Well, now that I'm more educated, I'm less likely to support the GOP. Funny how that works.

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.

Greg, I suspect he was talking about Taylor Fladgate Tawney 30.

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.

It certainly didn't slow the rise of leftism in the region.

But I've done some of my dabbling at the Chateau Laurier and Taylor Fladgate 20 is the entry level port there. They have some that are significantly more expensive than the Taylor Fladgate 30. Never got around to trying them though.

I don't see how it helped our standing in Latin America.

It certainly didn't slow the rise of leftism in the region.

Given that, how exactly was my use of the word "powerful" some sort of dishonest offense?

a measly 3-percentage-point difference in a statistical analysis of two imbalanced samples with cherry-picked endpoints.

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.

a lot of at-risk incumbents have, in recent years, tended to retire rather than risk losing and being tossed out of office

At the time, it was bashed by Republicans (and Reagan in particular) as the greatest sellout in American history.

You really need to look at Rants' last post.

I'm guessing you were never a big GOP supporter in the first place.

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.

I might have been more likely to toss my vote away like I did in . . . 2000 (voted for Nader).

Really? How do you think it impacted our standing in Latin America?

It certainly didn't slow the rise of leftism in the region.

Complete non sequitor.

1. It's Srul, not Saul

2. Ge cocken offen yam.

How is it a non sequitur? Your theory is that the Panama Canal Treaty helped the U.S.'s standing in Latin America, but there's not a lot of evidence to support that. Central America was one headache after another for the U.S. throughout the 1980s, and then leftism swept South America in the '90s and early 2000s, just as the Panama Canal was being transferred.

YR, that was literally the most mind numbing thing I read this month.

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.

It is dishonest because you used the phrase "so powerful." You dishonestly and inaccurately positioned me as championing recent incumbency as this super powerful irresistible force.

You did so so that you could pretend to score points by yourself characterizing it as "measly."

Here are retirement figures more recent than the 1995 study I cited:
2012: 42 House members chose not to stand for re-election -- 9.6%, or exactly in-line with the historical number of ~10% that I cited earlier. (If anything, less retirements, because I said that in the 1940 to 1994 timeframe, the percentage of Reps seeking re-election was "high 80s/low 90s.")
In 2010, 37 incumbents retired (20 R, 17 D). That's 8.5% -- again, exactly in-line with the historical number of ~10%.
In 2008, 33 incumbents retired. 7.6%
In 2006, 28 incumbents retired. 6.4%

I couldn't find numbers for 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, or 2004.

In your mind, do the numbers above cast any doubt on your contention that

a lot of at-risk incumbents have, in recent years, tended to retire rather than risk losing and being tossed out of office

??

I will say, though--if you're gonna get drunk on port, make it a 4-(British)pound-a-bottle port. There's a very wide variance between good ports and bad ones.

Yeah - national populaces tend to be upset when your 'freedom fighters' tend to sidelight as drug runners, that blow up nuns... You'd be surprised how often people who may not necessarily like their "leftist" governments either, tend to rally around the powers that are in power when bombs from the 'rebels' rip through cafes.

Is there such a thing as a British 'port'?

Is there such a thing as a British 'port'?

Ipswich?

That explains Nicaragua. What explains Panama, El Salvador, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, etc., etc.?

You also want us to believe it was a big coincidence that 12 House Dem incumbents just happened to retire in the wave election of 2010 and then watched as their seats were won by Republicans. It's absurd.

That said - I also know that Portugal has/had a long, long, long (as in, 2-3-400 years) 'special' import/export relation with England regarding its wines that included exclusivity, so I imagine that "British ports" might actually be proper Portuguese ports simply distributed via England...

Romney to meet with Obama at White House.

I assume if lunch is served, that Romney will be given the option of baked crow, or just a slice of humble pie.

Maybe they'll split the bill, and Romney will cover 47% of it.

Republican leaders embrace their party's diversity.

How is it a non sequitur? Your theory is that the Panama Canal Treaty helped the U.S.'s standing in Latin America, but there's not a lot of evidence to support that. Central America was one headache after another for the U.S. throughout the 1980s, and then leftism swept South America in the '90s and early 2000s, just as the Panama Canal was being transferred.

I love Port but I can't spend over $50 on a bottle so is there something reasonably priced ?

I have heard that Niepoort 10 is a decent price/quality value but I can't speak from experience.

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?

Your theory seems to be that the marginal increase in incumbency can be entirely/mostly explained by vulnerable incumbents retiring.

Assuming that 2010 was a wave election, shouldn't a historically unprecedented number of Dems have retired to avoid defeat? And yet, only 17 did (12 of those seats flipped to R, 5 stayed D), a number *not at all* out of step with historical numbers in any other election.

Perhaps more damning to your argument, MORE Republicans retired than Dems in 2010. How can that be so in a GOP wave year, since, according to you, "vulnerable incumbents tend to retire in recent years?"

A historically unprecedented number of incumbent Dems did NOT retire. Rather, we saw almost precisely the amount of retirement we'd expect to see in any other election year (if anything, we saw *less* retirement in 2010 than we might expect based on historical precedent). How do you explain this?

How does it fit within your theory that most retiring incumbents are vulnerable? (In fact, isn't it at least as likely that one of the major contributing factors to 12 of those 17 seats flipping was precisely because there was no incumbent running?) Were the incumbent Dems who chose not to retire and who were defeated just bad at reading the tea leaves? Since they lost, by definition, they must have been "vulnerable incumbents." Why didn't they all retire, too?

EDIT: Here is a scholarly article (from PolSci dept at U of Cal) addressing your contention. Its conclusion: "when the bias induced by strategic retirement is removed, much of the apparent incumbency advantage and its increase over time remain evident." http://themonkeycage.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2011_jtp_strategic-retirement.pdf

He explains his observations:

“On election night after initial voting reports declared him the winner, Obama once more unconsciously pointed to a confession. Before his anxious and relieved supporters, Obama spoke of his pride in his daughters but commented, ‘But I will say this for now, one dog’s probably enough’ – on the surface referring back to promising his daughters a puppy after his 2008 victory,” Hodges said.

“But stay with his spontaneous right-brain image. Understand he could have chosen any matter on which to comment and any description but his brilliant unconscious mind which always speaks in a symbolic right-brain language – and carefully chooses its images – selected ‘one dog is enough.’

“Read his confession that America has just elected a dog of a president – and once was enough,” Hodges said.

“He suggests that he’s dogging it as president, faking it as an illegal president in a second way now with a stolen election. That he’s a real ‘dog’ for such deception. The image of a dog further suggests: a pet favored by the media and blind supporters who would not dare to explore his illegality by birth or unfair election; that he will dog or haunt America for another four years because a dog also bites especially a wounded one. (And Obama is deeply wounded beyond belief.) Once again Obama unconsciously points to his deceptive anger and indeed he has bitten/assaulted America in multiple ways, both covert and overt, and plans on more of the same.”

Argentina

So to you "standing" means they run their country how we want them to? That is crazy.

The feelings of the Latin American people and governments towards the US was improved by the US handing the canal back to Panama.

This is not in a vaccuum, the alternative is we kept it. Would the standing of the US in the region been improved by the US keeping the canal?

Your implication that handing over the canal caused (incited) the "wave of leftism" is silly. Things happen, both good and bad. Some of them relate to the feelings in the region about the US, the vast majority relate to other things.

But seriously do you think the handover was a bad idea? If so why? Your arguing about "standing" is more than a little odd, especially since it was one of three points in favor and not the most significant.

He explains his observations:

From that WND article YR linked to:

The Panama Canal wouldn't have existed without the U.S., and the same might be true for Panama itself, at least the independent Panama. I don't see why the U.S. was under any obligation to give the canal and canal zone to Panama. It's not like the U.S. had been occupying the entire nation.

No, that's not what I said.

I don't see how it helped our standing in Latin America. It certainly didn't slow the rise of leftism in the region.

The Panama Canal wouldn't have existed without the U.S., and the same might be true for Panama itself, at least the independent Panama. I don't see why the U.S. was under any obligation to give the canal and canal zone to Panama. It's not like the U.S. had been occupying the entire nation.

I no longer believe it was a bad idea. I just don't believe it helped the U.S.'s standing in Latin America.

One of Romney's campaign guys has published a deeply delusional op-ed in the Washington Post it's easy to see how his campaign was so out of touch they thought they were winning,

The big dust ups started in the mid 1600's when England and France, among other things, got into a trading war which after a series of raised tariffs resulted in England banning French wines.

I bet the Dutch were indirectly involved as well cause that's how they used to roll.

Again, that marginal increase was only 3 percentage points, and it might not even be an increase if the samples were balanced and/or some year other than 1980 was used as the cut-off.

How is that damning? Politicians generally try to ensure their seats will be retained by their own party. Years like 2010 are the best possible time for incumbents of the winning party to pass the torch. This is Politics 101.

I'm glad you're (finally) conceding that there's such a thing as strategic retirement.

He trounced Barack Obama in debate. He defended the free-enterprise system and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.

When much of what passes for a political intelligentsia these days predicted that the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan meant certain death on the third rail of Medicare and Social Security, Romney brought the fight to the Democrats and made the rational, persuasive case for entitlement reform that conservatives have so desperately needed. The nation listened, thought about it — and on Election Day, Romney carried seniors by a wide margin. It’s safe to say that the entitlement discussion will never be the same.

On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income. That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters younger than 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift....

He handled the unequaled pressures of a campaign with a natural grace and good humor

I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians. That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination.

I don't find much objectionable in that op-ed

Lets put it this way, say England, France, or China had a canal in the U.S. that they owned and operated. Do you think the U.S. would have let that continue to exist?

Besides, running that Panama canal costs hundred of millions to run and maintain, and billions to update when it needs it. Its easier to let Panama to run it and pay the fees when needed.

Ha ha. I hope you're not in charge of the BBTF Investment Fund. The Panama Canal generated $800 million in profits last year.

He trounced Barack Obama in debate.

and, more than any figure in recent history, drew attention to the moral case for free enterprise and conservative economics.

When much of what passes for a political intelligentsia these days predicted that the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan meant certain death on the third rail of Medicare and Social Security, Romney brought the fight to the Democrats and made the rational, persuasive case for entitlement reform that conservatives have so desperately needed.

On Nov. 6, Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income.

Congratulations on winning a majority vote of a minority of population. I recommend sticking with that strategy.

Do you really think Panama would allow all, most, or even some of that to get back to the United States? It is kinda interesting that in this instance, you're okay with governmental instruction in another entity's business. Or is it only okay when you know its screwing over another government instead of a private business?

There's no reason to run the Panama Canal other than 'firsties'.

If you're relying on this very small data point, the goal of the Republican party should be then is to elevate as many people into this group and see what policies they can promote to help do that.

The Pew study reminds me of a great chart that the New York Times produced back in 2006 showing the effect that presidents have on brand loyalty to their party. Basically, a popular president gains the votes of 20-year-olds, and those voters retain much of their loyalty to the president's party for the rest of their lives. The opposite happens with an unpopular president. So Democrats spent eight years with a president that 20-somethings liked (Clinton), then Republicans suffered through eight years with a president they hated (Bush), and now Democrats have eight years of a president that 20-somethings like again (Obama). That's 24 years worth of 20-year-olds who are likely to retain a fairly strong loyalty to the Democratic Party.

I appreciate that Mitt Romney was never a favorite of D.C.’s green-room crowd or, frankly, of many politicians. That’s why, a year ago, so few of those people thought that he would win the Republican nomination.

What?!

If the Canal was in American hands it probably would not be so profitable if at all profitable. Within a few short years after the transfer of owenrship Panama doubled the amount of revenue being taken in by tha canal. This was largely achieved through canal work and a change in the pricing system that had been left unchanged since 1912.

As owners of the Canal they were spending over 300 million a year in Panama while taking in 500 million in receipts and that doesn't include armed forces expenses and expenses not incurred inside Panama but having to do with the canal.

This just shows the inefficiency of the U.S. government, not that the Panama Canal isn't a high-performing asset.

no, relying on this data point the GOP goal has been to suppress/hinder the vote of the people under this group as much as possible.

elevating more people into this group runs directly contrary to their open and obvious goal of concentrating wealth...

Then why do you want the U.S. to run it!?

Then why do you want the U.S. to run it!?

I don't know. Why do you want the same government that couldn't manage the Panama Canal to maximum profitability to run the healthcare system for 315,000,000 people?