ptown_trojans_1

posted by justincredible

What do we think about Texas -13.5? 

I wouldn't. But, then again, my philosophy is to bet every underdog spread wise. Over the course of the weekend, over the last 5 years, I have came out ahead.

I also sprinkle the money lines on ones that are +4 and under. 

So far over the last few days, I am 10-6. 

posted by jmog

You didn’t answer the question, you just deflected again.

Is she a credible human source?

I. Don't. Know.

I don't know if her evidence is credible. Do you? Have you verified it? 

Ever heard of curveball? 

posted by jmog

So the Doctor, who worked at the Wuhan Virology Lab, and fled China in 2020 to basically whistle blow what happened at that lab…

SHE isn’t a “credible human source”? 

If a doctor who actually worked at that lab isn’t a credible source in your opinion then zero credible sources exist on this planet in ptown’s world.

I don't know. I don't have access to what material or primary sources that she brought out and if any of that information has been verified.

It's one data point and source. 

You cannot prove anything from one source.....

There is a famous example of why not...Iraq. 

posted by jmog

Ok, forget word play and semantics.

Down to brass tacks.  

What, in your view, is the percent chance COVID-19 came from a lab vs a bat at a wet market. 

60/40? 50/50?

My view? I say 50/50 as in I don't know. I can't dismiss either one of them. 

If I had to pick one, I'd say lab, but little confidence in that option.

I don't think we will ever know for sure unless we get some key intel or credible human sources, so anything is really guess work. 

posted by Ironman92

Prolly ought to hit the casino and Brew Brothers is good

True. Hollywood sports book is open on the west side and the Caesars is open at the Eldorado south of town. I prefer Hollywood. 

posted by Laley23

Who is in Columbus these days? I will be in town (likely staying near Nationwide) Wednesday, March 15th - Sunday, March 19 for the NCAA Tournament first/second rounds. Looking for good food and drink spots. 

Would also be down to potentially meet up as a group (is there enough posters to be called a group??) on Wednesday, Thursday, or Saturday. Our games are Friday/Sunday so those are out, but Saturday, after a bit of AM work, I should be free all day. Only note is will 100% need TVs to watch the games.

I love High Bank in Granville. Good food, tvs, and whiskey. Grandville Cafe is in that area too. 

Brewdog and LandGrant brewery should have tvs too. Food is usually trucks. 

R bar is the hockey bar in the area. Food is hit and miss. 

Some of the places in the short north will be really good for food, though tvs aren't in all of them. 

I think the new Hilton rooftop bar may be open by then too. 

Polaris has the top golf, but also my favorite place, Nomad. I also like Kitchen Social, and Cornado taco place. 

posted by jmog

1. Occam’s razor. A coronavirus started in Wuhan China where there is a major coronavirus research lab located. Occam’s razor leaves all rational people to say “this new respiratory virus that has way weirder symptoms than regular respiratory viruses…it had to come from that lab right down the road…NOT FROM A FOOD MARKET”. 

Come on Ptown, drop the act.

2. Knowing it came from a lab is not the same as proving it beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court.  The evidence suggests it, even a preponderance of evidence (>50/50) but not “beyond a reasonable doubt” required for criminal jail time. Yet it would pass muster in a civil case.

3. Your dense belief that we need to wait for declassified verification is intriguing yet you don’t follow that same reasoning/requirement when it’s a subject you already agree with on your side of the aisle.

We are arguing over semantics here. My standard for something like this is the how confident is the evidence that the intelligence community is providing. 

In a formal governmental setting like this, in order to prove something, have to show the evidence. You use the court argument, while I am using the intelligence community language and methods. Occam's razor won't cut it. That's my point. I think we are in agreement on what is possible, but do you have the evidence? So far no.

My view has always been to read into what the IC is releasing and how confident are they on matters of foreign policy, which this is. 

posted by jmog

1. The facts haven’t changed.  The information you have been given by the government/MSM has changed. That’s a real difference.

2. 50/50 that it still came from a wet market bat? Come on…no way you are serious. The only real question is was it accidentally leaked from a lab or on purpose. 

1. You did not have facts early on. Everything was conjecture.

2. There is no hard evidence declassified yet to suggest with high certainty either course. 

For something this serious and important, the evidence and credibility and verification of that evidence is everything. The fact we do not have high confidence in where it came from is simply a fancy way of saying it is an educated guess. 

You are a data guy, you should understand intelligence agencies probability assessments and confidence levels. 

posted by gut

When I mentioned it very early on, a few posters called me an idiot conspiracy theorist.  And all I said was there was a decent chance it leaked from a lab.

Of course, those posters were conditioned by a certain segment of the media that ANY questioning - no matter how rational or grounded in fact - of the official narrative was a "conspiracy nut".

The people who said it could have accidentally escaped a lab were deliberately grouped with the "bio-weapon" nuts.  Anti-science and the like.

Govt has been shown to lie over and over and over.  But, c'mon guys, it's not cool to question authority.  People could die.

My view on a lab leak has changed as the facts have. Early on, when posters would suggest it, it was without evidence.

I agree we should really dig in, investigate, and declassify as much as we can. 

I also think there is big difference between an accidental lab leak, and the claim that China weaponized it and purposely released it. Zero evidence of that.

I think it is still a toss up it came from a lab naturally or by accident or came from a market. 

I will say, the people that are not open to it being a lab leak of some kind are the ignoring the growing evidence. 

posted by gut

And I suppose there's zero chance - 0.0 - that there was any political or outside influence on the verbiage or certainty expressed?

That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

Sounding very 2003 liberal you are...

posted by jmog
People with 2 brain cells or more were fairly certain, >50% that it leaked from a lab from almost the beginning. 

Not according to any intelligence agency. The language they use is not even close to fairly certain. 

Look at the probability language they use and the various confidence levels of that language. 

posted by QuakerOats

So, it was a lab leak after all, imagine that.  Who knew? 

At what confidence level? 

posted by jmog

I still believe most people understand his cognitive function has diminished significantly since he was VP. If you want to call that Alzheimer’s, dementia, or  something else so be it.

That is still painfully obvious whenever watching him try to make it through any non prepared speech.

And I hope you pay attention to someone admitting their faults as maybe you won’t be nearly as pretentious in your virtue signaling and “oh, I’m middle of the road” schtick.

And as of a couple months ago the average American agreed he was in bad health and it was basically split even on his mentally being able to do the job.

So yeah, I’m the one off my rocker on this topic…

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2021/11/17/poll-biden-mental-fitness-job-approval-522785

You know it is one thing to say he is old and a completely different one to say he has dementia?

You still have not figured that out.

I agree, he is too old, and should not run in 24. 

I just find it funny, a lot of your things you are wrong are on the social issues side. Again, just something to think about as we talk now a days on topics.

Oh, I've been wrong on a few things. The big one for me was Iraq. I supported the war back in 2003. 

A few Obama related items, wrong on. I thought Trump would be way worse, wrong on that one. He was terrible, but wasn't the disaster I thought. 

I was wrong on Dewine. Thought he would be a train wreck and have been surprised. 

Those are ones off top of my head. 

posted by jmog

My own chart proves my assertion.

And you are telling people they are voting wrong even though their stated goal, slowed/reduced government growth, is achieved by the way they vote.

Seems rather like the Dunning-Kruger effect. You know how I should vote better than I do….

You are really focusing on that chart that contradicts your own point with spending in 2020. 

I'm not telling people, I'm telling you based on your own philosophy, you are doing the absolute least and minimum possible. 

Again, all talk, and no action.

Your philosophy it seems is, well, I can't do anything, so even if the federal government grows a little bit, and it goes against my own views, that's fine. You are not willing to actually do the work. 

posted by jmog

I'm not searching down years old threads, but I can tell you topics that I have changed my mind that have been definitely on this website.

I used to believe marriage should be only 1 man, 1 woman, that same sex marriages should just be "civil unions". Now I believe that any adult should be allowed to get married, the only "hard" stance I have now is that no one should be allowed to sue clergy and other wedding workers for not wanting to work for their wedding if they don't believe in it religiously.

I used to be (before OC time) a staunch conservative, 20 years ago would vote right down the R party line. Now not so much, because they suck balls too.

I used to be against any police reform at all, supported police in about everything. Now I am all for removing implied immunity, the fact that they self "police" with Internal Affairs, etc. Police violence in general (not specific to any one race) is way too high and needs to be fixed.

I was originally wrong on George Floyd. As soon as the video came out I changed my tune immediately and called it murder by cop, because it was.

I mean I could keep going if you like, but that should suffice, no?

Good to see you have admitted being wrong on most social issues....keep that in mind as you debate the topics of today.....

You still going with the Biden has dementia argument Dr.? 

I think you even said something to the effect of he wouldn't make it through the term. 

posted by jmog

So your solution is that I need to grow the National libertarian party from basically scratch and overhaul  the whole 2 party system?

Or, and hear me out, I can work to take care of my family.

I can’t believe you agree with me, that spending is slowed during split government, yet still tell me I’m wrong and I need to overhaul the whole 2 party system myself.

Sometimes your act is insufferable.

If you really care about your own policy views as you say, then yes. Otherwise, you are doing the least you can do, and as I said are being very passive. You are doing nothing but complaining and hoping something magically happens. 

You are still stuck on thinking gridlock slows or stops growth. Your chart shows otherwise. It still grows and rose dramatically in 2020, under divided government. 

Gridlock government also does not address the core spending problems like entitlement reform and immigration reform. If you care about your policy problems, ignoring the reform only makes it worse as we spend more and more. 

You can take care of your family and be involved in getting your policy solutions implemented. You seem to not like the answer...you have to do more and not just say I will vote the opposite party and call it a day. That is lazy. 

If you or others on here actually care...do something. 

posted by jmog

One problem is you didn’t answer the question. If both sides always grow the side of the federal government when they are in power, and I believe in a smaller federal government as described in the Constitution….what/who should I vote for since you apparently use logic and I do not?

Your problem is that factual history backs up my position and conjecture backs up yours.

Every single major spike in the lasr 25 years in federal spending as a percent of GDP was when one side had unified control  (both sides have done it) and every dip down or stagnation in federal spending as a percentage of GDP was when power was divided.

Sure it’s a little more nuanced than that, but that is still factual information, and the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

Who should you vote for? Find and encourage candidates. Thats how. It seems like you just want the easy approach, just sit back and let them magically appear. You do not want to do the leg work on growing your political movement. 

The 2020 spike was divided government, but it was the covid year, so easy to forget. But, yes, the spending overall does slow in divided government, but that is not achieving your policy solution, the spending continues. 

Instead of just throwing up your hands, do something. 

How many of you on here are actually involved in the local or regional political process? 

I was in Maryland, and am involved here in Ohio too.

If you want to change the system, you have to work at it and not just complain about on a message board. 

posted by jmog

1. The massive expansions happened when one side had POTUS and Congressional control. Both Rs and Ds. Not when the 2 sides were splitting power.

2. The 2 party system suck donkey balls. I would be all for electing an actual small federal government candidate like a libertarian if it was actually physically possible in our system. Trash the whole system and give me a libertarian and I am in 100%. A libertarian will never be a national candidate with a 2 party system locked down.

3. Find me a better strategy than what I do to slow down federal government growth, fill me in since I don’t use logic and you do, mister “middle road”.

Not disagreeing with 1, but your gridlock approach just continues those policies. It doesn't slow, it just continues with continuing budget resolutions. 

Well number 2 is not realistic as the system is not going to blow up unless you drive policy and people to change it, which given your passive approach, you are not doing.

I don't have the answers, but stay engaged in trying to promote bipartisan policy.  That to me seems a better strategy than just throwing up hands, complaining, yet not offering any practical solutions other than both suck and they need to figure it out. 

That's my main annoyance around here. Easy to complain, harder to try and work toward actual solutions. 

posted by jmog

No, neither side is really going to shrink the government ever, even through the Rs say they will, they won’t  either. Ds are full on board with federal expansion.

So if both side would make it bigger if in power why wouldn’t a “status quo” and no/slower growth be better? Let them fight over stupid shit like morons and never pass anything which means the status quo doesn’t change and the federal government doesn’t grow as fast as if either party were in power.

And it is perfectly rational when you know both sides will grow the government, and they won’t work together anymore, to vote for gridlock so they won’t grow the government.

And if they magically start working cross party lines again like 20 years ago then it’s a win win.

The last time we had a balance budget was when the power was split. 

I have had this debate with my buddy in Orange County who is a libertarian.

The problem I have with your line of thinking is it is passive. It is not about finding a solution, but just good with the status quo, which seems to contradict the libertarian ideology to me. 

You say the fed may be growing more slowly, but the last 10 years so the opposite has happened. Spending has increased as each side gains power and trys to one up the other. 

They are passing more things by default as the spending train keeps rolling. 

By just saying you like gridlock, you are agreeing with that philosophy of more spending by default, which I know you and other do not support. 

It would be one thing if you were aggressively supporting libertarian candidates and ideas. But, as you said, you are not as you are supporting the status quo of gridlock or the lesser of two evils on the ballot. 

Also, odd you just are waiting for something magic to happen and not actually working to make that change happen. 

I may be wrong, but I am going off your own words of supporting gridlock which just makes the current situation worse and contradicts what I thought was the libertarian mission. 

posted by birddog23

Anybody happen to catch the end of the OSU/Michigan yesterday?

What a bad beat for me.

Had a 5 Leg, +687 Parlay. 4 out 5 legs were done, just needed the under to hit at 144.5

Michigan had the ball with under 25 seconds to go, they were running out the clock and the Michigan MF'er picked up the ball and traveled to go high five a teammate on the court. Turnover. Ohio State gets ball and goes down and scores....

Damn. That sucks. I noticed that and hope it is on SVPs Bad Beats. 

One reason I usually stay away from parlays. 

I had Mich ML and -3, as OSU is terrible this year. Easy money.