Announcement

Collapse
1 of 2 < >

Please support the forum

As you shop this holiday season, please remember to use the forum's Amazon.com link (listed in the menu as "Amazon Link") to add items to your cart and purchase them. The forum gets a small commission from every item sold and the commission increases based on the number of items sold in a month. (So even buying a 99 cent MP3 helps!) Bonus this year: Amazon has announced FREE SHIPPING through the holidays!!

Additionally, the forum gets a "bounty" for various offers at Amazon.com. For instance, if you sign up for a 30 day free trial of Amazon Prime, the forum will earn $3. If you create a wedding or baby registry, the forum earns $3. And creating an Amazon Business account will send a $15 commission our way.

Your personal information is completely private, I only get a list of items that were ordered/shipped via the link, no names or locations or anything. This does not cost you anything extra and it helps pays the operating costs of this forum which continue to go up as our commissions have gone down. Thank you for your support and happy holidays!! --Deborah

Here is the link:
Click here to shop at Amazon.com
2 of 2 < >

FORUM POSTING RULES - Read before posting

Forum Rules.

(1) The guiding principle for posting in this forum is moderate yourselves.

(2) Don't write a post that attacks, impugns or denigrates another poster's character. There's an obvious difference between the language of humor and hateful, debased language. Know the difference and post accordingly.

(3) This is a Michigan sports forum. The forum welcomes posts from M's sports rivals. Talking smack, posting sass is what college sports rivalries are all about. Rules (1) and (2) above apply. If you don't want to view the posts of a rival talking smack or sassing, use the ignore feature in User Controls.

(4) This forum is about sharing thoughts, ideas and viewpoints about all sports, any number of subjects and issues, learning stuff from other posters and having fun. There are threads by subject matter within the forum for doing this. Keep the threads on point.

NB: The rules above are not intended to build a case to ban a poster. There are consequences for rule breaking as specified below. That's as far as it should go. Only the most egregious and persistent rule breaking would cause the moderators to consider a ban.

Due Process.

(1) The forum has 6 moderators. Jeff Buchanan, Jon, JD, Hannibal, Oracle, Entropy. None of them want to moderate adult posters who should know better. There may be posts that break the rules.

(2) Posters who, at the sole discretion of a moderator, break a rule will be given a warning post that will site one of the rules listed above as the reason for the deletion.

(3) If the rule breaking behavior continues, a moderator can remove an offending post and any ensuing post that whines about that action. If a moderator removes a post(s) the reason for the removal(s) will be posted with the removal notice that appears in the thread. This should be the end of it. Man up, take responsibility for breaking the rules. The forum moves on. If not, see below.

(4) A poster who has had a warning or a post(s) removed can certify a question by PM to any moderator about that action. Do not complain about the action or attempt to make your case in the forum/threads. Moderators shall do their best to address the question within 72h. At the end of 72h the majority opinion of the moderators responding will be the answer.

(5) Banning a poster for egregious and repeated rule breaking requires a unanimous vote to ban from all 6 moderators. We don't anticipate this will ever happen.
See more
See less

Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Talent -- did you see the Project Veritas stuff on Bredesen? It's extremely damning and embarrassing. I can't believe that they keep getting these people on camera talking about this shit. It's hilarious but that is the consequences of getting kid gloves treatment from the media your whole life -- you never sense the risk of an expose.

    James O'keefe has teased that he has more stuff from more states. If the Republicans are smart they will use it.

    Comment


    • I did, but I'm generally not a fan. I mean, it's easy enough to get candid comments and such, but I need it tied directly and substantially to the campaign. It's the evidentiary thing in me.

      That said, there's no doubt in my mind that the comments are 100% true and accurate re Bredesen. And that's why the clips will have some value. You're not exposing something implausible -- like, say, a DC Circuit Ct judge running gang rape parties -- you're exposing something that is entirely believable -- in fact, it's almost more confirmation than exposing, especially in Tennessee. The Rs should have a stranglehold on that state and the Ds know it.

      The fact that Ds have now taken to a general cuntfest about the Senate suggests to me they think they're going to have a very difficult time winning control any time in the next few elections. And since McConnell has more or less owned the shit out the Ds on the Senate's judicial function, that's really bad news for the Ds and, IMO, the primary source of said cuntfest.
      Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
      Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by iam416 View Post
        I did, but I'm generally not a fan. I mean, it's easy enough to get candid comments and such, but I need it tied directly and substantially to the campaign. It's the evidentiary thing in me.
        In this case, you have people working for the campaign in an important and official manner (who have frequent contact with Bredesen) saying this stuff. That seems like a pretty strong tie to the campaign. The guy can't credibly say that his campaign officials are lying IMHO. Either way, it looks like that seat is safe.
        Last edited by Hannibal; October 12th, 2018, 09:51 AM.

        Comment


        • Project Veritas stuff is only going to preach to the choir. O'Keefe's rockstar status among conservatives also took a bit of a hit after his efforts to "OMG EXPOSE" the Washington Post and help elect a pedophile failed miserably.

          Comment


          • DSL:

            hello
            Shut the fuck up Donny!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hannibal View Post
              Rasmussen is showing Rs and Ds pretty close to even on the generic ballot. Also, Trump's approval rating there has been steady at about 49% for a couple of weeks. Historically that would mean big wins for the Rs but historical precedents probably go out the window here.

              Cruz will beat Beta O'Rourke but Texas is very much in danger of flipping to blue within the next decade or so because of demographics. It only took California two generations to go from a state that elected Ronald Reagan twice to one that decriminalized the spread of AIDS. If and when Texas goes blue it's never coming back. Turn out the lights, the party's over.

              I have followed Tennessee just a little bit. It looks like the R in that race is very wisely running on Trump's agenda. If she can just stick to that and convince people that Bredesen will vote against Trump's agenda then she will win comfortably. The new Project Veritas video makes her job easier.
              Rasmussen IS the most reliable polling company in delivering conservatives results that they want to hear. It's not the most accurate in an objective sense, unfortunately.

              Comment


              • Wiz

                You complete me

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post

                  Rasmussen IS the most reliable polling company in delivering conservatives results that they want to hear. It's not the most accurate in an objective sense, unfortunately.
                  one of the most accurate in 2016. you are busy citing some of the least accurate polls in 2016 because it's what leftists want to hear presumably

                  Comment


                  • def attemptArgue(argument) {

                    if (argument.length < 10) {
                    //only print arguments less than 10 characters long..
                    //NPC's only have enough memory for soundbites and talking points.
                    print(argument)

                    }

                    else {
                    // if argument is greater than 10 characters, respond with:
                    print('I'm not going to waste time arguing with a Drumpf supporter.')

                    }

                    }


                    // now CNN can pass any argument into the function to program their NPC's:
                    attemptArgue('muh hippocampus');
                    attemptArgue('russia collusion');
                    attemptArgue('raise taxes');
                    attemptArgue('abolish ICE');




                    Comment


                    • I knew DSL was gay.
                      Shut the fuck up Donny!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by hack View Post
                        Right. So they correctly identified a trend and its cause, and, like all of the most solid of peer-reviewed science, the findings have been replicated multiple times in multiple settings. An incorrect projection of a trend's velocity negates only part of the research, and not all of it. Especially since one group's projections have no bearing on the multiple replications of the existing trend. Throwing out a non-perfect bit of heavily-replicated scholarship because it's not perfect is, of course, unjustified. A person in your position who fails to understand that is either purposefully myopic or ought to be very thankful that this isn't a meritocracy.

                        So, again, you either lack the conceptual understanding to comment intelligently, or you are choosing to comment from a position of willful ignorance.
                        Goodness, hack. Such drivel. Have you ever heard of GIGO? Your argument in entirely post hoc ergo propter hoc.This whole idea of modeling 30 years out, or being published in a peer-reviewed journal of some sort, is a "scientific" substitute for actual data analysis. Wednesday's Journal had an article by Bjorn Lomborg titled "UN Ignores Economics of Climate", subtitled "New Nobel Laureate William Nordhaus says the cost of CO2 cuts aren't worth it". Avoiding the paywall (my apologies, but you guys never read posted articles from the WSJ), the article states in pertinent part:
                        _____________________________

                        The European Union promises to cut emissions 80% by 2050. With realistic assumptions about technology, and the optimistic assumption that the EU’s climate policy is very well designed and coordinated, the average of seven leading peer-reviewed models finds EU annual costs will reach €2.9 trillion ($3.3 trillion), more than twice what EU governments spend today on health, education, recreation, housing, environment, police and defense combined. In reality, it is likely to cost much more because EU climate legislation has been an inefficient patchwork. If that continues, the policy will make the EU 24% poorer in 2050.

                        Trying to do more, as the IPCC urges, would be phenomenally expensive. It is important to keep things in perspective, challenging as that is given the hysterical tone of the reaction to the panel’s latest offering. In its latest full report, the IPCC estimated that in 60 years unmitigated global warming would cost the planet between 0.2% and 2% of gross domestic product. That’s simply not the end of the world.

                        The new report has no comparison of the costs and benefits of climate targets. Mr. Nordhaus’s most recent estimate, published in August, is that the “optimal” outcome with a moderate carbon tax is a rise of about 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Reducing temperature rises by more would result in higher costs than benefits, potentially causing the world a $50 trillion loss.

                        It’s past time to stop pushing so hard for carbon cuts before alternative energy sources are ready to take over. Instead, the world must focus on resolving the technology deficit that makes switching away from fossil fuels so expensive. Genuine breakthroughs are required to drive down the future price of green energy.
                        _______________________________


                        Hack, the earth has been warming and cooling for hundreds of years. Is the medieval warm period included in your 30-year models? What about the little ice age of 1770-1800? Of course, they aren't. Those who want to control whole populations in order to achieve a "unified global community" will always choose data that fits their pre-determined policy outcome. That's because they want power, which is interchangeable with money as we have been discussing for years now. You have the quaint notion that all men are evil, except for a very few men of gold who are altruistic, never power- or money- hungry and doing their jobs for the "common good". To all like yourself, those who want to be ruled by these few special humans, I say look at your philosophical founder, Plato, and I ask, "How did that Republic idea work out for you in Syracuse?" How do your models adjust for the nature of men to be totally depraved?

                        And how do any models adjust for radically disruptive technologies? Do you actually believe that what you say will happen 30 years from now will actually obtain in 2050? No reasonable person looking at history (not just the last 120 years), both in terms of technologies and of planetary temperatures, would expect you to be close in your predictions using such a tiny amount of data. You never speak of all the variables, like the temperature of the Sun or the orbit of the Earth. And you never specify Anthropormorphic GW. Of course, the earth is getting warmer, just like it did when the Vikings were growing wine grapes in Newfoundland. Was that warming caused by the Norman invasion of Europe?

                        But what is despicable is that you have the arrogance to chide Talent about "conceptual ignorance". You may get away with that in DC and its environs, but around here, virtue signaling is just that, virtue signaling. Unless, of course, you are one of the Men of Gold that you so admire. Then everything you say has to be accepted without evidence because you say it.


                        Comment


                        • The Senate is going to come down to 5 races.....

                          Nevada, North Dakota, Arizona, Florida and Missouri

                          And if things stay as they are on Election night you are going to have 50 Rep 49 Dem.....with a runoff in Mississiooi
                          2012 Detroit Lions Draft: 1) Cordy Glenn G , 2) Brandon Taylor S, 3) Sean Spence olb, 4) Joe Adams WR/KR, 5) Matt McCants OT, 7a) B.J. Coleman QB 7b) Kewshan Martin WR

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Whitley View Post
                            The Senate is going to come down to 5 races.....

                            Nevada, North Dakota, Arizona, Florida and Missouri

                            And if things stay as they are on Election night you are going to have 50 Rep 49 Dem.....with a runoff in Mississiooi
                            better hope Ginsburg stays healthy in 2019

                            Comment


                            • The Senate is going to come down to 5 races.....

                              Nevada, North Dakota, Arizona, Florida and Missouri
                              Ds have to sweep all 5, and it looks like SS Heitkamp is taking on gads of water.

                              As I mentioned yesterday, the other 4 races are very important for the Ds chances to retake the Senate in 2020. They need at least 2 (IMO).
                              Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
                              Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Kapture1 View Post

                                one of the most accurate in 2016. you are busy citing some of the least accurate polls in 2016 because it's what leftists want to hear presumably
                                They were also way off in 2008 and 2012 and were way off in a number of states in 2016. A bunch of different polls (IBD, McClathcy, Marist, etc.) were close to the final margin in the popular vote.

                                538 says this about Rasmussen, who they give a C+ to in terms of accuracy

                                For instance, Rasmussen Reports deserves a lot of credit for its final, national poll of the 2016 presidential election, which had Hillary Clinton ahead by 2 percentage points, almost her exact margin of victory in the popular vote. But Rasmussen Reports polls are conducted by a Rasmussen spinoff called Pulse Opinion Research LLC, and state polls conducted by Rasmussen and Pulse Opinion Research over the past year or two have generally been mediocre.

                                https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...trust-in-2018/

                                And it's not because 538 just hates Trump, hates conservatives, blah blah blah... they give FoxNews polls a grade of A

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X