Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by baltassoc
So the O's fans hang out in the shelters until the traffic clears up? Is that the plan?

I'm guessing that the fans have built them over the last half of this season, so there's no reason not to use them now, right?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

The new one still sucks to get out of. One exit from the lots dumps you on to the streets of a bad neighborhood, with no explanation how to get to the highway.

Heh. Sucker.

(Of course, this is much less of a worry now that DC has its own team and the end of O's games aren't a mass exodus back down to the District.)

ETA: And the area west of Camden Yards isn't that bad. It's no Anacostia.

[Captain]

I thought I'd recommend a good book I've just finished reading, for anyone who has an interest. John Mack Farragher, A Great and Noble Cause. It is about the expulsion of the Acadians from Nova Scotia in the 1750s, but also has a lot of insight into English colonial policy and the frictions between the older English colonies and Canada and the Maritimes. A lot of the people who were involved in late colonial and revolutionary New England make appearances in a very different light than they do in most American histories. It is also very readable.

[SlaveNoMore]

Redstate.org is claiming that Priscilla Owen will get the next SCOTUS nomination.

Wait and see.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Redstate.org is claiming that Priscilla Owen will get the next SCOTUS nomination.

Wait and see.

Hmm, I assume the announcement comes the day after Roberts gets confirmed.

But why would the WH start with someone who had 43 votes against earlier this year?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
2) Every admin. has always used Rosy Scenario as the leading lady in its projections. How is this different from anything anyone has done in the last 40 years.

This is different because they're using the Least Rosy Scenario in their projections, so that they can say, "but look how much rosier things are now!" when the actual numbers are release.

But if you think that projections have always been political numbers and not real ones, then perhaps this is no different in that sense.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The fact that FDR lied about his intentions about the war was something you did not want to accept because it delegitimizes Bush's supposed lies that led us into the gulf war.

Thank you for the armchair psychology, but in the same way that most people would think that you need to know more than a single sentence from a single speech to conclude that Bush lied about something, the same goes for ex-presidents.

Bush inflating budgetary projections for political purposes is just supposition. There is no conclusive proof that he did. It is possible. But again projections on future deficits and surpluses are never accurate. Until there is some direct evidence and not supposition no conclusions can be drawn.

I'm not interested in arguing about whether Bush is "lying" or not about the budgetary projections -- his particular state of mind on this topic does not interest me at all. For a few years now, the White House has been softening the blow of huge deficits by telling people that the news is better than expected. This has been successful, I think, in the sense that there isn't all that much outrage about the massive Bush deficits. If you say you haven't seen enough proof that Bush was directly responsible for this, fine; I can respect that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
It seems that the Administration either wants total military control or none at all on the Federal level and working with local government and businesses isn't as much of an option.

If the only tool you feel comfortable using is a hammer, every problem starts to look like your thumb.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This has been successful, I think, in the sense that there isn't all that much outrage about the massive Bush deficits. If you say you haven't seen enough proof that Bush was directly responsible for this, fine; I can respect that.

While you are probably correct about outrage, I don't think this is the reason for it. People aren't worked up about the issue because no one credible is inveighing against it.

Well, except for the Wall St. J., which had a rather pointed editorial today about the lack of fiscal discipline within the republican party and that it may, in fact, have repurcussions at the next elections.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
When we said Roosevelt lied, and Penkse even cited that speech, you demanded more cites. In other words questioning the validity of our assertions. In addition, you argued against the fact that lend lease was a sweet heart deal for the british and also questioned whether my other assertions like the destroyer escorts really happened and whether such acts were really a provocation. Such arguments, demands for cites and assertions would only be made by someone who wanted to dispute the fact that FDR misled the American people.

Am I wrong?

I wasn't asking for a cite, I was asking for more than a single sentence from that speech. I wanted context.

If Roosevelt had said, "Ladies and gentlemen, I will do everything in my power to keep America out of a foreign war. But we also need to defend liberty, and to ensure that at the end of the day, we do not stand alone against fascism and tyranny," that would send a very different message than if he had said, "Ladies and gentlemen, I will do everything in my power to keep America out of a foreign war. I will never send our children to fight on the side of one party or another in a dispute between foreign lands." Etc.

I do question the Lend-Lease deal being a gift to the British, on the basis of a book I've read about the period from the British point of view. If you are a fan of history, I recommend John Lukacs' Five Days in May (I think that's the title), about the point in May, 1940, when the British came closest to surrendering to Germany. Good stuff.

If you want me to believe that FDR (or GWB) misled people, you need to point to more than a single sentence in isolation.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If one goes back to Infirm, and I think you were there, the Politics board was much more news topic driven then this place has become. It was also a ton more fun. Maybe the fun was driven by BT, and riffing off him.

I was there, and I agree with what you say about the differences. I personally like this style bit better -- although I don't mind a little riffing on your random lunatics.

S_A_M

P.S. Whatever happened to Plated? Is he here under some sock I can't detect? His sharp tongue, analytical style and smug superiority are hard to replace.

[SlaveNoMore]

Secret_Agent_Man
P.S. Whatever happened to Plated? Is he here under some sock I can't detect? His sharp tongue, analytical style and smug superiority are hard to replace.

Are you familiar with the phrase "Camp Cupcake"?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Redstate.org is claiming that Priscilla Owen will get the next SCOTUS nomination.

Wait and see.

I think the last time around showed us that at the end of the day, the person who got picked was the person with whom Bush was most comfortable, mano a mano. All of us who thought that ideological or political considerations would be paramount were mistaken. Not that these considerations will be irrelevant, since the candidates are being screened for him, but at the end of the day, I imagine the same will be true this time.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Are you familiar with the phrase "Camp Cupcake"?

No Internet access? How barbaric!

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Yes, and I have posted links.

Some conservatives would just credit the White House for its remarkable political acumen and excellent spinning technique. Not sure why Spanky is fighting this one tooth and nail.

We've discussed this before. I agree with you, but this is not limited solely to this administration. Other adminstrations have done it, and Wall Street does it all the time - it's called managing earnings (deficits).