|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
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
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: OTP 2018 Apr 16: Beto strikes out but is a hit at baseball fundraiser (1086 - 1:58am, Apr 21)Last:  Laser ManNewsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-20-2018 (25 - 1:43am, Apr 21)Last: Hank G.Newsblog: OT - 2017-18 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to End of Time edition) (2264 - 1:01am, Apr 21)Last:  f_cking sick and tired of being 57i66135Newsblog: Frankly, my dear, I don't give an OMNICHATTER, for April 20, 2018. (82 - 12:16am, Apr 21)Last: Brian C Hall of Merit: 2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (104 - 10:09pm, Apr 20)Last:  Kiko SakataNewsblog: Bryan Price dismissed as Reds manager | MLB.com (93 - 10:00pm, Apr 20)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: BBTF ANNUAL CENTRAL PARK SOFTBALL GAME 2018 (61 - 9:38pm, Apr 20)Last: Greg KNewsblog: OT: Winter Soccer Thread (1526 - 8:30pm, Apr 20)Last:  Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB)Newsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-19-2018 (23 - 6:56pm, Apr 20)Last: Morty CausaNewsblog: It’s not just ownership that’s keeping Jose Reyes a Met (30 - 6:45pm, Apr 20)Last: Howie MenckelNewsblog: Update: Cubs' Anthony Rizzo calls his shorter-season, pay-cut comments 'my opinion' (128 - 4:01pm, Apr 20)Last:  What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?Newsblog: Braves sign Jose Bautista to a minor-league contract, will play third base (34 - 1:59pm, Apr 20)Last: RallySox Therapy: Are The Angels A Real Team? (17 - 1:35pm, Apr 20)Last: DarrenSox Therapy: Lining Up The Minors (8 - 12:24pm, Apr 20)Last: DarrenHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1942 Ballot (1 - 11:54am, Apr 20)Last: DL from MN
|
|
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.
You've never hesitated to trumpet public opinion polls when they've been on your side.
By this logic you also believe that because medicare/medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance/benefits, welfare, food stamps, women voting rights, and the emancipation of slaves weren't specifically mentioned in a document from 1789, that they have the same legal footing as Obamacare?
Heh.
So "promote the general welfare" became much more expansive in 200 years, while "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" not only became more restrictive, but became dead letter. This sounds like a zombie constitution, not a "living constitution," or whatever you guys are calling it this week.
How much do paper records help? I mean, the hacked machine can give you a receipt for "Romney" when you push the Romney button and still count your vote for Obama.
Is the idea that in some sort of post-election investigation, all the voters from that precinct bring their receipts in? And so fraud = difference is excess of the manual error rate of people losing receipts or not bothering?
Maybe the machines should email you? Obamachromebooks and wifi for all!
The only thing "stupid" is your apparent belief that wages and labor supply are entirely unrelated. Only an economic illiterate would loudly complain about wage stagnation in one breath, and then, in the next, call for more and more immigration.
Yes it is. The US is a Democracy.
Voting in MN (My area anyway) you fill out a ballot and it is optically read. But the ballot remains and there is a physical trail for use in recounts and such. Easy, fun, verifiable.
I think the idea is the voter verifies the printed receipt, and the receipt is retained by the election board.
In what delusional, ########## world has the right to keep and bear arms become more restrictive? How ####### blind to reality must one be to believe that?
Same with my neighborhood in Boston, FWTW.
The point of electronic voting machines is to reduce paper and storage costs for voting precincts.
EDIT: the "voting machines are unreliable" meme is about as paranoid and baseless in actual fact as the "Black Panthers are suppressing the white vote" meme.
Can I amend that a bit?
For some reason the first phrase always seems to end up missing.
***
8403 - You can trumpet "diversity" all you want, but "diversity" not only isn't a magic cure for the wage stagnation of which Zonk was complaining, but it's been a contributor to that problem.
If liberals want more immigration and more "diversity," fine, but don't complain that an expanded labor pool has resulted in downward pressure on wages.
The question is whether he's cribbing from Ray and Kehoskie, or whether they're stealing their ideas from him. Looks like a Rasmussen tossup to me, as their talking points are virtually indistinguishable.
THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE | Rabbi Steven Pruzansky's Blog, Nov. 7, 2012
I am willing to pay for auditability, and I think it should be mandated personally. We can take the money to pay for it from Ray (at Gunpoint).
EDIT: And I am not claiming fraud on the part of electronic machines. I just like an audit trail for somethign as important as voting. I am positive providing such would cost less than a single completely unneeded attack submarine.
I listened to most of this segment today, and it kind of scared the #### out of me.
The complete cultural forgetting of the first clause of the 2nd Amendment, and the complete forgetting of said same by all legal readings of the amendment, and the fact that you can currently keep and bear much more powerful and deadly arms than anything available to the regular militiaman of 1780 is the entire friggin' point. Joe apparently lives in a world where the 2nd Amendment has been restricted over the course of time. I assume this world also has green skies and purple flavored unicorn poo powers the mind control engines.
I think this message was sent from a parallel universe where the Democrats didn't completely abandon gun control as a major electoral issue.
Strike two.
***
Are you going to pretend that liberals haven't been in favor of gun control, or of the nonsensical "collective" interpretation* of the Second Amendment?
The only reason gun rights haven't become more restrictive is because conservatives fought liberals for decades and won a few battles.
(* Thanks to Bitter Mouse for proving this in #8415.)
*THAT THING* was edited for length?!
In this context, a well regulated militia means a trained militia of volunteer citizens, not a standing army of professional soldiers. The Oath Keepers and pretty much any other group that might fit the intended definition are now considered potential terrorists, not defenders of a free state.
Which means, BY DEFINITION, that gun rights HAVEN'T BECOME MORE RESTRICTIVE. Which means you are full of #### above. (To no one's real surprise.)
Really really non-responsive. (Hoping for strike three) If the US is not a Democracy than what is it?
Actually quoting the amendment is now proving something (other than I can use Wikipedia)? What exactly did I prove?
Joe is from New York, where the Second Amendment most certainly has been "restricted over the course of time." The "green skies" only exist in the world occupied by people like Sam who deny such basic points of fact.
Hey, look, Sam's doing his shtick again.
First of all, the earlier discussion was about liberal ideology. Second, the Second Amendment assuredly had become more restrictive over time. Until recently, functional firearms had been banned in D.C. and Chicago for decades. Heller and McDonald reversed some of these restrictions, but it's incredibly dishonest to claim such restrictions didn't exist or that they aren't still desired by large numbers of liberals.
***
The United States is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.
That is not my understanding.
And of course ...
Heaven forbid anyone born in Iran ever be allowed to do anything in the USA (where no immigrant has ever served the nation in any capacity ever). And spending a week in Teheran? The horror.
Joe lives in a world fueled by paranoid delusions. The 2nd Amendment has not become more restrictive. The federal state - which is the state being discussed here - has not restricted the 2nd, as you claimed above. Similarly, the general welfare clause is not suddenly more restrictive than "general welfare" implies.
You don't even bother reading the goddamned Constitution when it doesn't support your preferred outcomes, do you?
Which is a subset of the larger class of governmental form known as Democracy. I am aware some folks like to pretend the US is not a Democracy for some bizarre reason, but they (and you) are wrong.
Edit: Looking over the various definitions I am going to amend what I said. The Constitutional Republic is not a subset of a Democracy. The US is both a Democracy and a Constiutional Republic. By definition you can have an aristocratic or oligarchic Constitutional Republic.
No, it hadn't. The reason no one can carry on a conversation with you is that you just make up #### to fit your preferences rather than living in a shared, common reality.
It's almost entirely idiotic semantics at play. Joe is harping on "not a democracy" because "Democrats" are for democracy, and "Republicans" are for constitutional "republics." It is literally devoid of any intelligent meaning or merit at all.
But the idea that the Democratic Party and the leaders holding office from that party are going to do this is absurd. They have had countless opportunities to try and, whether it is from cowardice or heartfelt belief, they haven't tried and aren't going to try. I'm not telling folks, like me, who favor private ownership and a more right leaning view of the 2nd amendment not to be wary, but, by far, the most intrusive push against 2nd amendment rights came from a Republican administration (Bush 43 and Homeland Security) than from a Democratic one.
I have friends almost daily tell me Obama is coming for my guns. No, he isn't. If Mr. Obama comes to my house, he's a lot more likely to want to lecture me on my choice of light bulb than do anything about my guns. We'd most likely end up watching college basketball and arguing over foreign aid. Guns aren't in play.
* Not saying these particular guys are against me owning guns, just that it wouldn't surprise me (or worry me) if they were.
Quick, someone check Ahmadinejad's email.
Both nonsensical and dishonest. There are plenty of federal gun laws that have made the Second Amendment much more "restrictive over time," and that still ignores that flat gun bans that existed in places like D.C. and Chicago.
This would be awesome by the way. He can stop by my Mouse Hole any time.
You obviously haven't been following the post-Heller era in D.C. or the post-McDonald era in Chicago. The idea that liberals have totally surrendered on the Second Amendment is fantasy at best, dishonesty at worst.
I am no expert, but it appears that muzzle-loaded rifles, of the type used in the 18th century, can be carried without a license in New York under an 'antique firearms' exception. If true, you can own the weapons the Founders intended you to own without restriction.
Point me to the ads where gun control was an issue. The Democratic party official platform has the following language:
Even if that program were an issue important enough to Democrats to spend political capital on (it isn't), it's tremendously weak sauce.
The ex has a bunch of guns. They are in the basement, with most or all being in the gunsafe. None of them have been used for years (decades?) and as far as I know there is no ammo in the house - honestly I would rather not have them in the house at all, but whatever. You, you can have your guns so long as you have those CFLs screwed in tight!
If 51 percent of voters decide to reinstate slavery, would that be OK because it was blessed by a democratic — i.e., majority — vote?
Those aren't federal Democrats and I, more or less, agree with you. I'm just referring to this insane craze that goes around after every Democratic president is elected where gun owners go berserk thinking the ATF is days away from kicking their doors in.
I think we desperately need an adult conversation about guns. To me, the idea that guns - firearms - can be considered in an 18th century light is absurd. It's an enormous problem in cities. By the same token, I think people not only should be allowed to, but should be expected to, know how to handle firearms. The status quo - bans in some place, free reign in others - is tremendously stupid. I know lots of folks who get the urge to have a gun, go buy one, read the manual just enough to know how to load it, then put it away thinking they are now safer. Handling firearms is serious business and, while it isn't rocket science, isn't intuitive, either.
Having half the people screaming that they should be allowed to own anything they want and the other half demanding all-out bans is not smart, center position.
So one halfhearted sentence about gun rights, followed entirely by the liberals' desire for more "regulation," "conversation," and "enforcement."
Not exactly Charlton Heston at the NRA convention.
This entire debacle of an attempt to reason with the Nutjob Fool came about thusly:
Fool: "The general welfare clause must be read more restrictively than 'general welfare' because the founders generation didn't have Ibuprofen!"
Sam: "The document says 'general welfare' because the founders were specifically vague in their terms, in order to account for changing views of what the proper application of general welfare might be over time. They left that to the people of each generation to decide."
Fool: "So general welfare becomes less restrictive while 2nd Amendment rights become more restrictive?! HAH! GOTCHA!"
Sam: "No, you simpering idiot, neither of those clauses of the Constitution has become more restrictive over time. Take your ####### meds, jackass."
Do you really want a lecture on the process underwhich ideas become laws here in the US? Or are you asking from a moral standpoint, because neither Democracy nor a Constitution (nor both together) guarantee morality?
For your reference:
That's suspiciously similar to 'things' and 'gifts'. It's all coming together now.
I'm going to save you guys some time and point out that you're both working under separate definitions of the word "democracy".
Well I gave mine (see post 8408). I think in encompasses his. Sam rightly pointed out his is from silly word games to get some sort of rhetorical advantage.
I never said anything about Obama wanting to take our guns away, although he assuredly would do so if he thought it was possible, and anyone who claims otherwise is kidding himself. Obama endorsed Chicago's decades-old gun ban again and again during his time as a community organizer, state legislator, presidential candidate, and then even as president, when McDonald was being argued.
Regardless, the point was, if the vague language of the "general welfare" clause gave rise to Obamacare and is enforceable on the states, then the Dems' disdain for the plain language of the Second Amendment is unexplained.
Just about every derper I know trots that one out right on cue. It's either the Tucker Carlson version of Ack Acka Dak or someone has spread a rumor that you get ten bucks every time you say it. It's damn near Pavlovian at this point.
//Blucher! Neiiiigh!!!!
And even if so, so what? The US was designed to change and evolve over time. That is why they built in the ability to alter the constitution. They didn't expect everything to stay in stasis. Things change. Emphasis changes. Admendments are entered. However the preamble, which pretty much lays out the philisophical underpinning for the whole thing pretty closely aligns with (codifies?) Bitter Mouse's Law (Thanks Ray I really like that).
And because I love it so (it is up there with the Declaration of Independance and the Gettysburg Address):
Well, one of us needs to "take his ####### meds," but it isn't me.
Not conversation! I'll converse about guns when you pry the words from my cold, dead lips.
OK, if 51 percent of the House and Senate vote to reinstate slavery and then the bill is signed into law by the president, will that result be OK since it was "democratically" enacted?
It is the philisophical support for a government that cares about the welfare of its citizens and wants to do more than just stay out of their way, that "gives them gifts". Our modern notion of what constitutes welfare and our desire to fix the previous health care regime led to ObamaCare.
I am pretty sure it would be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. There is a process here.
And again, are you asking process OK or morally OK? Because no governmental form ensures morality of decisions.
I guess I missed the part where liberals tried to amend the Constitution rather than attempt — successfully, in some cases — to render the Second Amendment null and void via activist judges, an Orwellian redefinition of the Second Amendment's plain language (i.e., the "collective" nonsense), etc.
I'd have a lot more respect for the gun-control crowd if they tried an amendment rather than the linguistic and legalistic flimflammery they generally employ.
If the U.S. is a democracy, why would the Supreme Court have the power to overrule democratically enacted legislation?
Activist Judges! How I have missed you, my dear friends.
And I explicitly said the US was designed to change over time. Changing the constitution is only one of the ways that happens. Passing laws is another way. There are many more including our friends the activist judge.
The two pillars of any free nation, no matter where or when it should exist - to look after the welfare of its people, and to promote the interests of the British Empire.
It seemed like a good idea at the time. If you are not happy with that you can try to get that changed, I hear there is a way to do that.
Let's be real traditionalists then. Absolutely no restrictions on ownership of weapons. No registrations, no permits, no limit to where they can be taken, the whole ball of wax. However, to stay true to the text of the Constitution, you're limited to only carrying weapons that existed at the time of it's adoption. Deal? If the definition of "arms" as it appears in the Constitution is allowed to evolve, then so is the definition of "general welfare".
Wait, so the U.S. is a democracy, except when it isn't? This is all very confusing.
Because we voted that into the Constitution?
Secede!
A Democracy with rules (A constitution) is still a Democracy. No where in the definition does it say anything about "and there can be no limits at all to the desires of the majority."
Though of course since you can, by Democratic processes (voting and stuff) get rid of any impediment to the Joe K slavery scheme, I am pretty sure even by your definition of Democracy the US is one.
Tucker's not trading in his Chevy for a Cadillac-ac-ac-ac-ac....
Oh, is that how it works now? I guess the First Amendment doesn't apply to telephones or the internet, and the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect cars or email accounts from warrantless searches, etc., etc.
That wasn't the argument. The argument was the massive expansion, in liberals' eyes, of the meaning of "general welfare," while liberals simultaneously claimed a contraction if not elimination of Second Amendment rights. The "evolving" was quite selective, and more than a little contradictory.
Nonsense. As Alan Gura argued in Heller or McDonald, there can't simultaneously be a right to possess firearms and a ban of possessing firearms. The gun laws in Chicago and D.C. and elsewhere weren't "regulation" — they were bans.
You obviously don't like the slavery example, so I'll go back to my question from the last page: If 51 percent of voters vote to confiscate 98 or even 100 percent of the wealth of the other 49 percent, would that be OK because it was democratically decided? If not, how and where do you draw the lines when it comes to taxation, "fairness," and property rights?
Playing devil's advocate, there were no gun bans. Police, Secret Service, and military personnel were all allowed to possess firearms, and any citizen is free to enlist in one of those organizations, thus becoming a member of a well-trained militia.
False (and ridiculous). Aside from the fact the D.C. Police Department doesn't simply hire all comers, this would also mean that disabled people unfit for police work would have no right to keep and bear arms.
I should, but not you.
(Serious answer: No.)
Is the desire to maintain the freedoms associated with gun ownership part of a larger project of maintain all freedoms. In other words, it's not so much that freedom to own guns is important, so much as any kind of freedom.
Or is there a concern that a society that restricts gun ownership is particularly dangerous.
I guess those two motivations aren't necessarily distinct from one another.
I remember when that guy had a shred of decency. With him and Aunt Bea leading the charge, it's no wonder the issue isn't getting any traction.
The Second Amendment sums it up nicely:
Like I said, I haven't put a great deal of thought into guns, but the experience of my entire life, lived thus far in two states that I consider to be free, tells me that that isn't necessarily true.
Do nations with stricter gun laws that America not count as free states?
I don't mean this to be as combative as I'm sure it sounds...what is the perception of the gun laws of other nations from advocates for gun freedom?
I've had it with Nanny Obama and his overregulation!
A "select committee"? Is that more or less powerful than a blue-ribbon panel?
I've been brooding over the meaning of the 2nd amendment for quite some time. It's become clear to me that to an 18th century gentleman TRTBA meant the right to openly carry a sword and/or pistol. IE arms that in many place in the old world were restricted to a particular class.
In that context the bit about militias could be taken as an attempt to prevent the emergence of a class of people who are authorized to carry weapons (and are familiar with their use -- an important aspect of any militia)
Certainly many of the FF absolutely wanted to avoid a large standing army. And not just on financial grounds.
What is it, 20 to 2? 25 to 2?
I've provided Jefferson's position on the matter. He was pretty clear that change was to be expected. And I doubt you'll find any FF that thought otherwise.
Good to see John McCain's back to being a complete ####### ...
[edit] Argh. Coke to spike.
When I moved from Cincinnati/Cleveland/Chicago/Detroit to significantly west of the Mississippi (Seattle), I started running a lot more into "The government should get out of my way" types. I can sympathize with them for reasons that I don't feel like I can do a good job of explaining, other than "Who are you to regulate what goes on on my property that doesn't impact other people." I think the main disagreement is the impact to other people.
I might be even more sympathetic, depending on what the federal government decides what to do or not do re: legal marijuana sales in Washington.
It's not necessarily a binary "free" vs. "not free" type of perception, but it's generally understood not to be merely coincidence that most of the least-free countries on Earth have bans on firearm possession. Most of the countries that break this trend are island nations like the U.K., Australia, and Japan.
I know a lot of people that didnt cross the lines in the Sac area when this was going on. The scary part about the strike is what was mentioned in this paragraph:
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main