The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='Clak']But the people have spoken! they have the mandate of the people! Insert other republican blustering here![/QUOTE]

It's a tough row to hoe when you have to appeal to your base with your "no more government spending" sloganeering all the while increasing the defense budget and any other pet project that works for your district, but still appears, at least on a national level, to defy the opposing party. The pressure!
 
Rush Limbaugh was awarded CPAC's 2009 Defender of the Constitution thing. Already mentioned Ashcroft was awarded this "honor" in 2010, and Rumsfeld is this year's "winner". GW in 2012?

Thomas Woods says it perfectly:

If you’re like me, you spend a lot of time concerned — weeping, even — that one of the great men ever to serve in American government, Donald Rumsfeld, continues to go unrecognized. At last this injustice is being rectified. As you can see from the schedule (look at 4:00pm on February 10), Rumsfeld will receive the Defender of the Constitution award at CPAC this year. Greatness cannot be overlooked forever.
Click to expand...
 
I wanted to post this in the BP thread, but I can't seem to search for the right thing to find it. Either way this works.

Remember that fund setup to pay settlements to those damaged by the oil spill? Well guess who is the one and only "person" to be paid a settlement so far?

A BP spokeswoman called it "a unique situation in which an existing BP business partner and BP submitted a view on a specific claim" to the facility.
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110131/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_claims

Unique in that not everyone can be an existing BP business partner. I seem to remember some people thinking that the big scary black guy was being too hard on BP. Poor BP :(
 
In an exchange of e-mails the next day, Luntz defended his claim. He said his panel had "dialed downward" (with hand-held devices for keeping running tabs on the speech) at the moment Obama spoke about the recession. "It's what they heard," Luntz said. "I realize Obama said the worst of the recession is over, but they heard the recession is over."
Click to expand...
I've found people do this all the time, people simply hear what they want to hear. If you already hate the guy you're going to hear things which you can use against him.
 
NBC has been trolled by ChristWire.org, too. Maddow was screeching about it last night, while criticizing Rand Paul for wanting to cut aid to dictators (and saying he's using the uprising as a front, when he's been saying this the entire time he's been on the political map. Also, he proposed the cuts before the shit hit the fan). What a disappointment. She's on MSNBC strictly to steer progressives toward the democratic agenda.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/01/31/rachel-maddow-supports-aid-to-mubarak/
 
I think one of the last episodes of the season of Real Time w/ Bill Maher, he had on Queen Noor of Jordan, Maddow, Oliver Stone, Dan Meacham, and Bill Frist. While Maddow didn't explicitly take a stand she did make points that made me think at least she is thinking about it critically.

Meacham rejected the notion that there is any kind of pro-Israeli bias in the media. Maddow asked who speaks out in a pro-Palestinian way in the media, no one had an answer.

If what you said is true FtA, her criticism doesn't make much sense. Paulistinians all believe the same thing and we know that isolationism and ending foreign aid is one of the cornerstones of their ideology.
 
Bill Maher was comparing socialist football (wealth sharing, salary caps and floors, superbowl victors get last draft pic, or as republicans would call it "punishing success") with baseball where the pirates salary (about 40 mil i think) pales in comparison to that of the Yankees.

He alluded to how much more interesting most people find football than baseball because of the parody, it was pretty interesting.
 
^ http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/new-rules-democratic-nfl-vs-repubican-mlb

I got free HBO/Showtime for a year, and I swear I always forget that Real Time is one of my favorite television programs by far. Maher is a comedian, but he doesn't hide behind the paperthin "I'm just a guy telling jokes" thing that Jon Stewart tends to do. I love The Daily Show, but I hate it when Stewart acts like he doesn't want to be taken seriously.

But Maher is just fucking excellent.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] ^ http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...-repubican-mlb

I got free HBO/Showtime for a year, and I swear I always forget that Real Time is one of my favorite television programs by far. Maher is a comedian, but he doesn't hide behind the paperthin "I'm just a guy telling jokes" thing that Jon Stewart tends to do. I love The Daily Show, but I hate it when Stewart acts like he doesn't want to be taken seriously.

But Maher is just fucking excellent.[/QUOTE]

Yeah it's sad that we need to turn to the Daily Show and Real Time to get in-depth policy discussions that don't boil down to cable news soundbytes/talking points. C'est la vie I guess.

I like Bill Maher a lot, but he's at his best when he's trollin'. Watch him on 'middle America' shows where he doesn't have a 100% friendly audience, like Jay Leno's Tonight Show; he says the craziest shit and insults the audience. Fukcing awesome.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Bill Maher was comparing socialist football (wealth sharing, salary caps and floors, superbowl victors get last draft pic, or as republicans would call it "punishing success") with baseball where the pirates salary (about 40 mil i think) pales in comparison to that of the Yankees.

He alluded to how much more interesting most people find football than baseball because of the parody, it was pretty interesting.[/QUOTE]
That was actually A really good point he had too in that episode. Don't bother trying to explain it to a bunch of football fans though, they won't get it, at least they didn't when I tried.

edit-I mentioned this a few days ago I think, about Kingston saying that bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics is adaptation and not evolution.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/real-time-panelists-kingston-and-hughley-a

One of the comments:

Kim Campbell was Prime Minister of Canada for 152 days, and the important thing to note is that she led the Conservative Party at the time. She represents the RIGHT up here! Still, and this is important; she is further to the left politically than even the progressive wing of your Democratic Party. That's how far to the right you've moved in the last half century. As Rachel Maddow pointed out a few nights ago, the Dimocraps have also moved well to the right of Eisenhower.
Click to expand...
 
Maher should have done his homework and actually known what he was talking about rather than spraying bullshit. Sadly, that's par for the course with him.
 
[quote name='Knoell']http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/baseball/mlb/salaries/team

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_World_Series

Impossible, I know.[/QUOTE]
Let no man doubt your ability to take a single data point and bullshit with it, even as a greater sample completely contradicts your point.
Data. Sean Lahman's Baseball Archive has a comprehensive list of baseball statistics available, including player salaries from 1985 to 2006. For purposes of this study, these data represent 21 years of World Series, given there was no 1994 Series. As an aside, and a curiosity, the annualized salaries for 1994 - the season that was partially lost due to work stoppage - the average salary for a major league player was just about $1.05 Million; an increase over 1993 ($976,966) and a higher average than the following two years, 1995 ($964,979) and 1996 ($1.03 Million).

Analysis. Over the course of this 21 year period, the World Series winner had players earning an average salary below the Major League Baseball average salary 4 times - the 1985 Kansas City Royals, the 1990 Cincinnati Reds, the 2002 Anaheim Angels, and the 2003 Florida Marlins. In all other years, the winner had an average player salary no less than 5% above the average (2005 Chicago White Sox) and up to 50% above the average (1999 New York Yankees).

The evidence is irrefutable - one needs a good comparative payroll to compete to win a championship. Over this 21 year period, there was once both teams paid under baseball's average: 1985, but then only barely - the Cardinals were 1% below the average, literally about $3200. In a little under 50% of the years covered here - 10 - the Series winner had average player salaries of in excess of 25% more than baseball's average, 11 if you include 1986 when the Mets had a payroll 24% more than the average. Conversely, there was only one year in which the World Series loser had a payroll greater than 25% higher than the average - the 2003 Yankees.
Click to expand...
The Giants last year, the Angels in 2002, 85 Royals, and the Marlins in 03 are the real statistical outliers (the Reds numbers are skewed, but I'm sure you know how and why, right?). The other 17 winners strongly conformed to hypothesis that money buys championships and if you add the runners up, it gets even stronger. If you take the 4 teams that make it to the divisional championships, it gets even stronger than that.

Statistics. You're doing it wrong.

And yes, among sports economists, it is widely acknowledged that football (which is the most "socialist") is by far the most competitive and baseball (the least "socialist") is the least competitive. Every single team in football has a not statistically insignificant chance to make the playoffs and succeed. The Pirates, Marlins, Diamondbacks, Indians, Nationals, Blue Jays, Royals, Orioles, Mariners, Astros, and A's have no chance in 2011 and we haven't even started yet.

I'd start in with Wins Above Replacement (WAR) but you probably don't give a shit. If anyone wants a basic primer on the new school of baseball statistics:

Wins Above Replacement
How much is a Win Above Replacement worth?

And to put it in context, the lowest wins above replacement comes from surprise! Low paying teams. You could effectively swap out 98% of their roster with AAA players and not see an appreciable difference in performance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder how long it will be until the NFL is labeled a socialist organization.

Yeah, that'd be awesome.
 
[quote name='speedracer'](the Reds numbers are skewed, but I'm sure you know how and why, right?)[/QUOTE]

tell me more.

If the NFL is so socialist, why have the Bengals been the worst team in the NFL since the George H. W. Bush presidency?

[/fan] I'm kidding, of course.

Let's see how them there small market Texas Rangers do in 2011 now that they're without Cliff Lee. I'll be they make it all the way to missing out on the AL Wild Card. Viva la Free Market
 
[quote name='mykevermin']tell me more.[/quote]
The Reds won with arguably the most lopsided team ever to win (though the 2010 Giants are certainly in that conversation now). They had 2 guys in the top 20 in pay, 1 in the top 40, and none again until way down the list. I think nearly half their team was league minimum.

But the skewing comes from Marge Schott. She refused to give money to players other than whites. She did end up coughing up the dough for two black players, which she lovingly referred to as "million dollar n******". Naturally the bitch wins a championship.
If the NFL is so socialist, why have the Bengals been the worst team in the NFL since the George H. W. Bush presidency?

[/fan] I'm kidding, of course.
Click to expand...
A perfect example. Their problem isn't the talent, it's everywhere else. Obviously you can't equalize coaching/tactics/etc., but even a complete shit team like the Bengals put reasonable talent on the field. The same can't be said of the Pirates.
Let's see how them there small market Texas Rangers do in 2011 now that they're without Cliff Lee. I'll be they make it all the way to missing out on the AL Wild Card. Viva la Free Market
Click to expand...
Not to mention they gave away quite a few prospects in the Lee deal, hurting their future chances.
 
Oh, I'm all too familiar with Marge's transgressions. Wasn't too aware of the financial end, though. Wasn't a baseball fan in the 90's (save for 1990) and even then, I was 11. So...yeah.
 
I don't know what it is about baseball, it's boring as hell on television, but live in person it's awesome. At least until you go to buy food or drink and realize you're about to be raped for a hotdog.
 
[quote name='Clak']I don't know what it is about baseball, it's boring as hell on television, but live in person it's awesome. At least until you go to buy food or drink and realize you're about to be raped for a hotdog.[/QUOTE]

You need three things to enjoy baseball away from the park:

1) a garage or appropriate quasi-outdoor substitute
2) a case of cheap beer - PBR or your local not-quite-pilsner variety (e.g., Natty Boh if you're from Baltimore)
3) an AM radio

baseball on the radio is so much more enjoyable than on the tee vee.

And, um...fuck Republicans? I guess.
 
Way to stay on topic there myke, lol.

@ Knoell, any outlier can be used to disprove that generally accepted as fact, but good job anyway.
 
[quote name='Don Chubo']Maher should have done his homework and actually known what he was talking about rather than spraying bullshit. Sadly, that's par for the course with him.[/QUOTE]

Which parts did you disagree with? Which parts of what he said don't match with the facts? Linksplz
 
You guys always deal in absolutes. The point is that even if you concede that NFL salaries are similiar the same teams seem to be repeating their playoff runs. Why is this? Do you not think that there are a multitude of factors that relate to a teams success besides their payroll? In the ultra fair NFL the New England Patriots made it to the playoffs 8 out of the last 10 years and won 3 super bowls, while the Buffalo Bills will have made it to the playoffs 0 times and obviously 0 super bowls. With the NFL you will easily chalk it up to better management of the teams, but with the MLB that is impossible, right?

Edit: I also would like to add that in the NFL the team that WINS the superbowl gets the last draft pick, NOT the team that spent the most money. Would it be fair to you guys, if the team that spent the most money automatically got the last draft pick regardless of where they placed in the league?

herp derp is right. Honestly I do not think these things are comparable, but you guys seem to believe they are.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We're also saying that the NFL is really, truly, a wholly socialist organization.

:roll:

I know the Bengals aren't going to do shit next year, yet they spend 72% what the Oakland Raiders do (who are similarly terrible, if I recall). But I know that's not due to the on-field talent, because it's fuckin' *there*. I know it's because the owner is not interested in hiring a general manager (because he pays himself the GM salary), because he held on to the same dismal offensive coordinator for a decade, because he refuses to build the team an indoor practice space, because he's held onto the same lukewarm and dispassionate coach for 8 years (whose lifetime record is 60-67-1 and 0-2 in playoffs). I know it's because the owner refuses to trade a starting QB who said "trade me or I'll retire," and whose reserve QB lineup is so anemic that the second string QB is the first string QB's talented-as-a-sponge younger brother.

It's the NFL, where teams who fail do so for a litany of reasons other than salary. A team has to experience the kind of systemic issues that pervade in spite of their comparatively equalized salary. What you're claiming is a fallacy: that the competitiveness of the NFL's salary structure should lead to totally randomized teams going to the playoffs every year. So while there is indeed a relationship b/w salary and outcome in MLB, because it's equalized, there are indeed legacies in the NFL, but they are legacies that are based on factors *other* than salary.

Short version: you can still make shitty long-term decisions with a big salary.
 
The point is that having a monetary advantage can lead to other advantages as well, and they'd rather keep things on a fairly level playing ground so that, at least in theory, the best teams actually do the best. Not just because they have the most money to spend on better talent, better coaches, better equipment etc.

It's the same problem we have in politics, you can bsaically outspend your opponent and win, or in most cases keep the poorer candidates from even having a chance in the first place.
 
I'd like to see a show of hands from people here that have taken a statistics class. Right off the bat, knoell and bobby clearly show that they haven't. If you MORANS say you have, then you guys are more full of shit and bigger liars than I gave you credit for.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='perdition(troy']dude, at least spell moron right when you're insulting someone.[/QUOTE]
01_222_exer01_getabrainmorans.jpg


Or you could remember internet memes created by fellow conservatives??
 
[quote name='dohdough']I'd like to see a show of hands from people here that have taken a statistics class. Right off the bat, knoell and bobby clearly show that they haven't. If you MORANS say you have, then you guys are more full of shit and bigger liars than I gave you credit for.[/QUOTE]

Coming from the guy that says white = racist
 
[quote name='Knoell']Fixed[/QUOTE]
People are equal when they're treated equally and equitably, not because you just say so.

I don't see white people working as slaves on plantations or being slaughtered en masse because they're white and inferior. That'd be something you'd advocate right? Because you believe in equality? Or maybe helping those that were disenfranchised for generations would be more palatable for you?

Right. I thought not.:roll:
 
[quote name='Knoell']Fixed[/QUOTE]

Nope

[quote name='Knoell']Fear of minorities huh? Ok then fear of white people......we can go back and forth all day. [/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='dohdough']People are equal when they're treated equally and equitably, not because you just say so.

I don't see white people working as slaves on plantations or being slaughtered en masse because they're white and inferior. That'd be something you'd advocate right? Because you believe in equality? Or maybe helping those that were disenfranchised for generations would be more palatable for you?

Right. I thought not.:roll:[/QUOTE]


Keep talking. I do see white people in mass being demonized, discriminated, and generalized. But those are small peas to you right? Who cares about those little things, unless they are a different skin color.

As long as we are assuming each others beliefs, your code works like this.

Black people in slavery = bad
Black people being discriminated = bad
Black people being demonized = bad
Black people being generalized = bad
White people in slavery = not nearly as bad as black slavery, not worth bringing up.
White people being discriminated = not as bad as black slavery, not worth fighting.
White people being demonized = not as bad as black discrimination and slavery, not worth fighting.
White people being generalized = not as bad as the slavery, discrimination, demonization, and generalization blacks went through, so stfu.

It is almost as if you wouldn't defend a white person from most of those things because blacks had it worse.

What kind of system is that?

Your version of equality at its best.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Keep talking. I do see white people in mass being demonized, discriminated, and generalized. But those are small peas to you right? Who cares about those little things, unless they are a different skin color.

As long as we are assuming each others beliefs, your code works like this.

Black people in slavery = bad
Black people being discriminated = bad
Black people being demonized = bad
Black people being generalized = bad
White people in slavery = not nearly as bad as black slavery, not worth bringing up.
White people being discriminated = not as bad as black slavery, not worth fighting.
White people being demonized = not as bad as black discrimination and slavery, not worth fighting.
White people being generalized = not as bad as the slavery, discrimination, demonization, and generalization blacks went through, so stfu.

It is almost as if you wouldn't defend a white person from most of those things because blacks had it worse.

What kind of system is that?

Your version of equality at its best.[/QUOTE]
You're absolutely right. That absolutely explains this:

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v64n4/v64n4p1.html

v64n4p1c1.gif


darik.JPG
 
Seriously, there's no way your numbers are right, Knoell. There's no way the Redskins are that far down and the Bucs are that far up. I saw the google search that got you that. I'm still looking.

edit: That link is a cut paste of the USA Today salaries from 2008.

http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2008

You guys always deal in absolutes. The point is that even if you concede that NFL salaries are similiar the same teams seem to be repeating their playoff runs. Why is this? Do you not think that there are a multitude of factors that relate to a teams success besides their payroll? In the ultra fair NFL the New England Patriots made it to the playoffs 8 out of the last 10 years and won 3 super bowls, while the Buffalo Bills will have made it to the playoffs 0 times and obviously 0 super bowls. With the NFL you will easily chalk it up to better management of the teams, but with the MLB that is impossible, right?
Click to expand...
The reason teams rise to the top in the NFL is NOT because they can out-talent the other team, but because they can do everything else. That's the whole point man. Coaching and tactics win championships in the NFL, NOT MONEY. And with only 16 games played, the chance for a bad team to go on a good run and outperform is always there.

By contrast, baseball is 162 games per season. Talent varies incredibly. And that's why you always see the top teams, even when coaches for top teams do incredibly stupid things that statistically hurt their chances to win. Without the short season and with huge talent discrepancy (seriously, name a Pirate. Or a Blue Jay. Or a Diamondback. Or a Padre. Or an A.), they win MUCH more often.

Wanna know how many different teams have won the NFC championship in the last 10 years? 10.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The funny thing is that, despite liberals usually being seen as the idealists, it's Knoell who is doing so in this case. In an ideal world everyone would be equal, but seeing as how we don't live in knoelly polly land, we have programs which attempt to correct a bias towards the majority. Of course knoell thinks we could cancel those programs tomorrow and everything would somehow be all fair and equal and we could all hug.

Knoelly polly land sounds like a great place, maybe we'll get there one day when we don't don't need programs to compensate for biases.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I'd like to see a show of hands from people here that have taken a statistics class. Right off the bat, knoell and bobby clearly show that they haven't. If you MORANS say you have, then you guys are more full of shit and bigger liars than I gave you credit for.[/QUOTE]

Awesome. I haven't posted in this thread for over four days and haven't even touched upon this senseless sports/government/statistics debate when, suddenly, I've got someone attacking me on the subject. Pure awesome.

For the record, I did take an entry level statistics class in college. Even tutored a fellow classmate.

[quote name='Clak']maybe we'll get there one day when we don't don't need programs to compensate for biases.[/QUOTE]

I wish we didn't live in a world where some people thought so lowly of minorities that they'll only be "equal" if we give them handouts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top