Totem wrote:
by understanding that playing not to lose is not anywhere near the same as playing to win.
In a two player (practically) zero sum game, yes, yes they are the exactly the same.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Sarah ******* Palin?
Sarah ******* Palin? Follow
In a two player (practically) zero sum game, yes, yes they are the exactly the same.
/mourn the loss of Bill Richardson as president hopeful. This dog and pony show needs to be over NOW.
Most of the incest that results in a pregnancy tends to be of the rape kind, at least the statutory variety.
Wasn't there an 11 year old that was raped by her step dad and had an abortion not too long ago? I think they made an exception for her, since she was already traumatized from being raped and 11 year olds should not be having kids.
Health exception is the big one that gets me, though. You're pregnant, something went wrong and the egg implanted in the fallopian tube, not the uterus, the baby is going to kill you, but too bad, you can't have the pregnancy terminated so you can try again. You get to die. Your husband can always find another wife and try again.
Wasn't there an 11 year old that was raped by her step dad and had an abortion not too long ago? I think they made an exception for her, since she was already traumatized from being raped and 11 year olds should not be having kids.
Health exception is the big one that gets me, though. You're pregnant, something went wrong and the egg implanted in the fallopian tube, not the uterus, the baby is going to kill you, but too bad, you can't have the pregnancy terminated so you can try again. You get to die. Your husband can always find another wife and try again.
Totem wrote:
While each of you are laughing yourselves sick or backslapping each other so hard as to knock each other's fillings out of your mouths, Slate magazine's female writers are quite impressed with McCain's choice. Perhaps they are seeing something each of you are missing? To wit:
It Had To Be You
Dahlia Lithwick
Absolutely agree that this was an inspired, brave and buzz-y choice for veep. Everything the Joe Biden pick was not. I think Team McCain has gamed this age we live in better than the Obama camp, for which they deserve serious credit. Now this is gonna be an election. And here I was getting ready to retire my girl-cleats for the rest of the fall. I couldn’t be more excited.
One quick thought on the “inexperience†charges against Sarah Palin. I have no problem at all with a candidate who is slightly less tested than some of the white male contenders she beat out. For one thing, I am not sure what "experience" even means when it comes to the vice presidency. For another, one of the single best decisions Ronald Reagan made was the nomination of an unknown and (relatively) inexperienced woman to the Supreme Court, just because she was a woman and it was high time. I can’t imagine what this country would look like for women today if he hadn’t.
It Had To Be You
Dahlia Lithwick
Absolutely agree that this was an inspired, brave and buzz-y choice for veep. Everything the Joe Biden pick was not. I think Team McCain has gamed this age we live in better than the Obama camp, for which they deserve serious credit. Now this is gonna be an election. And here I was getting ready to retire my girl-cleats for the rest of the fall. I couldn’t be more excited.
One quick thought on the “inexperience†charges against Sarah Palin. I have no problem at all with a candidate who is slightly less tested than some of the white male contenders she beat out. For one thing, I am not sure what "experience" even means when it comes to the vice presidency. For another, one of the single best decisions Ronald Reagan made was the nomination of an unknown and (relatively) inexperienced woman to the Supreme Court, just because she was a woman and it was high time. I can’t imagine what this country would look like for women today if he hadn’t.
Dahlia Lithwick later wrote:
Or maybe just Harriet Miers . . .
I need to amend my earlier post about Sandra Day O’Connor. There’s a difference between being a less-than-perfect candidate and a painfully under-prepared one. Watch the Dayton speech. I am all for pandering to women, but not this way.
I need to amend my earlier post about Sandra Day O’Connor. There’s a difference between being a less-than-perfect candidate and a painfully under-prepared one. Watch the Dayton speech. I am all for pandering to women, but not this way.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Allegory, if this is what you understand of politics or sports or anything that involves two parties vieing for a W, then you don't get how playing not to lose isn't anywhere close to the same as playing to win.
Totem
Totem
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
Most of the incest that results in a pregnancy tends to be of the rape kind, at least the statutory variety.
Ya, but in these cases they are not victims of incest, they are victims of rape.
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
TirithRR wrote:
Ya, but in these cases they are not victims of incest, they are victims of rape.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Ya, but in these cases they are not victims of incest, they are victims of rape.
I know... it just irks me.
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Hmmm, your political accumen is suspect, Jo. You claimed earlier that the pro-life demographic was in McCain's bag prior to Palin being chosen, but everything I know about the Evangelical Right and the conservative base says the opposite. Indeed, Dr. James Dobson, the voice of that group stated unequivocally he could not, nor would not vote for McCain in the general election earlier this year. Yet today, based on his selection of Palin, he has wholeheartedly endorsed McCain for president.
If you don't understand what that portends, then you have no real knowledge or understanding of the Republican Evangelical side of the house.
In the same way, Dahlia's initial post on XX I believe is the more "gut" answer, whereas her second one amended her first because it spoke against the party line. Your dismissal of her first post ignores the very real impact that Palin has on this election-- at this very early point. We both know how things can-- and do --change.
Totem
If you don't understand what that portends, then you have no real knowledge or understanding of the Republican Evangelical side of the house.
In the same way, Dahlia's initial post on XX I believe is the more "gut" answer, whereas her second one amended her first because it spoke against the party line. Your dismissal of her first post ignores the very real impact that Palin has on this election-- at this very early point. We both know how things can-- and do --change.
Totem
In the interest of fairness Palin does, perhaps reluctantly, concede a need for abortion when the mother's life is endangered.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
In the interest of fairness Palin does, perhaps reluctantly, concede a need for abortion when the mother's life is endangered.
Probably realizes that the baby needs the mother to survive... so what's the point in killing both of them?
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
What McCain lacked before was the support, and thus the $, of the evangelicals.
This move was calculated to rally the base. To get those Sam's Club Republicans. To try to generate some excitement. It was announced now to steal the glory from Obama's speech. (That part worked.)
Unfortunately, Palin is so grossly underqualified that I suspect a lot of the non-base Republicans are going to wake up Tuesday going, 'What the hell did I drink yesterday? I dreamed we nominated Palin for veep last week.'
The results of her corruption investigation are slated to come out in late October.
This move was calculated to rally the base. To get those Sam's Club Republicans. To try to generate some excitement. It was announced now to steal the glory from Obama's speech. (That part worked.)
Unfortunately, Palin is so grossly underqualified that I suspect a lot of the non-base Republicans are going to wake up Tuesday going, 'What the hell did I drink yesterday? I dreamed we nominated Palin for veep last week.'
The results of her corruption investigation are slated to come out in late October.
But for a voter to look at the TV and say that, cat, they'd have to then juxtapose Obama and his lack of experience as well-- and he's on the top of the ticket, not just merely a veep. For the Dems to try this ploy they are hoping that shiney Governor Palin distracts John Q. Public from dull and tarnished Barack Obama-- not exactly a winning strategy there.
Don't tell me you're going to quibble over a newly minted governor's lack of experience against a newly minted state senator's *cough* vastly *cough* greater experience? Uhhhhh...
Totem
Don't tell me you're going to quibble over a newly minted governor's lack of experience against a newly minted state senator's *cough* vastly *cough* greater experience? Uhhhhh...
Totem
Totem wrote:
Hmmm, your political accumen is suspect, Jo. You claimed earlier that the pro-life demographic was in McCain's bag prior to Palin being chosen, but everything I know about the Evangelical Right and the conservative base says the opposite.
Quote:
Your dismissal of her first post ignores the very real impact that Palin has on this election
Hey, you're the one who wanted to cite her as the Voice of Women or whatever. Not my fault she thinks Palin is shitty pandering.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Totem wrote:
But for a voter to look at the TV and say that, cat, they'd have to then juxtapose Obama and his lack of experience as well
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Totem wrote:
Allegory, if this is what you understand of politics or sports or anything that involves two parties vieing [sic] for a W, then you don't get how playing not to lose isn't anywhere close to the same as playing to win.
At first I thought you made a small slip of logic, but it seems you really do not understand the situation.
The only probable players for winning the presidency are the Democratic and Republican candidates. Both cannot win and both cannot lose. One party winning means the other party necessarily loses and vice versa. The only way not to lose is to win, and the only way to win is to not lose.
It is like telling an athlete to give 110% percent. Sure it might sound motivating, but it is still entirely nonsensical.
Conversely, if the Dems point to her and say, "Inexperienced!", they then have to acknowledge their candidate is no better qualified for the presidency either. McCain wins this argument just on the order of each party's ticket.
McCain/Palin Experience/inexperience
Obama/Biden Inexperience/Experience
The top of the ticket trumps the veep choice. At best the Dems can say she hails from a state that's remote, has few citizens, and doesn't reflect typical America. However, if that's the essence of their argument, that ****'s extremely weak.
Totem
McCain/Palin Experience/inexperience
Obama/Biden Inexperience/Experience
The top of the ticket trumps the veep choice. At best the Dems can say she hails from a state that's remote, has few citizens, and doesn't reflect typical America. However, if that's the essence of their argument, that ****'s extremely weak.
Totem
Totem wrote:
Conversely, if the Dems point to her and say, "Inexperienced!", they then have to acknowledge their candidate is no better qualified for the presidency either.
Hey, if this is the hook you guys want to hang your hat on, I'm all for it. I think this pick was awesome
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Allegory, this highlights your lack of understanding of the difference between playing not to lose versus playing to win.
Playing to win means going all out, being on the offensive, gambling. Playing not to lose is using the prevent defense, sagging back into a zone and trying not to foul, and attriting the opponent to the finish.
These are simple concepts. And politics are not a zero sum game. Basic stuff here.
Totem
Playing to win means going all out, being on the offensive, gambling. Playing not to lose is using the prevent defense, sagging back into a zone and trying not to foul, and attriting the opponent to the finish.
These are simple concepts. And politics are not a zero sum game. Basic stuff here.
Totem
Pray point me in the direction of Sarah Palin's books so that I may read them. Oh right, she hasn't written any. I guess we'll have to wait for her to introduce herself again and again and again.
And how is a career that started so humbly with "PTA president" somehow better than a "community organizer?" Generally, PTA president goes to a soccer mom who doesn't have a job and hasn't pissed off the principal yet. There's some hardball political campaigning there.
And pray tell me how an undergrad in journalism prepares you for politics.
Her resume and Obama's are both pretty thin, but in terms of education? He kicks her ***. Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer that taught constitutional law at the university level. Clinton was a Yale educated lawyer. Biden has his own list of degrees, including a doctorate in political science, if I remember right. (Even McSame managed to graduate from the Naval Academy, although in the bottom 1% of his class.)
An undergrad in journalism? Give me a ******* break. That's like saying that I, with my shiny undergrad in English, am now qualified to hold a cabinet position. Michelle Obama has had more education than Palin.
We already knew that Republicans were anti-science, and more and more I believe that they are anti-education. What's the point of having law school if all you need to be second in line for the presidency is a degree in journalism? At my university, journalism majors needed to take a grand total of two (2) political science or history classes, one of which had to cover the Georgia constitution.
An undergrad in poly sci, great. Business? No problem, that's prep for executive level management. History? A bit too fuzzy, but still a nice prepwork for public service. But journalism?
"Hee haw, those libruls and their edumucation! We shure showed THEM!"
She also says "nukular." She ought to be slapped for particular Bushism alone.
And how is a career that started so humbly with "PTA president" somehow better than a "community organizer?" Generally, PTA president goes to a soccer mom who doesn't have a job and hasn't pissed off the principal yet. There's some hardball political campaigning there.
And pray tell me how an undergrad in journalism prepares you for politics.
Her resume and Obama's are both pretty thin, but in terms of education? He kicks her ***. Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer that taught constitutional law at the university level. Clinton was a Yale educated lawyer. Biden has his own list of degrees, including a doctorate in political science, if I remember right. (Even McSame managed to graduate from the Naval Academy, although in the bottom 1% of his class.)
An undergrad in journalism? Give me a ******* break. That's like saying that I, with my shiny undergrad in English, am now qualified to hold a cabinet position. Michelle Obama has had more education than Palin.
We already knew that Republicans were anti-science, and more and more I believe that they are anti-education. What's the point of having law school if all you need to be second in line for the presidency is a degree in journalism? At my university, journalism majors needed to take a grand total of two (2) political science or history classes, one of which had to cover the Georgia constitution.
An undergrad in poly sci, great. Business? No problem, that's prep for executive level management. History? A bit too fuzzy, but still a nice prepwork for public service. But journalism?
"Hee haw, those libruls and their edumucation! We shure showed THEM!"
She also says "nukular." She ought to be slapped for particular Bushism alone.
So just to be clear, Jo, you're saying Obama has sufficiently satisfactory governmental experience to run the country and Palin does not? Care to do a side-by-side comparison to prove your point?
Totem
Totem
Totem wrote:
Care to do a side-by-side comparison to prove your point?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Didn't think so. Wouldn't stand up to scrutiny anyhow, so RACK you for using your time wisely.
Totem
Totem
Totem wrote:
Didn't think so.
So do you think she's ready to become President of the United States on Jan 20th should McCain shuffle off his mortal coil on the way to the Presidental ball?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Totem wrote:
Playing to win means going all out, being on the offensive, gambling. Playing not to lose is using the prevent defense, sagging back into a zone and trying not to foul, and attriting the opponent to the finish.
That is purely motivational trite. "Playing to win" means exactly what the phrase is literally saying. Any strategy that results in victory is playing to win, whether that strategy involves being hyper aggressive, heavily defensive, or running in circles. "Playing not to lose" means, surprise surprise, using any strategy that does not result in losing. Going for a tie is an obvious example of "playing not to lose."
Don't use phrases when you don't know their meaning.
Totem wrote:
And politics are not a zero sum game.
Almost all elections are. Do you even know what a zero sum game is?
For the election to not be a zero sum game it would require that multiple people could be elected and that they did not compete against each other for votes. Then, and only then, would it necessarily be a non-zero sum game.
Totem wrote:
Basic stuff here.
And yet you still fail to get it.
Edited, Aug 30th 2008 2:13am by Allegory
Recent Visitors: 166
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (166)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Sarah ******* Palin?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC