be specific instances of media bias-- I even provided you with links to studies that use more nuanced language to help you refine your thinking on the subject. What I disputed was the existence of a systemic liberal media bias. Again, you've shifted the goalposts, because you're more interested in point-scoring than you are in honest discussion.

The Pew research on media bias in the 2012 election has already been published, but I'm sure Fox will tell you to ignore them.
   10468. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:25 AM (#4311311)
The story behind Benghazi, says Ricks, is a trend toward grassroots diplomacy, in which U.S. personnel immerse themselves more than ever in the day-to-day life of foreign countries. “We’re doing the type of diplomacy that puts our diplomats at risk and as far as I can tell, Fox doesn’t give a s___ about that,”....


pity he didn't get to say that live on Fox...
   10469. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:27 AM (#4311312)
And this is precisely why you're not worthy of serious engagement. I never claimed that there can't be specific instances of media bias-- I even provided you with links to studies that use more nuanced language to help you refine your thinking on the subject. What I disputed was the existence of a systemic liberal media bias. Again, you've shifted the goalposts, because you're more interested in point-scoring than you are in honest discussion.

"Not worthy of engagement," "shifted the goalposts," not interested in "honest discussion" — not exactly full-blown Alinsky, but it was a decent effort.

The only people who need "refined thinking" on this topic are people like you who deny that there's substantial liberal media bias in the U.S.
   10470. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:30 AM (#4311314)
Not to speak for him, but I don't think he was disputing the existence of "Media Bias", I think he was disputing whether seeing liberal ideology as the source of that bias is a useful perspective.

No, he was disputing the existence of media bias.


I can't imagine anyone who lived through the 2000 election and the run-up to the glorious Iraq War can doubt the existence of media bias.
   10471. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4311315)
"Black Like Me" made a powerful impression on me when I first read it, but I have no idea how it would play out today. Particularly for a wealthy black man.


I particularly loved the bit about how he;'d dress up in good clothes, stand on a street corner across from a church, just to see the expression on the old white ladies leaving church change from peaceful to scowling when they saw him...

I had an aunt like that, someone brown or black flitted into view and she scowled, it was like an involuntary twitch... she ended up with a couple of black culture loving grandchildren... served her right.

   10472. formerly dp Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4311331)
"Not worthy of engagement," "shifted the goalposts," not interested in "honest discussion" — not exactly full-blown Alinsky, but it was a decent effort.
Look, you shifted the goalposts. You said that I accidentally 'admitted' the existence of media bias, in spite of my denial. I told you I didn't deny it, but denied a very specific flavor of it. And honest discussion: you're a naked partisan only interested in spin. This is plainly evident to everyone here.

The only people who need "refined thinking" on this topic are people like you who deny that there's substantial liberal media bias in the U.S.
There's a nuanced discussion to be had about media bias. By hand-waving away the scholarship on the subject, you've shown you're unwilling to engage in it.
   10473. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:44 AM (#4311334)
All things being equal, do white candidates better represent white Americans? (Let me guess: It’s racist to even ask such a question.)
Clearly, the answer is yes, and they've been doing an outstanding job of it for over two centuries, sometimes at the expense of other ethnicities. (Bitter Mouse's #10437 is a better answer.)

Yes, yes, Asian-Americans have been oppressed so much, they're the highest-educated and highest-earning demographic in America, despite generally having weaker roots in the U.S. than their black, white, and Latino counterparts.
(Yet you still think Asian-Americans vote stupid.) The point needs to be made: I've never said that Asian-Americans are oppressed on this thread. I've only said that they are under-represented at the higher levels of politics.

I don't think it's wrong to want to support politicans who share my background and cultural outlook — that's how most people vote. I don't think it's wrong to want more Asian-Americans in higher office. I'm not saying they should get some break for getting there, or even that other people should vote for them based on their race; it's just for me. Early black and women candidates didn't get into office without massive support from black and female voters, respectively. We're at that point in history where Asian-Americans are starting to become active in politics, and I believe that the movement in general is more important than most policy sticking points.
   10474. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:50 AM (#4311342)
Look, you shifted the goalposts. You said that I accidentally 'admitted' the existence of media bias, in spite of my denial. I told you I didn't deny it, but denied a very specific flavor of it.

So you're claiming that the "systemic factors that go into determining which stories get covered, how they get framed, etc.," do not involve liberal media bias in any way, shape, or form? If so, in what unbiased ways are the problems "systemic"? Do news outlets have incompetent assignment editors? Are reporters simply incompetent when it comes to framing stories in a neutral manner, but incompetent in a bias-free way?

And honest discussion: you're a naked partisan only interested in spin. This is plainly evident to everyone here.

Yes, yes, I know: The non-liberals here are all partisan hacks who only spout the party talking points, while the liberals here are all gloriously open-minded in their approach to the issues of the day. Hooray for the BBTF liberals.

There's a nuanced discussion to be had about media bias. By hand-waving away the scholarship on the subject, you've shown you're unwilling to engage in it.

As I recall, the single link you posted in August was presented as the dispositive "scholarship" on the issue, while you hand-waved the links Good Face and I posted.

When a biased hack like David Chalian, who was in charge of Yahoo!'s political coverage, is exposed for what he is but still gets hired within months by an even more influential outlet, it's clear the media isn't even pretending to be unbiased anymore.
   10475. McCoy Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM (#4311344)
We jumped to alochol talk and I wasn't informed? Bastards!
   10476. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:52 AM (#4311346)
"The youth" is drowning in student-loan debt and can't find good jobs. At some point, being cool might not be enough for the Dems.


We know (okay, I'm 30, but I'm only a year out of school), but we've also noticed they're better at producing jobs than Republicans, and support us better when we can't, both of which go a long way. Republicans may be good for the stock market (-ish)....

Not according to that left wing network, Fox Business News.

History Shows Stocks, GDP Outperform Under Democrats

Thanks to their pro-business approach and the anemic recovery, Republicans would seem to have a clear path to grab the economic mantle heading into the 2012 race for the White House.
However, history actually shows that the U.S. economy, stock prices and corporate profits have generated stronger growth under Democratic administrations than Republican ones.

According to McGraw-Hill’s (MHP) S&P Capital IQ, the S&P 500 has rallied an average of 12.1% per year since 1901 when Democrats occupy the White House, compared with just 5.1% for the GOP.
Likewise, gross domestic product has increased 4.2% each year since 1949 when Democrats run the executive branch, versus 2.6% under Republicans.

Even corporate profits show a disparity: S&P 500 GAAP earnings per share climbed a median of 10.5% per year since 1936 during Democratic administrations, besting an 8.9% median advance under Republicans, S&P said.




   10477. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM (#4311354)
More importantly, the Yankees win more championships under Democratic administration. As go the Yankees, so goes America.
   10478. formerly dp Posted: November 28, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4311355)
As I recall, the single link you posted in August was presented as the dispositive "scholarship" on the issue, while you hand-waved the links Good Face and I posted.
Everything you referenced was about the political beliefs of journalists, rather than about the media content generated by the corporate media conglomerates who employ them. I linked to several studies that employed different methods for studying and coding media content. You claimed that there's a system-wide liberal bias in media content. Go on believing that, but it's a belief informed only by your own selective (biased!) perceptions, precisely as the social science has found.
   10479. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4311358)
More importantly, the Yankees win more championships under Democratic administration.


Time to rethink. GOP or third party? Dilemma indeed.
   10480. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:04 PM (#4311361)
You could always move to Iran. They hate the Yankees and American prosperity too.
   10481. formerly dp Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:06 PM (#4311364)
So you're claiming that the "systemic factors that go into determining which stories get covered, how they get framed, etc.," do not involve liberal media bias in any way, shape, or form? If so, in what unbiased ways are the problems "systemic"? Do news outlets have incompetent assignment editors? Are reporters simply incompetent when it comes to framing stories in a neutral manner, but incompetent in a bias-free way?
I'm not going to rehash the debate for you. You're intent on making it map onto a left/right continuum. You want to argue for the sake of arguing. Instead, you could be reading and learning. You don't want to do that though-- you just want to marshal evidence in support of your prefabricated beliefs.
   10482. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:11 PM (#4311370)
Everything you referenced was about the political beliefs of journalists, rather than about the media content generated by the corporate media conglomerates who employ them. I linked to several studies that employed different methods for studying and coding media content. You claimed that there's a system-wide liberal bias in media content. Go on believing that, but it's a belief informed only by your own selective (biased!) perceptions, precisely as the social science has found.

So I'm subject to my "own selective (biased!) perceptions," but somehow all of those news reporters — over 90 percent of whom admit to voting for Dems — manage to set their "selective (biased!) perceptions" aside every day when they walk into work, without fail?

This pathetic hack was the D.C. bureau chief for Yahoo!, and was the political director at ABC News before that. Are we to believe his reporting, story selection, etc., was down the middle, despite his obvious intense dislike of Republicans and the Republican Party?
   10483. Ron J2 Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:14 PM (#4311375)
And as far as I'm concerned, Kraken is the only rum in the world.


A former co-worker introduced me to sipping rum. You can only get it at certain times of the year, but El Dorado 15 is superb. Their other products are none too shabby, but this is certainly a case of getting what you pay for. Never had their 21.

Flor de Cana is pretty good. I like their products better than any but the El Dorado 15.

My first preference would typically be a good single malt whiskey, but I prefer a good sipping rum to a second rate whiskey, and the price is generally a heck of a lot better.

And for Ray -- what's your preference in ports? I've dabbled some here, and I've found it is certainly a case of getting what you pay for.
   10484. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:15 PM (#4311376)
So I'm subject to my "own selective (biased!) perceptions," but somehow all of those news reporters — over 90 percent of whom admit to voting for Dems — manage to set their "selective (biased!) perceptions" aside every day when they walk into work?


Stand tall dp, don't rehash the argument. Instead find something I have written in the last few days that is stupid and argue with that. Heck if you want I'll say something stupid (stupider?) and let you win the argument. Media bias arguments bad.
   10485. Greg K Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:15 PM (#4311378)
Just to prove I'm the most suggestible person on that planet I stepped out to get some dish soap and yogurt just now and came back with a big honking bottle of Chartreuse. Thanks a lot MCoA.

And also to update, the rum baron my friend knows is of the Angostura family (of Trinidad not the Dominican). My memory is useless.
   10486. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:16 PM (#4311379)
Joe, you realize there is more to life than money, right?


He thought that, and then he realized that he would be thrown in jail unless he paid the government a good chunk of his income.
   10487. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:17 PM (#4311380)
And for Ray -- what's your preference in ports? I've dabbled some here, and I've found it is certainly a case of getting what you pay for.


Tawny 30 is my favorite, which is actually better than Tawny 40 - which costs more.
   10488. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:19 PM (#4311381)
This pathetic hack was the D.C. bureau chief for Yahoo!, and was the political director at ABC News before that. Are you claiming his reporting, story selection, etc., was down the middle, despite his obvious inherent dislike of Republicans and the Republican Party?


He didn't say "black people" he said "blah people".
   10489. Greg K Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM (#4311384)
Tawny 30 is my favorite, which is actually better than Tawny 40 - which costs more.

As I am open to all liquor suggestions I actually stopped by the Port aisle of my local Lidl just now. I literally know nothing about port, but they had a bottle of it with "Tawny" written on the label for £3.99. That price is right for me to give it a shot! Or is it possible my tawny is not precisely the same thing as your tawny?
   10490. formerly dp Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4311388)
Instead find something I have written in the last few days that is stupid and argue with that. Heck if you want I'll say something stupid (stupider?) and let you win the argument. Media bias arguments bad.
Heh. They don't have to be. But in this flavor, when someone would rather spend their time bickering than learning, they're a weird sort pointless, even by BTF politics threads standards.
   10491. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:27 PM (#4311394)
I don't think it's wrong to want to support politicans who share my background and cultural outlook — that's how most people vote.

If it's not wrong to support politicians who share one's background and cultural outlook, then why do you keep complaining that Asian-Americans are underrepresented at the highest levels of government? There are a lot more whites, blacks, and Latinos than Asian-Americans, so if people generally vote as you suggest, the status quo isn't a problem at all. It's just the natural order of things.

I don't think it's wrong to want more Asian-Americans in higher office. I'm not saying they should get some break for getting there, or even that other people should vote for them based on their race; it's just for me. Early black and women candidates didn't get into office without massive support from black and female voters, respectively. We're at that point in history where Asian-Americans are starting to become active in politics, and I believe that the movement in general is more important than most policy sticking points.

What "movement" is that?
   10492. Ron J2 Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4311395)
Tawny 30 is my favorite


I actually tried that in my dabbling. And it was excellent.

It's generally not my first choice, but it suits me nicely in certain moods.
   10493. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:31 PM (#4311396)
Pat Buchanan pulls one out of the mists of history:

Like the Panama Canal debate that made Ronald Reagan a hero, this is a defining moment. No GOP senator who agreed to the Carter-Torrijos treaty ever made it onto a national ticket.


Because we all know that signing the Panama Canal treaty was the beginning of U.S. decline in world affairs...
   10494. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:34 PM (#4311401)
Tawny" written on the label for £3.99.


I can't see that being tawny, unless its an exceptionally bad batch that was contaminated with rat #### or something. A quart of Taylor Fladgate Tawny 30 is $153.29 at my local (government run) store.
   10495. BrianBrianson Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4311402)
Not according to that left wing network, Fox Business News.

History Shows Stocks, GDP Outperform Under Democrats


Well, now that I'm more educated, I'm less likely to support the GOP. Funny how that works.
   10496. Ron J2 Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4311404)
Greg, I suspect he was talking about Taylor Fladgate Tawney 30.

   10497. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4311405)
I got loaded of off port once at a bachelor party and ended up projectile puking at 3:00 pm on the sidewalk of the busiest street in downtown Halifax, narrowing missing a pedestrian's shoe......of, the memories.
   10498. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:38 PM (#4311409)
Yup.
   10499. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4311411)
The Panama Canal treaty was great. It did not harm US interests, helped our standing in Latin America, and showed we could do the right thing. I eagerly await someone telling me I am deluded and why.
   10500. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 28, 2012 at 12:42 PM (#4311412)
They make shoes out of memories now?!
Page 105 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Eugene Freedman
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogThe Calm-Before-The-Storm and Postseason Prediction OMNICHATTER, 2014
(81 - 6:27am, Sep 30)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogESPN: Ron Gardenhire out after 13 Seasons with Twins
(31 - 6:26am, Sep 30)
Last: Dr. Vaux

NewsblogMadden: How dare the sabermetrics crowd and others try to diminish Derek Jeter’s greatness
(144 - 5:20am, Sep 30)
Last: cardsfanboy

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2014 Discussion
(9 - 4:00am, Sep 30)
Last: shoewizard

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1958 Ballot
(9 - 2:49am, Sep 30)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogMets close season optimistic for next year
(50 - 2:06am, Sep 30)
Last: CrosbyBird

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(392 - 1:53am, Sep 30)
Last: Gold Star - just Gold Star

NewsblogRBI Baseball, 2014 Playoff Edition
(2 - 1:42am, Sep 30)
Last: Harvey Berkman

NewsblogAttanasio discusses Brewers collapse, changes coming for 2015
(126 - 12:24am, Sep 30)
Last: greenback calls it soccer

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(261 - 12:10am, Sep 30)
Last: NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!)

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8138 - 11:55pm, Sep 29)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogBaseball Past & Present: Vote: The 25 Most Important People in Baseball History.
(281 - 11:54pm, Sep 29)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogRemembering George ‘Shotgun’ Shuba, 1924-2014
(4 - 11:25pm, Sep 29)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogThe Captain’s Log: Derek Jeter’s Lady-Killing Past, From ‘Yeah, Jeets!’ to Gift Baskets
(29 - 11:21pm, Sep 29)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-29-2014
(57 - 11:13pm, Sep 29)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 0.6533 seconds
52 querie(s) executed