Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: The Ghosts of 1993

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-02T05:26:04.932-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 飯局小姐,領檯人員,領台,傳播妹,或者想要到台北酒店、林森北路...

2009-08-28T02:48:59.458-04:00

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 飯局小姐,領檯人員,領台,傳播妹,或者想要到台北酒店、林森北路酒店,私人招待所,或者八大行業當酒店PT,酒店公關,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的禮服酒店,鋼琴酒吧當酒店領檯,酒店小姐,公關小姐??,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、學生兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想找打工、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店打工,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。

水水們妳有缺現金、有卡債、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學日本打工嗎?妳是工讀生找工作??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,兼職工作日領假日打工的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??整天還在煩腦如何賺錢有什麼賺錢方法,和賺錢最快方法!?,想要打工,日領工作,短期打工,兼差工作,打工兼差工作嗎!?,
請加入我們艾葳酒店經紀公司工作單純輕鬆”高時薪”又可日領徵想要當傳播妹,上班小姐,酒店兼差,酒店兼職,歡迎學生打工,!!!
加入我們實現夢想就從現在開始^__^

外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 ...

2009-04-16T04:25:00.000-04:00

徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, ...

2009-02-09T02:01:00.000-05:00

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

2009-02-08T21:20:00.000-05:00

Bob King said... " "Less likely" means just that; ...

2008-11-25T00:42:00.000-05:00

Bob King said... " "Less likely" means just that; "less likely." As in, it is LESS LIKELY. Not that it won't happen."
It IS happening, several times a month. The probability that it will continue to happen, as long as the policy is in place, is ONE. Absolute dead certainty.

"what possesses you to argue that this one particular abuse of human rights within the military transcends all others?"
Who the fuck said any such thing? Are you trying to argue that no problem should ever be fixed, on grounds that other problems also exist?

Bob X: "Less likely" means just that; "less likely...

2008-11-24T21:41:00.000-05:00

Bob X: "Less likely" means just that; "less likely." As in, it is LESS LIKELY. Not that it won't happen. It is LESS LIKELY that it will happen.

It is correspondingly MORE likely that IF that is to occur it is because it's a lot easier to get rid of someone for being a faggot than a fuckup.

Tragic, but morally superior to the more traditional expedient of sending said fuckup into battle with a trusted first sergeant and a deniable firearm, eh?

And in this shit-storm of injustice we laughingly refer to as "western civilization," what possesses you to argue that this one particular abuse of human rights within the military transcends all others?

Let us recall that in the worst case, it puts an end to a military career which carries with it a certain degree of responsibility for moral and ethical compromise by it's very nature.

Or in other words, addressing DADT when we have outstanding issues with actual rape within the military ranks, of the use of torture within the military ranks and an appalling deficit of what used to be referred to as the military virtues, visible spines, balls or guts within the chain of command, why should anyone care that someone may be denied the right to indulge their desire to blow shit up and fuck brown people people over for fun and political brownie points?

At this point in time, what the fuck do you think a "military career" is? It's certainly no longer an honorable option for honorable persons. And THAT is what must be changed. DATD is one obvious aspect on it, but it's simply a pimple between oozing, pus-laden sores.

Let us remember that every "faggot" kicked out of the military is one "faggot" who is thereby not ethically accountable for far greater abuses than those committed against themselves.

A sense of decent proportion is in order, Bob X.

At some point, one must decide whether being excluded from a club is a statement against oneself - or against the club. And at this point, I think being kicked out of the military for the "moral failing" of gayness to be a ... you should pardon the vulgarity ... a fucking moral complement.

Bob King said "...whatever DADT and the uniform co...

2008-11-24T15:35:00.000-05:00

Bob King said "...whatever DADT and the uniform code of military justice have to say about it, in practice, it's less and less likely that the policy will result in the dismissal of good soldiers at this particular point in time"
??? It IS resulting in the dismissal of good soldiers, NOW. Whatever makes you think otherwise? That is why the time to change it is NOW-- or rather, as soon as possible once we get the Chimp out of the White House.

MARRIAGE V WORKIt's not hypocritical. Just ignoran...

2008-11-24T15:32:00.000-05:00

MARRIAGE V WORK

It's not hypocritical. Just ignorance. You have to understand that marriage has been framed as a religious issue by the right. Whereas employment, whether the military , is not. It's actually a hopeful sign that things will change on marriage as people realize that its a civil institution not a religious one. Arguments take a long time to disseminate. Rights should not wait for them to desseminate which is why we have equal protection, but the ideas over marriage also will happen eventually. Everyone knows it.

Does anyone else think it is extraordinarily hypoc...

2008-11-24T15:28:00.000-05:00

Does anyone else think it is extraordinarily hypocritical that 75% of Americans favor allowing openly gay people to serve in the military while a majority are still opposed to letting them get married? People often complain about how at eighteen one can serve in the military but can't buy a beer. How much more hypocritical is it to prevent homosexuals who have served their country in the military from marrying people they love?

The politics of social change is a lot like surfin...

2008-11-24T13:35:00.000-05:00

The politics of social change is a lot like surfing, seems to me. You have to position yourself to catch the wave.

The analogy works on a deeper level, too, because whether or not any particular legislator "catches the wave," whatever the law says about something, when the waves start to break the reality is accomplished.

This is the case with a huge number of social issues at the moment; DADT is just one of them and due to logistical issues, probably one of the least critical in terms of impact upon individual persons.

That is to say, whatever DADT and the uniform code of military justice have to say about it, in practice, it's less and less likely that the policy will result in the dismissal of good soldiers at this particular point in time, and certainly in the longer term within a liberal climate.

That is to say, those in favor of anti-gay policies will pay a far higher price politically for implementing such policies, even within the armed forces, whatever the official policy may be.

That may change when we return to a peacetime status, but that's not happening for at least half of Obama's first term. I would encourage him to address it before then.

But meanwhile, half of all gay people are women, ALL gay people need affordable health care, every single gay person is as affected by the economy as straight people, and speaking as a person who has at least a dozen pet "queer" issues - let's work on the fundamentals first.

I'd say that if you want a combined practical and symbolic symbol of change for the better, finding several openly gay and indisputably competent people to administer some of the critically important areas of federal administrative reform would be a no-brainier. Nor would it be particularly difficult; all one has to do is simply say that if you are gay, it would be administration policy to hoist the "Jolly Rancher" flag.

The reason this will be easy - even pragmatically necessary - is that there's an overwhelming urgency to replace Bush's evangelical idiot children with competant people. A significant percentage of those competant people will be gay, and it will be important to ensure that being gay within the federal service is not a national security issue waiting to happen.

The traditional excuse is "they could be blackmailed." Well, not if they have come out of the closet. We aren't worried about what people do - we are worried about what people do in secret that they could be held up for.

Areas that I would consider particularly deserving of apolitical competent leadership in which sexual orientation should not be an issue: FEMA, a reformed FDA, NTSB, a re-reorganization of the "Department of Homeland Security," and someone to review the psycological and sociopolitical conditions under which federal employees work and what impact that has upon their decision-making.

Walk into any US Government facility, if you wish to have a practical understanding of what I mean by that; the working conditions of federal workers speaks VOLUMES about the priorities of federal agencies.

These are things that are within Obama's constitutional authority to address fairly directly, things that could make a huge difference, don't generally require more than executive directives and could be largely accomplished in a budget-neutral sort of way.

Nor is it "symbolic." You can pass all the legislation you like, but if you do not pay some attention to those that have the practical job of implementing, enforcing and understanding, it's simply a particularly silly form of wishful thinking. It's a most critical infrastructural issue.

Obama's priority has to be focused on getting ethical and qualified quality people focused on securing quality information so that he can make critically important decisions.

DADT can ride those coat-tails and gain a great deal more momentum along the way. But as far as I'm concerned, anyone who thinks this or indeed, any other single issue taken out of the overwhelmingly urgent context we face) is a non-useful idiot.

Single issue, brain-dead litmus-test doctrinal policy-making, steering us all into the very sharp teeth of reality has caused this situation. Let us get our ethical ducks in a GENERAL row and then the specifics will tend to sort themselves out without anywhere near so much of a fuss.

you can't just change the law. you also have to c...

2008-11-24T10:24:00.000-05:00

you can't just change the law. you also have to change the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This isn't something the president can do at the stroke of a pen (it's actually quite difficult).

Nate, I have to say I think you are wrong here.Oba...

2008-11-24T09:01:00.000-05:00

Nate, I have to say I think you are wrong here.

Obama sees himself as having a mandate. A mandate to do what, exactly? He wants to craft "solutions" to the "challenges we face." Right now, the challenges that he seems to think are priority are the economy, health care, infrastructure, and energy. He will spend most of his political capital on those issues. As far as the "liberal values" issues go, I think Obama will work behind the scenes to move the ball in the right direction there. The "opposition" is weak in fighting Obama's moves in those areas because of the deteriorating economy and the fact that the GOP is now 100% social conservative. However, if Obama were to try to go for the liberal values issues first, he would face staunch opposotion from the GOP minority and run into issues with some of his base.

Remember, Obama has a pretty broad coalition and doesn't want to push off people who either were brought in by the current times (socially moderate / conservative middle class folks in Wisconsin, Indiana, etc).

If you can't do the right thing when it is cheap, ...

2008-11-24T08:35:00.000-05:00

If you can't do the right thing when it is cheap, easy and popular, when can you do it?

Is there any gay issue you think that is important...

2008-11-24T02:09:00.000-05:00

Is there any gay issue you think that is important to be raised right now? If so, what is it?

I'm gay and favor gays in the military and I do no...

2008-11-24T00:38:00.000-05:00

I'm gay and favor gays in the military and I do not want to see this issue raised now. It is minor, folks. I also watched in horror as Bill Clinton, with his political savvy etc, wade into this polarizing issue on virtually the first day after his inauguration. I guess he thought he had a mandate and it would be easy.

No issue relating to gays is easy, not yet. Hate the idea of wasting any time at all on this for a good while.

Most of the commenters here seem to be under the m...

2008-11-23T21:44:00.000-05:00

Most of the commenters here seem to be under the mistaken impression that the President decides what legislation is introduced in Congress. The President can propose, and on many issues Congressmen talk a lot to the White House before drafting any bill, but the President actually is not the one who introduces legislation: the members do that.

So all of this concern-trolling about "will it make it look like Obama is wasting his time?" is completely misguided. The repeal of DADT will be introduced without any need for Obama to make a speech about it, and it will pass easily. Only a few of the right-wingers will make a noise about it, because it will be a terrible loser of an issue for them.

Don't see anything about DADT in Obama's weekly ad...

2008-11-23T16:27:00.000-05:00

Don't see anything about DADT in Obama's weekly address.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/22/105213/85/22/665098

Anyone thinking repeal of DADT is a first 100 days' priority is going to be disappointed. It will happen I believe in Obama's first term, but not right away.

I have been wondering why Propostion 8 could pass ...

2008-11-23T16:22:00.000-05:00

I have been wondering why Propostion 8 could pass in the oh-so-liberal state of California. And I came to my own little theory: While the country as a whole, and the liberal states faster than the others, moves towards equality for gay people, it is not yet at the point where a majority of people actually reject inequality. In other words, Prop 8 passed because too many people just didn't care.
There are 3 groups of people: Those that are ACTIVELY supporting gay rights, those who reject them, and those who don't really care either way (A big chunk of these I-dont-care-people are just not political people, I think there are a lot of them in California). In polls, these people tend to be on the liberal side (at least in this aspect), in the way that they wouldn't reject gay marriage per se, but they also wouldn't vote FOR it, or AGAINST a measure that would prohibit it.
So, Prop 8 passed because the people between the 2 extremes of the spectrum didn't really care about it. And that would actually be a good sign for a repeal of DADT. Because if people don't care about gay rights in the one case, they probably won't care about it in the other one.
I think it all comes down to the one who's got the initiative. And it comes down to social liberalization. California is ahead of many other states, but a repeal of DADT is surely no problem there - because a lot of people just dont care. And if we wait a few more years, and the next generation is going to be more liberal than the previous one, the social scale will tilt towards the liberal side and there'll be enough people actively rejecting things like Prop 8 (and there'll be less people to pass it).
I'd generally agree though that DADT is already an unproblematic issue right now. Could it be a "test run" for Obama's presidential skills? Maybe... or it might "only" demonstrate the powerlessness of the social conservatives. But do we need either of these? I have to agree with Obama's plans to wait until 2010. Let's fix the economy first.

I fully expect the GOP to force the issue again, b...

2008-11-23T16:17:00.000-05:00

I fully expect the GOP to force the issue again, before the calendar says February, 2009.

Let's just hope that there are not enough fool Democrats to make Republicans successful.

I think you are a liar. I am not going to waste an...

2008-11-23T14:14:00.000-05:00

I think you are a liar. I am not going to waste anymore time on you. Good luck.

And where was my lie? How are you going to change my mind or get me to modify my views if that's your best response? How would you react if I made the same remark to you? Would you bother looking at anything else I wrote, no matter how well-reasoned it might be?

When was the last time you modified your views in response to name-calling? It doesn't work. I hope you'll reread your posts and see how many minds you've changed on this thread.

You might want to look at Nate's entry "Did Talk Radio Kill Conservatism?"
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/did-talk-radio-kill-conservatism.html

As he wrote, "They have not just forgotten how to persuade; they have forgotten about the necessity of persuasion." If you want to vent, fine. Sometimes people have to vent. But don't pretend it's going to persuade anyone.

reelgeist: Where I disagree with the posters here ...

2008-11-23T14:06:00.000-05:00

reelgeist: Where I disagree with the posters here is their attempts to not only suggest caution, but to suggest Obama shouldn't do anything. That's the real debate here.

I don't see very many posters here advocating doing nothing. Most favor doing something. The "real debate" is over tactics, not the goal.

We agree it's time to move on this. We agree that it's not 1993 anymore. The debate seems to me whether Obama should make it a first-100-days priority or whether it would be tactically and politically more advantageous to wait a year or perhaps two. It's not a question of fear, it's a question on what will best serve the long-term goals of this issue in particular and this administration in general. And that is a question on which reasonable people can disagree.

SimonI think you are a liar. I am not going to was...

2008-11-23T13:58:00.000-05:00

Simon

I think you are a liar. I am not going to waste anymore time on you. Good luck.

reelgeist: I believe you need to learn how to read...

2008-11-23T13:53:00.000-05:00

reelgeist: I believe you need to learn how to read. I asked a simple yes/no question. Did you read the prior posts before posting.

I did answer it. And I expanded on it. But here is what you wrote.

You know there is a class of stupid here that's hard to address.

For instance, dsimon, did you read anyone else's post before posting?

Your use of "for instance" means that sentence relates to your claim of "a new class of stupid," therefore it was not a "simple" yes/no question; it was a characterization as well.

I have looked over your prior posts, and I don't think your repeated use of the terms "coward," "silly," stupid," "afraid," "idiot," "bigot," and "liar" does much to convince anyone to your views. You might want to think about you might react if someone tried to change your mind using similar tactics.

Hold your beliefs, explain your opinions, advocate for your goals. But keep in mind what's going to work and what might be counterproductive. That means keeping the vitriol in check sometimes, even if you feel it's justified. When someone starts with the personal invective, the natural reaction from others is to simply stop listening (as some posters have already done in this thread).

DFSThanks for taking the time to read what I actua...

2008-11-23T13:43:00.000-05:00

DFS

Thanks for taking the time to read what I actually said. Where I disagree with the posters here is their attempts to not only suggest caution, but to suggest Obama shouldn't do anything. That's the real debate here. Notice what they say in their writings. It's all fear, and basically, an excuse to do nothing. They are stuck in 1993 rather realizing times change. By these people's logic, Obama shouldn't be President because 20 years ago people didn't want to elect Jesse Jackson. Remember, we are now talking 15 years ago. Not last week with regard to DADT's passage. It seems the problem isn't where the country is on this issue. It's where some of the posters are here. We have to be willing to let go of our own baggage. I know I thought at the begining of the year there were no way this country would elected a brown man as its President. I still can't believe it. But that just tell me my beliefs are wrong. Rather than admitting their beliefs are wrong here. They are running with them like they are some kind of higher truth than the numbers. This is what I find frustrating on a site dedicated to numbers, people would just rely on their own faith based reality.