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 90 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 88 89 90 91 92 >  Last ›
   8901. Howie Menckel Posted: November 17, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4305083)

NY Post loaded for bear on Petreaus:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/benghazi_white_wash_LgiIgm2dd1tt9bKQ449OhO

WASHINGTON — Disgraced ex-CIA chief David Petraeus told lawmakers yesterday that early US intelligence fingered al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists — not crazed protesters — for the deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.

But references to “al Qaeda” and “extremist” were omitted from the unclassified talking points once it left the CIA and went to the White House, said lawmakers who heard Petraeus’ bombshell closed-door testimony before the House and Senate intelligence committees.

“Nobody knows where it was changed,” fumed Rep. Pete King (R-LI), a member of the House Intelligence Committee.


..............

White House responds today:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/white_house_says_points_did_not_pxBbasGhx6bMGC9ANqXJSN

The White House did not heavily alter talking points about the attacks on a US diplomatic mission in Libya, an official said on Saturday.

"If there were adjustments made to them within the intelligence community, that's common, and that's something they would have done themselves," Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser, told reporters. "The only edit ... made by the White House was the factual edit as to how to refer to the facility."
   8902. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 17, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4305102)
The White House did not heavily alter talking points about the attacks on a US diplomatic mission in Libya, an official said on Saturday.

"If there were adjustments made to them within the intelligence community, that's common, and that's something they would have done themselves," Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser, told reporters. "The only edit ... made by the White House was the factual edit as to how to refer to the facility."


My guess is that Holder did it. But whatever. Whether it was actually "done" by the DOD, by state, by the DOJ, we can rest assured that Obama gave the order, similar to a mob boss ordering a hit but not actually pulling the trigger. Probably with Axelrod advising him.

Like all governments - including the Bush administration - these people are forever telling lies without technically lying.
   8903. Steve Treder Posted: November 17, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4305127)
we can rest assured that Obama gave the order, similar to a mob boss ordering a hit but not actually pulling the trigger. Probably with Axelrod advising him.

Thanks for assuring us all. Now we can rest at last.
   8904. tshipman Posted: November 17, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4305128)
My guess is that Holder did it. But whatever. Whether it was actually "done" by the DOD, by state, by the DOJ, we can rest assured that Obama gave the order, similar to a mob boss ordering a hit but not actually pulling the trigger. Probably with Axelrod advising him.


Dude ... you are off the deep end on this.
   8905. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 17, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4305130)
I don't have a comprehensive list, and I'm sure some items on such a list would be cause for debate.
God forbid we embark on something that might require debate; let's just keep arguing against strawmen...

What would be the point of cataloguing and debating various weapons before people acknowledge that the right to possess at least some firearms plainly exists? Also, when debating gun rights, pointing out that places like Chicago and D.C. had flat gun bans — and would like to reinstate such bans — is not remotely a "strawman."

That was the part of the debate where you were arguing with yourself. The rest of us were leading you to the self-awareness that you are in fact OK with some weapons bans, and then a discussion of what weapons should be banned and what other regulations should apply, which you so kindly declined.

I guess I missed the 20 or so comments in which the liberals in this discussion plainly stated that D.C.- and Chicago-style gun bans are a plain violation of the Second Amendment, and that such bans should never be allowed other than via an amendment to the Constitution (and not judicial fiat or legislative whim).

As for people "leading [me]" somewhere, that's little more than dishonest pretentiousness. At no time, ever, did I claim the Second Amendment was absolute, or that it protected, e.g., private possession of nuclear weapons. The whole "nuclear weapons" thing was Sam's poor attempt at a "gotcha," in which he was trying to claim that if a ban on nuclear weapons doesn't violate the Second Amendment, then a total ban on firearm possession by all people wouldn't violate the Second Amendment, either — a truly ludicrous position.
   8906. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: November 17, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4305133)
My guess is that Holder did it. But whatever. Whether it was actually "done" by the DOD, by state, by the DOJ, we can rest assured that Obama gave the order, similar to a mob boss ordering a hit but not actually pulling the trigger.

Like all governments - including the Bush administration - these people are forever telling lies without technically lying.
Surely you mean, "these people are forever politicians." While the mob thing is a bit silly, I don't really disagree with any of this. They decided to go with a "tough, responsible" image on foreign policy leading up to the election, and it seems plausible that they decided an al-Qaeda attack might jeopardize that approach and turn the election (or at least FP, for whatever that's worth) into a referendum on catching the Benghazi attackers, so changed the memo to "demonstrators" accordingly. Makes sense for Holder to take the fall, isn't he getting phased out as AG anyway?
   8907. Morty Causa Posted: November 17, 2012 at 05:19 PM (#4305134)
What would be the point of cataloguing and debating various weapons before people acknowledge that the right to possess at least some firearms plainly exists?


A right can exist and not be a constitutional right. People insisted on their rights long before the US constitution. Same with the dumbass idea of making corporations a person with human rights. That does not have to follow.
   8908. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 17, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4305138)
Thanks for assuring us all. Now we can rest at last.


Well, it's an educated guess on my part, factoring in Obama's comments w/r/t Rice, wherein he said that she was simply toeing a party line based on the intel she had received, and telling people that what she did was ultimately his responsibility ("If Senators Graham and McCain want to go after somebody, they should go after me."). And, like when Andy was so clueless about how the DOJ works that he put up a staunch resistance to the obvious notion that Eric Holder had the Petraeus information before the election, it's just the way these things work.
   8909. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 17, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4305140)
While the mob thing is a bit silly, I don't really disagree with any of this.


My reference to a mob boss was merely a mechanical analogy of how someone can give a directive but not actually take part in carrying it out; my analogy was not meant to be a contextual one. So no, I don't think Obama is substantively like Michael Corleone.
   8910. zenbitz Posted: November 17, 2012 at 05:32 PM (#4305142)
The ludicrous nature of the point is due to the ambiguity of the text of the 2nd amendment.
Leading to deciding which arms are legal and which are banned soley by whim.
   8911. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 17, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4305149)
A right can exist and not be a constitutional right. People insisted on their rights long before the US constitution. Same with the dumbass idea of making corporations a person with human rights. That does not have to follow.

Sure, but until all sides here acknowledge that the right to possess the most basic of firearms — i.e., handguns and shotguns — is either protected by the Second Amendment or, per your comment above, is such a fundamental right as to be understood not to even need constitutional protection, there's no sense debating whether Weapon A or Weapon B should be allowed, or whether magazines should be limited to six, nine, or 100 bullets, etc.
   8912. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: November 17, 2012 at 05:46 PM (#4305156)
What would be the point of cataloging and debating various weapons before people acknowledge that the right to possess at least some firearms plainly exists? Also, when debating gun rights, pointing out that places like Chicago and D.C. had flat gun bans — and would like to reinstate such bans — is not remotely a "strawman."
I'm not really a gun enthusiast--is "flat gun" a synonym for "hand guns and auto/semi-autos"? Nobody, not even DC/Chitown legislators, is denying "the right to possess at least some firearms", they just drew extremely narrow limits. Besides, to repeat 8848, that just doesn't square with how America treats guns. You can have them, but not all of them, subject to regulation.
   8913. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 17, 2012 at 05:50 PM (#4305158)
I'm not really a gun enthusiast--is "flat gun" a synonym for "hand guns and auto/semi-autos"?

"Flat ban" = complete ban.

Nobody, not even DC/Chitown legislators, is denying "the right to possess at least some firearms", they just drew extremely narrow limits.

Incorrect.
   8914. Morty Causa Posted: November 17, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4305161)
is such a fundamental right as to be understood not to even need constitutional protection,


No, you insist on having your gods and their pronouncements, don't you? It's not just that it it's not prohibited in the constitution, or mandated by the constitution, it's not even contemplated by the Constitution. Thus, legislation by states or by the national government can be enacted all along the spectrum of possibilities. It's up to us to decide where.

You keep wanting to somehow find that it is one of the Ten Commandments. You have to find your interpretation is in some way sacred. No. It isn't. Not yours, not mine. There are no sacred rights in that sense--in the sense that an issue can't be a legislative possibility--that it is for some reason simply not on the board of play. Note how other advanced democratic western nations do it. Or Japan. Or Australia. Or Canada. They have no jerry-rigged system like ours that renders (in some minds at least)) some things untouchable. That goes against the very reason that there is government. If we think something should not be a law, it isn't legislated into statute. If we do, it is. What could be simpler? That was how it was done before this constitutional as natural law virus infected the body politic. As Richard Feynman once said, if you don't like the universe as it is, go somewhere else.
   8915. tshipman Posted: November 17, 2012 at 05:56 PM (#4305163)
Sure, but until all sides here acknowledge that the right to possess forearms is either protected by the Second Amendment or, per your comment above, is such a fundamental right as to be understood not to even need constitutional protection, there's no sense debating whether Weapon A or Weapon B should be allowed, or whether magazines should be limited to six, nine, or 100 bullets, etc.


The right to possess some firearms is protected until a constitutional amendment is passed.

There is no right to possess ALL firearms. I'm happy to allow for carbines and rifles to be owned by all Americans for the purposes of hunting and home defense. The right for any other weapon should be subject to strict scrutiny in my opinion.
   8916. Morty Causa Posted: November 17, 2012 at 06:03 PM (#4305166)
If the Second Amendment isn't on point, then this is a situation just like any other. You can have your views on what should be the law along a spectrum of 0 to 9 and so can I. It's decided through the political process. End of argument. You don't have a wild card that trumps.
   8917. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 17, 2012 at 06:07 PM (#4305169)
No, you insist on having your gods and their pronouncements, don't you? It's not just that it it's not prohibited in the constitution, or mandated by the constitution, it's not even contemplated by the Constitution. Thus, legislation by states or by the national government can be enacted all along the spectrum of possibilities. It's up to us to decide where.

When you said this:

A right can exist and not be a constitutional right.

... I thought you were actually talking about rights. I guess you were really talking about whims.

You can have your views on what should be the law along a spectrum of 0 to 9 and so can I.

The Second Amendment plainly says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The "shall not be infringed" part doesn't seem to contemplate a "spectrum" on which "0" is acceptable.
   8918. Morty Causa Posted: November 17, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4305171)
Okay, so we're back to you saying what you said you weren't saying.
   8919. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 17, 2012 at 06:17 PM (#4305172)
Okay, so we're back to you saying what you said you weren't saying.

Not at all, unless your "spectrum of 0 to 9" means something other than what I thought it meant. (I thought the "0" meant "no guns at all.")
   8920. Morty Causa Posted: November 17, 2012 at 06:18 PM (#4305173)
Remember my Indian Reservation example? The place, a residential place, a natural reserve, filled with volatile and inflammable gases due to dumping by petrochemical companies. Can the state or federal government pass a law prohibiting the ownership and possession of guns?
   8921. Morty Causa Posted: November 17, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4305174)
BTW, just as a matter of curiosity, if the Second Amendment were repealed, what would that mean to your concept of it as a right? Would it still be this sacrosanct absolute right that is legislatively inviolate? Or could states, localities, the federal government enact legislation banning them?
   8922. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 17, 2012 at 06:28 PM (#4305179)
Remember my Indian Reservation example? The place, a residential place, a natural reserve, filled with volatile and inflammable gases due to dumping by petrochemical companies. Can the state or federal government pass a law prohibiting the ownership and possession of guns?

Why would people be inhabiting such areas in the first place? Regardless, it seems akin to cars and blizzards: The government doesn't ban ownership of cars after a major blizzard hits, but it can shut the roads for a day or two in the aftermath.

BTW, just as a matter of curiosity, if the Second Amendment were repealed, what would that mean to your concept of it as a right? Would it still be this sacrosanct right? Could states, localities, the federal government enact legislation banning them?

Both the Founders and the Constitution made clear that we don't get our rights from the government, and I'm solidly in that camp myself.
   8923. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 17, 2012 at 07:44 PM (#4305196)
Lassus, in terms of off-the-beaten-path things in the Boston area, if you find yourself in Cambridge, the glass flowers exhibit at Harvard's Museum of Natural History is pretty cool.
   8924. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 17, 2012 at 08:14 PM (#4305204)
localities regularly confiscated guns in the name of public safety. the stuff with gene hackman in the movie 'unforgiven' was the reality in western towns of any size. they didn't want folks walking around armed. you gave up your guns and had them returned when you left town

and in earlier times guns were not made in uniform fashion so it was a real hassle having a weapon because if anything went bad you had to have something custom made to get it fixed. it took the civil war for real standardization of weapons to happen.

   8925. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 17, 2012 at 08:15 PM (#4305205)
by the way, as someone who owns over 150 guns i consider myself something of a 'gun nut'. i like to think i know the history of guns though i will claim the mantle of 'expert'.
   8926. Morty Causa Posted: November 17, 2012 at 08:50 PM (#4305224)
Why would people be inhabiting such areas in the first place? Regardless, it seems akin to cars and blizzards: The government doesn't ban ownership of cars after a major blizzard hits, but it can shut the roads for a day or two in the aftermath.


You should answer what was put to you, not change it to your liking.

Second, as Harveys Wallbangers noted, and as I mentioned a number of times (Wyatt Earp and Bill Hickok), guns have been banned in places and at times.

Now with weapons and ammunition that can propel shots through steel, you want to pretend that this is still 1787 and the government couldn't forbid any for the public good.

What a world, what a world.

Both the Founders and the Constitution made clear that we don't get our rights from the government, and I'm solidly in that camp myself.


Another unresponsive response. What would that mean, if the second amendment were repealed, as to the government's ability to make law on the issue of guns?

You know, anyway, isn't that a strange way to couch the language of the second amendment if it means what you say it means. The first amendment reads, Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech (and even then it is abridged). The second amendment does not have such clear and unambiguous language, does it? (This last is not a rhetorical question. Why doesn't the second amendment just say, that neither Congress nor the state legislature can pass any law banning the right to have and bear guns. You resting your entire case on "ban" when the amendment says "infringe". Why do you give ground like that?
   8927. Morty Causa Posted: November 17, 2012 at 08:58 PM (#4305231)
... I thought you were actually talking about rights. I guess you were really talking about whims.


You can't imagine a serious belief unless there is validation by government powera? You don't see how someone can believe in something deeply, but at the same time recognize that others can just as passionately believe the opposite, or something different--something less or more than you do? You think those other advanced democracies don't believe in rights--that it's all whims to them?
   8928. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 17, 2012 at 09:13 PM (#4305247)
You should answer what was put to you, not change it to your liking.

Your hypothetical — an area that is inhabited by people despite being full of flammable gases that could only be set off by gunfire and not by a stove or spark or lit match — was silly.

Second, as Harveys Wallbangers noted, and as I mentioned a number of times (Wyatt Earp and Bill Hickok), guns have been banned in places and at times.

And the legality of such bans was highly questionable.

Another unresponsive response. What would that mean, if the second amendment were repealed, as to the government's ability to make law on the issue of guns?

It wasn't unresponsive. Obviously, if the Second Amendment was repealed, that would affect the legality of gun possession vis-a-vis U.S. federal and/or state law. Whether such changes would be just would be another issue entirely. The same is true for all sorts of things, from life to slavery to property rights.

The second amendment does not have such clear and unambiguous language, does it? (This last is not a rhetorical question. Why doesn't the second amendment just say, that neither Congress nor the state legislature can pass any law banning the right to have and bear guns. You resting your entire case on "ban" when the amendment says "infringe". Why do you give ground like that?

Given that private firearm possession was legal in 100 percent of the United States for decades after ratification, including even by people who weren't, at the time, otherwise seen as enjoying full constitutional protection (women, blacks), the Second Amendment is only ambiguous to people who decided to start playing lawyer some 150 years after the Constitution was drafted and ratified.
   8929. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 18, 2012 at 12:55 AM (#4305412)
Thanks for the clarifications in 8879, Bud, Very enjoyable.

Here's an off-topic question - I'm going to Boston for the first time as a tourist in many years (only gigs and weddings since college). Before I go invade Sed Sox Therapy with this question, does anyone have any good can't-miss or randomly odd things I shouldn't miss over Thanksgiving weekend? Weird tips especially appreciated.
Catch the red-eye to Montreal, have breakfast in a topless diner, get your hair cut in a topless barbershop, then spend the day getting slowly hammered in the city's finer strip clubs. You had to ask?


The conservative radio host pointed to an Italian study which found that the average male penis was 10 percent smaller than 50 years ago.
Smaller, or shorter? And wouldn't simply getting vastly fatter as a society, alone, take care of the missing .6 or .7 inches?

Sorry for the boring tactical digression.

Np. The link led to some more cool links showing what gun nuts are getting up to. My favorite is the silencer made out of old oil filters, and that reduce the sound of shots to loud clicks. Another was watching the hot girl blast away with the extended shotgun magazine. She didn't have the sense to adjust for the kick, so by the time she fired the last shell the muzzle was nearly vertical.

Another sign of the decline of civilization:
Teens Get Lap Dances At Sweet Sixteen Birthday Party In New York
The police are actually getting involved in this.

Obama used her, to her great detriment. Way to treat a minority woman in your administration.
Concern trolling at its goofiest.
   8930. tshipman Posted: November 18, 2012 at 01:01 AM (#4305414)
Given that private firearm possession was legal in 100 percent of the United States for decades after ratification, including even by people who weren't, at the time, otherwise seen as enjoying full constitutional protection (women, blacks), the Second Amendment is only ambiguous to people who decided to start playing lawyer some 150 years after the Constitution was drafted and ratified.


Jigga-what?

During the Revolutionary war, firearms were confiscated from people who refused to sign loyalty oaths to the new government.

Most southern states banned slaves from owning guns. Virginia and South Carolina, among other states, passed explicitly racial laws preventing even freed blacks from owning guns.

You really have no clue what you're talking about here.
   8931. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 18, 2012 at 01:15 AM (#4305420)
During the Revolutionary war, firearms were confiscated from people who refused to sign loyalty oaths to the new government.

Most southern states banned slaves from owning guns. Virginia and South Carolina, among other states, passed explicitly racial laws preventing even freed blacks from owning guns.

You really have no clue what you're talking about here.

Yikes. Speaking of having no clue ...

The Constitution was ratified during the Revolutionary War? Every black person in the U.S. was a slave?
   8932. tshipman Posted: November 18, 2012 at 01:17 AM (#4305421)
The Constitution was ratified during the Revolutionary War?


You said this: "the Second Amendment is only ambiguous to people who decided to start playing lawyer some 150 years after the Constitution was drafted and ratified."

It was ambiguous to the founders who required loyalty oaths to own guns.


Every black person in the U.S. was a slave?


Virginia and the Carolinas passed laws preventing even freed blacks from owning guns.

Also, if federal law is more your bag, the 1792 Militia Act explicitly prohibited blacks from joining the militia. This goes to the first part of the 2nd amendment.
   8933. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 18, 2012 at 01:28 AM (#4305424)
You said this: "the Second Amendment is only ambiguous to people who decided to start playing lawyer some 150 years after the Constitution was drafted and ratified."

It was ambiguous to the founders who required loyalty oaths to own guns.

You mean the people who declared independence from the world's dominant power didn't issue guns to people who might oppose their efforts? Shocking.

Virginia and the Carolinas passed laws preventing even freed blacks from owning guns.

I didn't say that every single black person was allowed to own guns in 1789. The point was, at least some blacks were allowed to own guns before they were allowed, among other things, to vote.
   8934. tshipman Posted: November 18, 2012 at 01:34 AM (#4305427)

I didn't say that every single black person was allowed to own guns in 1789. The point was, at least some blacks were allowed to own guns before they were allowed, among other things, to vote.



Given that private firearm possession was legal in 100 percent of the United States for decades after ratification, including even by people who weren't, at the time, otherwise seen as enjoying full constitutional protection (women, blacks),


Really? You have an amazing ability to ignore what you write just a few minutes before.

You mean the people who declared independence from the world's dominant power didn't issue guns to people who might oppose their efforts?


Both the Founders and the Constitution made clear that we don't get our rights from the government, and I'm solidly in that camp myself.


Oh look, you did it again.
   8935. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 18, 2012 at 01:41 AM (#4305430)
Huh? Where's the "gotcha" in either of those?

I said "firearm possession was legal in 100 percent of the United States for decades after ratification." Can you point to any D.C.- or Chicago-style gun bans anywhere in the U.S. in the decades after ratification?

The second "gotcha" attempt is even more pathetic. The idea that revolutionaries would, on principle, issue weapons to their enemies or potential enemies is sheer lunacy.
   8936. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 18, 2012 at 07:16 AM (#4305445)
by the way, if folks want a refresher on guns you should check out back story radio. it posted a history of guns in the u.s.

i think it would be helpful for folks here

not saying it's the definitive source but a good bit of it jibes with my understanding

and to edit my earlier my post i am 'not' claiming the mantle of gun expert
   8937. Lassus Posted: November 18, 2012 at 07:43 AM (#4305447)
You mean the people who declared independence from the world's dominant power didn't issue guns to people who might oppose their efforts? Shocking.

Not very freedom-loving.
   8938. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 18, 2012 at 08:10 AM (#4305452)
The second "gotcha" attempt is even more pathetic. The idea that revolutionaries would, on principle, issue weapons to their enemies or potential enemies is sheer lunacy

They did not issue weapons to enemies. They confiscated weapons from people who they did not believe were loyal.
   8939. Morty Causa Posted: November 18, 2012 at 09:44 AM (#4305467)
Straight Shot: Guns in America

This isn't a substitute for actually doing some reading, but it's an intelligent skinny based on historical fact that will give your view perspective. Which means, of course, that the people who should inform their opinion will ignore it.

Kehoskie is wrong about his textual reading of the second amendment and he is ignorant of the history of gun ownership and government control. He can't think outside his box and he won't inform himself.
   8940. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 18, 2012 at 10:16 AM (#4305475)
It is bothersome to me that Joe's continuing idiocy on the guns rights question is not even the stupidest conversation on the board right now. Way to step up to the plate, Ray Ray.

(And by the way, I predicted that a freak out over some nutter fringe idea of a "Benghazi-gate" would be the first thing out of the post-reelection blocks, a month before the election.)
   8941. Lassus Posted: November 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM (#4305486)
I dunno, any debate between Joe and Morty pretty much vaults to the head of the "unwanted previews of an eternity in hell" designation.
   8942. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM (#4305489)
I dunno, any debate between Joe and Morty pretty much vaults to the head of the "unwanted previews of an eternity in hell" designation.


Is that before or after the "frozen alive in turdcicles of human #### circle? (Dante was a freay-deaky mutha.)
   8943. formerly dp Posted: November 18, 2012 at 10:40 AM (#4305490)
I dunno, any debate between Joe and Morty pretty much vaults to the head of the "unwanted previews of an eternity in hell" designation.
Along those lines: we got to Skyfall early yesterday. For our efforts, we were rewarded with two separate previews for the new season of Cougar Town. THEY WOULDN'T STOP THE SINGING!!! AND IN FULL IMAX SOUND!!!!

This conversation is like that, only slower and less intense.
   8944. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 18, 2012 at 10:54 AM (#4305493)
   8945. formerly dp Posted: November 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM (#4305495)
This one came through my inbox:
WASHINGTON, DC – Sources confirmed today that hundreds of thousands of military absentee ballots were delivered hours after the deadline for them to be counted, with preliminary counts showing that they would have overturned the vote in several states and brought a victory for Governor Mitt Romney.

Officials say the ballots were delivered late due to problems within the military mail system. Tracking invoices show the ballots sat in a warehouse for a month, then they were accidentally labeled as ammunition and shipped to Afghanistan. At Camp Dwyer, Marine Sergeant John Davis signed for them and was surprised at the contents.

“I told Gunny we got a bunch of ballots instead of ammo,” Davis told investigators earlier today. “He told me to file a report of improper delivery and that the chain of command would take care of it. We didn’t hear anything for three weeks. While we were waiting we came under fire so we dumped a bunch of them in the Hescoes. We didn’t dig those ones back out.”
After military officials realized the initial error, the ballots were then sent back to the U.S. but suffered a series of setbacks.

Twelve boxes of ballots were dropped overboard during delivery to the USS Kearsarge (LHD-3) in the Persian Gulf, then while the ship sailed to Bahrain, postal clerks allegedly pocketed whatever ballots they wanted.
The remaining absentee ballots were loaded onto a C-130, but the flight was delayed until November 1st so the crew could get tax free pay for the month. Once the ballots arrived stateside they were promptly mailed to each state’s counting facility, reaching their final destination on November 7th.

“It’s a shame,” Rear Admiral John Dawes said when asked for comment. “I expected a delay so I ordered that everyone cast their votes eight months ago. It’s really unfortunate that our mail system failed us and directly affected the course of history.”

Upon hearing the news, angry Republicans have begun a demand for a recount, but most military absentee voters have shrugged off the news, with many wondering whether the care packages their families sent six months ago were ever going to show up.
   8946. Tripon Posted: November 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM (#4305496)
The remaining absentee ballots were loaded onto a C-130, but the flight was delayed until November 1st so the crew could get tax free pay for the month. Once the ballots arrived stateside they were promptly mailed to each state’s counting facility, reaching their final destination on November 7th.


That's part is hilarious. Who the heck is going to fall for this concern trolling trap?
   8947. DA Baracus Posted: November 18, 2012 at 11:12 AM (#4305498)
Sources confirmed today that hundreds of thousands of military absentee ballots were delivered hours after the deadline for them to be counted, with preliminary counts showing that they would have overturned the vote in several states and brought a victory for Governor Mitt Romney.


LOL. Conveniently leaves out which states.

Extra LOL: It's from a satire site.
   8948. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 18, 2012 at 11:18 AM (#4305499)
It's from a military comedy website called the Duffel Blog, which tries to imitate the Onion style (another example of their reportage: “Blasting Shrill Whistle Throughout Ship Great For Morale, Navy Study Finds”). Through error or mischief, the article is being passed around as 100% true. A Pentagon spokesperson was obliged to respond, “We are not aware of any lost ballots at DoD overseas military locations.”
   8949. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 18, 2012 at 11:23 AM (#4305500)
Twelve boxes of ballots were dropped overboard during delivery to the USS Kearsarge (LHD-3) in the Persian Gulf, then while the ship sailed to Bahrain...

Presumably to check on some of Romney's stock portfolios before heading to the Caymans to report to him directly.

-----------------------------------------

It's from a military comedy website called the Duffel Blog, which tries to imitate the Onion style (another example of their reportage: “Blasting Shrill Whistle Throughout Ship Great For Morale, Navy Study Finds”). Through error or mischief, the article being passed around as 100% true. A Pentagon spokesperson was obliged to respond, “We are not aware of any lost ballots at DoD overseas military locations.”

That's not very nice of you to ruin Joe's lunch.

   8950. formerly dp Posted: November 18, 2012 at 11:26 AM (#4305501)
Through error or mischief, the article being passed around as 100% true.
That's awesome. The forward I received said: Well, this certainly shows the respect that our "government" has for our military personell!!!
   8951. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 18, 2012 at 11:26 AM (#4305502)
   8952. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 18, 2012 at 11:30 AM (#4305506)
What's even funnier is that though the blog is clearly labeled "satire", most of the posted comments took it seriously.

And after several people had pointed out that it was satire, they still didn't give up....

AskMarion says:
November 10, 2012 at 9:08 pm


I have had an amazing response (reads, comments and emails) to this post, which is satirical. The first time I read it, I thought it was true, until I looked around on the originial site.

However… although the Duffel Bag is a satirical site, there have been reports that many of our military personnel were not able to vote because of lack of voting stations, and there are all to often missing ballots.

About 80% of the Duffell Bag’s posts are satirical or humorous, but often when pieces like this are written, they are based on some truth and suspicions; a subtle way of saying look into this without giving up sources or being marked as a whistleblower. Most jokes and humor hit a nerve because there is at least a hint of underlying truth involved.

   8953. formerly dp Posted: November 18, 2012 at 12:10 PM (#4305519)
but often when pieces like this are written, they are based on some truth and suspicions; a subtle way of saying look into this without giving up sources or being marked as a whistleblower. Most jokes and humor hit a nerve because there is at least a hint of underlying truth involved.
I felt the same way about this article.
   8954. spike Posted: November 18, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4305540)
Most jokes and humor hit a nerve because there is at least a hint of underlying truth involved.

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be
   8955. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 18, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4305603)
If something was truly a fundamental principle, it wouldn't need to be an amendment, would it? #QED #REALoriginalist #who'syourfoundingdaddy
   8956. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 18, 2012 at 06:52 PM (#4305661)
Kehoskie is wrong about his textual reading of the second amendment and he is ignorant of the history of gun ownership and government control. He can't think outside his box and he won't inform himself.

There's nothing funnier than liberals claiming to have a monopoly on open-mindedness.

Anyway, it's really lucky for America that people as smart as Morty Causa and Sam Hutcheson came along to dispel the incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment that remained in effect in 100 percent of the United States from 1789 to roughly 1960, and in 80-plus percent of the United States from around 1960 until Heller and McDonald, when it reverted back to being in effect in 100 percent of the United States.

Oddly, neither of your names appear on an amicus filing in Heller or McDonald. Were you guys asleep at the wheel, did you both have a post-Heller or post-McDonald epiphany, or were you saving your legal brilliance for BBTF?
   8957. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 18, 2012 at 06:57 PM (#4305664)
Anyway, it's really lucky for America that people as smart as Morty Causa and Sam Hutcheson came along to dispel the incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment


Look, #######. You can't even read well enough for comprehension to *establish my ####### position.* You're a really good example of why abortion should be legal.
   8958. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 18, 2012 at 07:03 PM (#4305667)
Look, #######. You can't even read well enough for comprehension to *establish my ####### position.* You're a really good example of why abortion should be legal.

Hey, it's not my fault the Founders wrote the Second Amendment in clearer language than you've used to describe your position *on* the Second Amendment. Luckily for us, the Founders wrote in plain English, not philosobabble.
   8959. tshipman Posted: November 18, 2012 at 08:05 PM (#4305689)
Anyway, it's really lucky for America that people as smart as Morty Causa and Sam Hutcheson came along to dispel the incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment that remained in effect in 100 percent of the United States from 1789 to roughly 1960, and in 80-plus percent of the United States from around 1960 until Heller and McDonald, when it reverted back to being in effect in 100 percent of the United States.


So it's your position that it'd be constitutional to ban white people from owning guns?
   8960. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 18, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4305695)
So it's your position that it'd be constitutional to ban white people from owning guns?

No, but even if we played along with that silly game, that would still leave non-whites with the right to keep and bear firearms.
   8961. Lassus Posted: November 18, 2012 at 08:29 PM (#4305698)
There's nothing funnier than liberals claiming to have a monopoly on open-mindedness.

A claim that you are not open-minded is not close to saying a.) only liberals are or even b.) no conservatives are.

Monopoly is a fun game, however, if you want to use the word correctly.
   8962. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 19, 2012 at 08:40 AM (#4305794)
Aren't 'conservatives' (not that anyone currently posting in this thread is one) by definition NOT openminded? Isn't resistance to the new part what animates conservatism? And isn't one aim of classic liberalism to seek and find new solutions to the ongoing sources of human suffering?

And isn't thoughtful resistance to stupid, pointless arguments one of the tenets of classic liberalism?
   8963. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 19, 2012 at 09:31 AM (#4305807)
Jack Carter,

Nice post and I would agree. As applies to the political parties though I think a case could be made that the parties have shifted their alignment a bit. The GOP has become more reactionary than conservative and the Democrats more conservative then Progressive.

The GOP wants to move back to the good old days, not just halting change but rolling things back to how they were. While the Democrats want to conserve the conceptually finished* New Deal, protecting it from attack. Part of this is why simple narrative about the US moving right (or left, or whatever) is too simple.

Socially the nation (and in large part the world) is slowly moving leftward. Economically there are changes in all directions much of it fueled by reactions to changes in technology. In terms of framework (as discussed above) there is somewhat of a rightward shift.

Hey look something for everyone.

* Access to health care was the last big piece. While it is not done (well in politics things are rarely ever done), but the conceptual framework is in place with Obamacare having been enacted, ratified by the SC, and with four more years of Obama in power pretty much solidified. Poll numbers already show it in a more solid place than before the election.
   8964. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 19, 2012 at 10:01 AM (#4305819)
Hey look something for everyone.

I've often wondered if there were a single issue on which every person (not just 90%) who posts on these political threads would agree, and I think I've found it:

As Coasts Rebuild and U.S. Pays, Repeatedly, the Critics Ask Why

Is there a single person here who thinks that the government should subsidize the rebuilding houses and businesses on coastal strips where people have been warned about the risks for what seems like forever?
   8965. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: November 19, 2012 at 10:09 AM (#4305825)
In a disappointing development, Drudge had a substanceless attack headline on Christie this AM, giving it play over the Israel-Gaza war. The radical right attack on plausible 2016 moderates has already begun.
   8966. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 19, 2012 at 10:12 AM (#4305829)
Is there a single person here who thinks that the government should subsidize the rebuilding houses and businesses on coastal strips where people have been warned about the risks for what seems like forever?


I am not in favor of it, but I am not sure which alternative is better. Transitioning away from a generations long bad policy is hard. Something does need to change though.
   8967. tshipman Posted: November 19, 2012 at 10:18 AM (#4305831)
In a disappointing development, Drudge had a substanceless attack headline on Christie this AM, giving it play over the Israel-Gaza war. The radical right attack on plausible 2016 moderates has already begun.


While I agree that attacking Christie is skeezy, he's not a plausible candidate for 2016.

Guys who are no longer plausible for R's in 2016:
Christie
Mitch Daniels
Haley Barbour
Pawlenty
Rob Portman
Palin
Huckabee
Anyone else who lost to Romney

Guys who are still somewhat plausible:
Rubio
Jindal
Jeb (really not sure about this one)
Random other people.


Really not sure if a Bush can be elected in 2016. I have no real good feeling for this.

   8968. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 19, 2012 at 10:21 AM (#4305832)
tshipman,

I am not challenging you, because I have little insight into the GOP, but can you explain why the list of not plausible is? I agree with a little over half, but I could see some of them show up. Aside, what are your thoughts on the Democrat side?
   8969. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: November 19, 2012 at 10:28 AM (#4305834)

While I agree that attacking Christie is skeezy, he's not a plausible candidate for 2016.



Why?
   8970. Ron J2 Posted: November 19, 2012 at 10:28 AM (#4305836)
I suppose the Government of North Korea would give serious consideration to nuking one its own provinces if such province was in open rebellion... but even in the case of North Korea- if you are facing a widespread and diverse rebellion- what good are nukes?


It's not nukes, but at least two nations (Syria and Iraq) have used poison gas to suppress revolts.
   8971. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 19, 2012 at 10:34 AM (#4305838)
This one's for Ray Ray. Scandal envy.
   8972. Ron J2 Posted: November 19, 2012 at 10:37 AM (#4305839)
could some random rich guy go out and buy a cannon keep it for personal use? I'm sure was completely impractical to do so


Wade Hampton was able to equip a larger than brigade sized force out of his own pocket in 1860. Including IIRC two batteries of artillery.

He hadn't done so before 1860, but there was no practical impediment on his buying them.

Also during the civil war there were cases of unit commanders buying better than standard issue arms for their units. Wilder's brigade comes to mind.
   8973. Kurt Posted: November 19, 2012 at 10:42 AM (#4305841)
Is there a single person here who thinks that the government should subsidize the rebuilding houses and businesses on coastal strips where people have been warned about the risks for what seems like forever?

A few months back someone posted a hypothetical scenario about someone who elected not to insure their house and watched it burn down. The poster's point was that radical libertarians were so awful they would be opposed to government rebuilding that person's house. Plenty of people agreed with him. I'm not sure what's so wildly different here.
   8974. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 19, 2012 at 10:48 AM (#4305843)
This one's for Ray Ray. Scandal envy.


I've not said there's a scandal here. I said Holder should have told Obama about the Petraeus/Broadwell investigation before the election, and Obama used Susan Rice as a patsy to peddle false information about Benghazi for political gain. That's not a scandal; it's politics. If everything I said is true, it is no crime; it carries no penalty.

As you well know, Sam, I never suggested that Obama was responsible for FOUR AMERICANS DYING, or anything like that. But by all means, continue to imply that I did. Why be interested in honest conversation? Honest conversation and circle jerks don't go hand in hand.
   8975. tshipman Posted: November 19, 2012 at 10:49 AM (#4305845)
I am not challenging you, because I have little insight into the GOP, but can you explain why the list of not plausible is? I agree with a little over half, but I could see some of them show up. Aside, what are your thoughts on the Democrat side?


Why?


Mostly their behavior after the election. A lot of these guys have demonstrated that they don't have a commitment to campaigning for president, which is a very difficult, full time job. Mitch Daniels has decided to not act as a partisan actor--he is running Perdue now and doesn't want to comment on Politics. Christie is massively overweight and bowed out of the race this cycle, which is a bad sign for his willingness to campaign in 2016. If Ryan wants to run, he pretty much has to resign from his house seat sometime in the next year or so. He takes too many votes from that seat.

Basically, a lot of these guys either lost the last invisible primary, or have demonstrated an unwillingness to campaign. Jindal's the only 2012 invisible primary loser who started campaigning after the election. That's pretty much what you need to do in order to be considered. It's a pretty wide open field right now, though. I think most of those guys are pretty clearly out, though.
   8976. Poulanc Posted: November 19, 2012 at 10:54 AM (#4305849)
Christie is massively overweight


I've seen this posted many times. What difference does it make how big he is?
   8977. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 19, 2012 at 10:56 AM (#4305850)
A few months back someone posted a hypothetical scenario about someone who elected not to insure their house and watched it burn down.


That wasn't a hypothetical - it actually happened, in Tennessee.
   8978. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 19, 2012 at 10:58 AM (#4305851)
I've seen this posted many times. What difference does it make how big he is?


Historically, Americans have generally been reluctant to vote for a fat guy (with Taft being a notable exception).

With the nation's increasing obesity, that may not carry forward, of course.
   8979. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:00 AM (#4305853)
Is there a single person here who thinks that the government should subsidize the rebuilding houses and businesses on coastal strips where people have been warned about the risks for what seems like forever?

A few months back someone posted a hypothetical scenario about someone who elected not to insure their house and watched it burn down. The poster's point was that radical libertarians were so awful they would be opposed to government rebuilding that person's house. Plenty of people agreed with him. I'm not sure what's so wildly different here.


I'd like to see the link to that thread, because it doesn't sound right. There's a distinction between saying that current (subsidized) insurance policies should be honored---which they should---and saying that the government should continue to underwrite such policies in the future---which they shouldn't.

And IMO if a person living in a high risk coastal area refused to purchase house insurance---even though that insurance is heavily subsidized by the government---then AFAIC let the Salvation Army rebuild it. Deliberately exposing yourself and your property to easily predictable danger is fine, but it should be totally on your own dime if you lose your bet.
   8980. The Good Face Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:02 AM (#4305855)
Mostly their behavior after the election. A lot of these guys have demonstrated that they don't have a commitment to campaigning for president, which is a very difficult, full time job. Mitch Daniels has decided to not act as a partisan actor--he is running Perdue now and doesn't want to comment on Politics. Christie is massively overweight and bowed out of the race this cycle, which is a bad sign for his willingness to campaign in 2016. If Ryan wants to run, he pretty much has to resign from his house seat sometime in the next year or so. He takes too many votes from that seat.

Basically, a lot of these guys either lost the last invisible primary, or have demonstrated an unwillingness to campaign. Jindal's the only 2012 invisible primary loser who started campaigning after the election. That's pretty much what you need to do in order to be considered. It's a pretty wide open field right now, though. I think most of those guys are pretty clearly out, though.


I think Christie not running was a combination of a few factors. First, he didn't think he was ready; as a 1st term governor without any other real national political experience, he had a light resume. Second, he had a late start; by the time Republican big shots started begging him to run, it was late in the game and he didn't want to do things half-assed. Third, I think he read the tea leaves correctly that 2012 would be a tough election to win and decided to keep his powder dry for an open election in 2016, assuming he was interested.

All that said, I'd be surprised if he got the nomination, even if he did seek it. The conservative base doesn't really trust him, he's incredibly fat and it's been ages since America nominated a really fat guy for President, let alone elected one, and I can easily see his personality/charisma not translating well outside the NE corridor. Still, he's a shrewd enough pol and at least he HAS some charisma, which gives him a leg up on the competition. Too soon to toss him into the Palin/Huckabee pile.
   8981. tshipman Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:05 AM (#4305859)
I've seen this posted many times. What difference does it make how big he is?


You ever notice how male politicians never have facial hair?

Above and beyond whether people would vote for a fat guy, the presidential campaign trail is just too strenous, as is governing. Look at the before/after pictures of any president. They just age in dog years. Christie's level of obesity would also put him at substantial health risk if he were to run the country. Someone with a chronic disease like MS would also have a hard time getting elected.

This is just with respect to how his size makes him a difficult candidate. The other problems he has is that he would be the second candidate from the moderate North East to run, which doesn't happen for Republicans, and he'd be the second candidate whose main constituency is the "money guys". Above and beyond all of that, he's shown no interest in the job in his comments after this cycle. I feel like he's the safest guy to rule out.
   8982. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM (#4305866)
A few months back someone posted a hypothetical scenario about someone who elected not to insure their house and watched it burn down.


That wasn't a hypothetical - it actually happened, in Tennessee.

Well, the obvious solution to that in a sane world would be for that $75 fee to be garnished in advance from that stupid homeowner's wages, or to have the fire department's fees incorporated into the town's overall budget. I don't feel particularly sorry for that cheap-assed homeowner, since he admitted he hadn't paid the fee. But there might conceivably be cases where the fee got misplaced or didn't get marked as paid through some sort of a clerical error, and including the fire department in the overall town budget would take care of potentially deadly clerical errors like that.
   8983. Morty Causa Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:11 AM (#4305867)
There's a reason why most people in this country and this world don't live far from the coast. Forces, private and public, encourage people to live on or near the coasts of oceans and seas. Before making blanket decisions that treat everyone as well-to-do second-homers, this should be taken into consideration.
   8984. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4305868)
I've seen this posted many times. What difference does it make how big he is?


Clearly, it _has_ made a difference. Could be a fluke. Could be a lack of fat politicians running. Could be that most politicians are not as fat as the average person. Could be that people think he might suffer a heart attack in office. Could be that people think a person who is morbidly obese doesn't have good decisionmaking ability.
   8985. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:18 AM (#4305872)
Look at the before/after pictures of any president. They just age in dog years.


A myth, as far as I can tell. Most presidents are in their 50s or 60s when they take office. Most people in their 50s or 60s will look far more aged eight years down the line than younger people over that same timespan.
   8986. Morty Causa Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:19 AM (#4305873)
There's nothing funnier than liberals claiming to have a monopoly on open-mindedness.


What's one more red herring, eh? One should be provisionally open-minded, but not so open-minded that one's brains fall out is the saying, and this open-mindedness, or lack of, shouldn't be allowed to be used willy-nilly to prevent a conclusion being arrived at. All conclusions, yours and mind, should be to at least some extent provisional. The fact is that Kehoskie's reading of the Second Amendment is not supported by any textual or originalist interpretation (see the Federalist papers) or by history--previous, contemporaneous, or subsequent to the passage of the amendment. That it can be salvaged for use in some way--meh. Have at it, but get off the Old Testament pedestal.
   8987. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:24 AM (#4305876)
Wade Hampton was able to equip a larger than brigade sized force out of his own pocket in 1860. Including IIRC two batteries of artillery.


Can Bill Gates buy a decommissioned Russian air craft carrier for his personal use? Submarines? I know there was an old NATO submarine base for sale in Norway last year. Would it be kosher if Gates decided to go all Dr. No and buy that and equip it with his own personal navy? The Koch brothers? Sheldon Anderson?
   8988. Poulanc Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:27 AM (#4305881)
Historically, Americans have generally been reluctant to vote for a fat guy (with Taft being a notable exception).


While I agree that I can't think of many successful obese politicians, I don't know if that means they wouldn't be successful. Or, to put it another way, I can't think of anyone that I voted against because they were fat.


With the nation's increasing obesity, that may not carry forward, of course.


I agree with this as well.


You ever notice how male politicians never have facial hair?


Actually, I hadn't. But now that you mention it, I see that it is true. Any ideas why?
   8989. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:27 AM (#4305882)
've not said there's a scandal here. I said Holder should have told Obama about the Petraeus/Broadwell investigation before the election, and Obama used Susan Rice as a patsy to peddle false information about Benghazi for political gain. That's not a scandal; it's politics. If everything I said is true, it is no crime; it carries no penalty.


Well, you seemed to be slightly obsessed with this thing for a while there. If this is your final net-net, I'll simply punt on Holder's decision on when to notify his superiors (and note that this is just a lot of navel gazing to worry about when that did or did not happen on the calendar). On the second, I disagree that Susan Rice said anything notably incorrect on her talk show rounds, so as such, I find the idea that she was a "patsy" to be silly on its face.
   8990. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4305890)
There's a reason why most people in this country and this world don't live far from the coast. Forces, private and public, encourage people to live on or near the coasts of oceans and seas. Before making blanket decisions that treat everyone as well-to-do second-homers, this should be taken into consideration.

Three word summary of the above: Necessary transition period.

And I'm not arguing with that. And I'm not putting areas that get a Sandy once every 100 years in the same category that see hurricanes every 5 or 10 years. These are nuances that would have to be worked out. There might be others.

But beginning today, I can't see subsidizing insurance premiums for anyone who chooses to build (or re-build) a home or business in a high risk coastal area, unless those homes or businesses are built to withstand the highest category of hurricane, with the extra cost of that upgrade to be paid 100% by the property owner.

Bottom line is that "buyer beware" should have been long ago a perfectly rational response to high risk coastal area housing purchases. But it wasn't. But that in turn doesn't mean that it shouldn't be codified into law going forward.
   8991. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:43 AM (#4305896)
And I'm not arguing with that. And I'm not putting areas that get a Sandy once every 100 years in the same category that see hurricanes every 5 or 10 years.


Wasn't Sandy a tropical storm when it made landfall in the northeast, and no more than a Cat 2 at its peak in the Caribbean? My understanding is that the problem was (a) that it ran into a high pressure system that caused it to break inwards, and (b) that it hit the tri-state area at high tide. Essentially coincidences.

   8992. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4305897)
Actually, I hadn't. But now that you mention it, I see that it is true. Any ideas why?


In the 20th and 21st century, Americans value images of youthful vigor over images of manly wisdom. The growing obesity demographic may push the weight criteria up a bit from where it currently rests, but Americans want to vote for a candidate they find physically attractive. Modern male aesthetics mean no facial hair. (It also helps in that regard that beards and unshaven faces have been associated with dirty hippies since the 1960s.)
   8993. Greg K Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:48 AM (#4305899)
In the 20th and 21st century, Americans value images of youthful vigor over images of manly wisdom. The growing obesity demographic may push the weight criteria up a bit from where it currently rests, but Americans want to vote for a candidate they find physically attractive. Modern male aesthetics mean no facial hair. (It also helps in that regard that beards and unshaven faces have been associated with dirty hippies since the 1960s.)

Speaking as someone who's been bearded since the age of about 13, this makes me sad.

I should note that it's not really a statement of any kind...I just look really stupid clean-shaven.

EDIT: When will modern society properly value people who look like Mick Foley!?!?!
   8994. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:49 AM (#4305900)
Even Katrina, for all of its intensity, caused its biggest damage as a result of the fact that a massive amount of water was perched unstably over a city.
   8995. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:50 AM (#4305901)
Historically, Americans have generally been reluctant to vote for a fat guy (with Taft being a notable exception).


While I agree that I can't think of many successful obese politicians, I don't know if that means they wouldn't be successful. Or, to put it another way, I can't think of anyone that I voted against because they were fat.

I wouldn't base my vote on a candidate's appearance, either, but realistically I think it's going to have to take a relatively bland Big Guy in order to break the ice. Right now Jeb Bush fits that bill better than anyone---he's kind of dumpy looking** and clearly overweight, but not ridiculously obese like Christie.

**Certainly compared to nearly every other winning presidential candidate in recent decades, at the time they were elected. You have to go back to Nixon and LBJ to find a president who would credibly be described as dumpy looking at the time of his first campaign. Bush 41 and Carter weren't exactly Mr. America types from the neck up, but they were both in excellent physical condition.
   8996. Kurt Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:53 AM (#4305905)
I'd like to see the link to that thread, because it doesn't sound right.

Andy, I found the post I was thinking of:

221. BurlyBuehrle Posted: July 03, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4172237)

Having read most of this thread, and generally lurking here, a couple points stand out to me:

(1) [snip]

(2) Libertarian arguments are very rarely called to task for the "what now?" aspect that they completely ignore. Assume for a moment that we can somehow configure a society where opting out of, say, fire control, only puts your specific property at risk. (Put aside the inanity of that assumption.) A family makes the choice to opt out and pocket the savings. Their house, with all their worldly possessions, burns to the ground. *What Now?* The libertarian response might be "tough." But is that the society we want to create and inhabit? And, what about the collateral damage -- the children of that family didn't have the agency necessary to participate in the decision to opt out, and yet, they will be harshly penalized. *What Now?* A very similar argument can be made for healthcare. The Hobbesian fantasyland where there are these isolated choices that don't affect others simply doesn't exist. We live in a society, where your choices affect me. Deal with it.


Link.

   8997. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:54 AM (#4305907)
And I'm not arguing with that. And I'm not putting areas that get a Sandy once every 100 years in the same category that see hurricanes every 5 or 10 years.

Wasn't Sandy a tropical storm when it made landfall in the northeast, and no more than a Cat 2 at its peak in the Caribbean? My understanding is that the problem was (a) that it ran into a high pressure system that caused it to break inwards, and (b) that it hit the tri-state area at high tide. Essentially coincidences.


I agree, and I wouldn't be applying the same category to Queens houses that I would to houses on the Outer Banks of North Carolina. I'm not pretending for a minute that this is an easy problem when it comes to working out details.
   8998. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 19, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4305910)
Thanks for the link, Kurt, and now I remember the discussion.

My response to that argument would be what I wrote in # 8982, which would also indirectly deal with the additional good points that Burly raised:

Well, the obvious solution to that in a sane world would be for that $75 fee to be garnished in advance from that stupid homeowner's wages, or to have the fire department's fees incorporated into the town's overall budget. I don't feel particularly sorry for that cheap-assed homeowner, since he admitted he hadn't paid the fee. But there might conceivably be cases where the fee got misplaced or didn't get marked as paid through some sort of a clerical error, and including the fire department in the overall town budget would take care of potentially deadly clerical errors like that.

The point is not to let the cheap homeowner sponge off others. It's to take that decision out of his hands, one way or the other.
   8999. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 19, 2012 at 12:00 PM (#4305913)
A family makes the choice to opt out and pocket the savings. Their house, with all their worldly possessions, burns to the ground. *What Now?* The libertarian response might be "tough." But is that the society we want to create and inhabit? And, what about the collateral damage -- the children of that family didn't have the agency necessary to participate in the decision to opt out, and yet, they will be harshly penalized. *What Now?*


Family. Friends. Charity. Duh.
   9000. zonk Posted: November 19, 2012 at 12:02 PM (#4305914)
Even Katrina, for all of its intensity, caused its biggest damage as a result of the fact that a massive amount of water was perched unstably over a city.


But it doesn't have to be that way --

London, large swaths of Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands face varying degrees of the same - worse, in the case of some of the low-lying Dutch and Danish coastal cities.

Sure - the US has a lot more ocean coast than those nations to deal with -- but technological solutions exist, it's only the prevailing US opposition to spending on such costly infrastructure that keeps NYC or New Orleans or whatnot from having the same sorts of systems that protect Amsterdam, London, etc... Even Saint Petersburg has a relatively new storm flooding control system that puts NYC, NO, etc to shame.

Page 90 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 88 89 90 91 92 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Traderdave
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(4863 - 8:38pm, Dec 18)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogMatt Kemp's arthritic hips hold up deal with Padres
(40 - 8:38pm, Dec 18)
Last: boteman

NewsblogRoyals sign Kris Medlen to two-year deal - MLB Daily Dish
(21 - 8:32pm, Dec 18)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(691 - 8:16pm, Dec 18)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogAre Wil Myers' flaws fixable? | FOX Sports
(103 - 8:09pm, Dec 18)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-18-2014
(39 - 7:40pm, Dec 18)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(57 - 6:26pm, Dec 18)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogHow Will MLB Handle Big Changes With Cuba? - BaseballAmerica.com
(2 - 6:13pm, Dec 18)
Last: TDF, situational idiot

NewsblogMLBTR: Padres-Rays-Nationals Agree to Three-Team Trade
(56 - 6:03pm, Dec 18)
Last: boteman

NewsblogRoyals sign Edinson Volquez for two years, $20 million
(19 - 5:33pm, Dec 18)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogAZCentral: Miley's Preparation Apparently an Issue for DBacks
(20 - 5:31pm, Dec 18)
Last: boteman

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1347 - 5:29pm, Dec 18)
Last: Maxwn

NewsblogJoe Henderson's HOF Ballot
(49 - 5:15pm, Dec 18)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogOrioles agree to one-year deal with LHP Wesley Wright, pending physical, source says
(13 - 5:11pm, Dec 18)
Last: Spahn Insane

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1901 Discussion
(29 - 4:50pm, Dec 18)
Last: John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy

Page rendered in 0.9309 seconds
48 querie(s) executed