• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

497 Excellent

About Nola

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. No time to post these days. Try and lurk every few days though. Just remember, I'm always watching old man.
  2. I'll gladly take them in exchange for a couple beers if you haven't given them away yet.
  3. Opinions About The Iran Deal Are More About Obama Than Iran The political debate has begun on the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, and it is falling almost exactly along partisan lines. Nearly all the Republican presidential candidates are against it (Rand Paul has not issued a statement). Jeb Bush, who is more moderate than most of his fellow Republicans, has already called the deal “appeasement.” All the Democratic candidates are either supportive or noncommittal. In fact, the best predictor of how Americans will feel about the deal, announced Tuesday, is not their position on Iran or nuclear disarmament, but simply their opinion about President Obama. Over the past few months a number of nonpartisan polls have been conducted on a nuclear agreement with Iran. Every single one of them found more support for a deal than opposition. The most recent, a Fox News poll from June, said that 47 percent were in favor of “an agreement that would involve the U.S. easing economic sanctions on Iran for ten years and in return Iran agreeing to stop its nuclear program over that period” compared with 43 percent who were against it. The groups that generally approved of the deal were the same ones that generally approved of the job Obama has been doing as president. Black, Democratic, liberal and younger voters were generally for the deal, while white, Republican, conservative and older voters were more likely to be opposed. In fact, you can explain 82 percent of the variation in support for the Iran deal in 18 subgroups just by knowing what Obama’s job approval rating was in each group. The matchup isn’t perfect. There are, for example, plenty of Republicans (34 percent) in favor of the deal and plenty of black people (31 percent) against it. But it wouldn’t be surprising if those groups returned to the partisan fold as the debate reaches a climax. The partisanship on display in this issue was also apparent during the gun control debate after the Newtown school massacre in Connecticut. You probably remember how the initial pollingseemed to show that there was a lot of support for Obama’s proposals. But once Obama’s name was attached to the legislation, support for any bill lined up almost perfectly with how people feltabout members of his administration. A different question asked by Fox News gets at this polarization phenomenon. Fox News asked voters, “how confident are you in the ability of the Obama administration to handle negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program?” Forty-eight percent of Americans said they were at least somewhat confident in the Obama administration, similar to the 47 percent that favored the deal, but the subgroup breakdown was much closer to how Americans felt about Obama overall. Ninety-six percent of the variation in confidence in the Obama administration’s negotiations was explained by approval of Obama’s job performance overall. Within the 18 subgroups, the average difference between Obama’s job approval rating and confidence in the administration’s handling of negotiations was just 3 percentage points. Only 17 percent of Republicans were confident in the negotiations, and just 11 percent of black respondents were not. So what does this mean for the deal as it heads to Congress for approval? On the face of it, it means Democratic voters are probably not going to push for congressional Democrats to stray from the president (except possibly for strong supporters of Israel). That’s not good for the deal’s opponents, who will need bipartisan support tooverturn the Iran agreement in Congress (which requires a two-thirds majority). But it also means the White House will not be able to claim a political consensus for one of its most significant foreign policy achievements.
  4. Given the amount of time you waste on here, that seems doubtful.
  5. Of course you do, because you don't think Obama has the "black experience"... I'm sure you watched that church funeral and thought "Wow, he really sticks out like a sore them, doesn't fit this culture at all"
  6. Of course they are. Who on earth says they aren't? It's arguing against a straw man. But if you believe that is really what he was doing, you're being naive.
  7. It's 100% trolling. He even criticizes Obama for singing at the funeral (FOR HIS FRIEND) but that he won't do it for Amari Brown. Amari Brown's killing is national news so I'm a bit unsure what the actual critique is... though Allen West does want us to know that Amari Brown's death wasn't because of a gun! Sounds like he really is actually genuinely concerned about his murder! I'm sure he must have attended the funeral today given his critique... "I suppose President Obama will deliver the eulogy and sing “Amazing Grace” for this young black child who lost his life – but not because of a gun"
  8. Ah yes, it was the "liberal progressive media" boogeyman that got the flag taken down, just ignore the Republican Governor and two Republican Senators from South Carolina that also called for it to be taken down... Allen West is an Ann Coulter or a Donald Trump, a pure troll trying to get a rise out of people. And yet, it appears some of you in here actually think he's someone intelligent that we should be listening to!
  9. So, haven't had a chance to scan through the OT, has there been a lot of talk about the Republicans and the filibuster from the Senate traditionalists in here?
  10. Turkey is up 10% Palestine up 17% Israel up 6% Seems like that would feed CBF's "mostly the same" as some are up and some are down.
  11. There seems to be a lot of chirping about the Martin Jones contract but I don't get it... Sure, they could have signed him to a 1 year deal in the 2 million range or something but if he had a really good year, he'd be looking at 4 million or so the next off-season. Obviously, the Sharks believe he's going to be a good starter or they wouldn't give up a 1st round pick for him. So locking him up for 3 years at a reasonable price makes sense if you expect him to be good. And if he struggles, it's still cheap enough you could tandem him next off-season with another goalie.
  12. If the Sharks get a .920 SV% out of Jones, they're make the playoffs.
  13. Jonathan Bernier posted a .923 SV% in 2013-2014 with Toronto... Not sure I'd call that season mediocre, that has to be top 10 among qualified starters, maybe even top 5. This season was but that team was so bad the end of the year that it's hard to believe anyone would post decent numbers in front of them (and he still posted a .912 SV%).