Lobowolf

"Works" is shorthand for "works better than responding 1♠ works", which I thought was obvious from the context. I think it's a poor definition for "works" in this context. When they're equally good, saying that 1♥ doesn't "work," because it's not better, has an inappropriate negative connotation.

He shouldn't be second-guessed by people who thought he was the best choice for the job. Presumably the implication was that he's not only more qualified than McCain; he's more qualified than his supporters.

(Reitterating that I would have responded 1♠ on the actual hand, not 1♥) It also works when opener rebids his minor. For example 1363 or 1462, 1♦ 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ is forcing and could get you very high with no fit if opener has the wrong shape. 1♦ 1♥ 2♥ is much nicer. So I think it has more upside than you give credit for. It also works when opener has 4 spades. I, also, would have bid 1♠.

Me too. Of course he wants to be reelected, but if he consistently does what's best he should have a good shot at it. I think this is the most optimistic hope of all. With respect to Winston's two possibilities, I think the truth is in the middle, and simpler -- that Obama believes that not all of the things people (even his supporters) would like to see are in the best interests of the country.

I really hope he does. I believe there is a strong chance he could end up a 1-term President, though, if he holds too closely to past policy decisions. I hope that he cares a lot more about doing what's best for the country than he does about getting re-elected. "Change" doesn't imply that everything will be different; it implies that some (many?) things will be. If the economy, the environment, and health care, but foreign policy stays largely the same, that doesn't mean there wasn't change; it means the particular change that you most wanted in your particular area of concern wasn't effectuated.

I am not sure Obama "gets it" that he will be a huge disappointment and many supporters will feel a sense of betrayal if he does not move strongly away from Bush policies. I think he gets it; I just think that he has ideas as to what is best for the country that are not always in lock-step with those of his supporters. And when they're not in lock-step, he's certainly going to do what he thinks is best. In fact, what many of those supporters specifically trumpeted as one of his major selling points is that he'll listen to what people have to say, and he'll do what he thinks is best, because that's what a leader's supposed to do. If Anne Weissman anticipated that the major decisions of the new administration will be made by a vote of either Americans in general or those who supported Obama, she's in for a long 4 (8) years. There's bound to be some cognitive dissonance for people who think Obama can do no wrong and Bush can do no right. A trained monkey could have just moved in and done the opposite of Bush every time. Sometimes, they're going to be in agreement.

This is from an AP article. I think it hits the mark and I am beginning to sense Obama doesn't "get it". Maybe he "gets it" but fundamentally disagrees with you. Don't worry about the Obama administration not being smoother... just about all of the National Security/Terrorism issues nowadays have complicated legal aspects that Obama is almost uniquely (among politicians electable to the presidency) qualified to understand and address.

What's with the politically correct aversion to "judging"? "Judgment" is one of our higher faculties.

Hopefully turning down bazillions of dollars in free money is one of those decisions that would have to be made, or at least ratified, by the Boards of Directors.

I don't know that that's quite accurate; that's one way of construing it, but the system is also "based on" the notion that guilty people should be punished. It just so happens that there are extensive safeguards to attempt to be sure that people are not wrongly convicted, but that doesn't make "innocent until proven guilty" the be all, end all as far "THE basis for our system." The principle that guilty people should be punished IS violated by a fallible person freeing people arbitrarily. As is the principle that people are equal in the eyes of the law - yet another principle.

Such a good reason, in fact, that they're NOT inherently illegal; there are numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement.

Adam has JUICE around here. He got a "Wow" instead of an "LOL."

Additionally in support of opening this hand, it has 2 1/2 quick tricks; if partner doubles based on the premise that you have an opening bid, this hand won't disappoint.

Got me beat, but for a hand/first round of the auction, I still like my favorite: ♠KQJTx ♥AQJTxxxx ♦--- ♣--- After I opened 1♥, partner bid 2NT, Jacoby. Never had a hand where 3 key cards were irrelevant after one round of bidding (even if missing the K♥, it drops)!

...when responder has more than a minimum response.

At expert levels, it's probably rated about as it should be. At the B/I level, it's underrated, especially at matchpoints.

I think that is pretty misleading. The US has far worse wealth and capital distribution than most of the developed world. Based on 2001 numbers the top 1% in the US controls 38% of the wealth. And the top 10% controls 71% of the wealth. So while your 50% of families may own some small sliver of wealth (the bottom 40% owns less than 1%), I'd say they don't control it. And things have not been made more equal since 2001 as the Bush era was not a good time for the median family (but there were very good bonuses in Wall Street)! What percentage of wealth "should" the top 1% should control? Is your barometer for the success of the median family their position relative to the median family of 8 years ago, or their position relative to the top 1%?

I agree that this is the case; however, I do believe that most theists are wrong about that.

The natural result will be that Obama will get the credit, if credit is given, and Bush will get the blame, if blame is given. I'd be surprised if Obama goes out of his way to create a different public perception. This is not to suggest that what I call the "natural result" is erroneous. Really? I think if Obama orders the troops withdrawn against the suggestions of military command, and the public ends up judging that it worked out badly, he will shoulder virtually the entire blame. In fact I think completely opposite of you, much of the blame that would have been earned by Bush in that instance would probably go to Obama. Hopefully, whatever course of action Obama decides upon will be successful and recognized as such, and this will remain an interesting(?) exercise in speculation.

The natural result will be that Obama will get the credit, if credit is given, and Bush will get the blame, if blame is given. I'd be surprised if Obama goes out of his way to create a different public perception. This is not to suggest that what I call the "natural result" is erroneous.

Once upon a time, raising with 3-cards was almost automatic, particularly if one of the 3 was an honor. Nowadays, the pendulum has swung such that many players are extremely reluctant to suggest a trump fit of fewer than 8 cards. The best solution is almost certainly, as has been suggested, in the middle - you want to do it sometimes, but not always. The (possible) 4-3 fit is best, as has been noted, when the 3-card holding can gain a trick by ruffing, or at least help prevent a loss of trump control by taking the ruff in the short hand -- i.e. when the 3-card holding has a singleton or void, or to a lesser extent, a small doubleton. Part of the issue involves the question of how to discover 5-3 fits in these situation; there are really only 2 ways - the hand with 3 can raise, or the hand with 5 can rebid them. Most beginning/intermediate players overly rely on the wrong solution to this problem - they rebid 5-card suits too often. So by raising with 3, at least sometimes, you're increasing the chances of finding a useful 5-3 fit; if you incorporate the ideas in this thread as to when it's most appropriate, you can improve your results from the other end, too - helping to ensure that when you DO play a 4-3 fit, it's either better or not much worse than the alternative (which is usually NT). In contrast, if you rely on the rebid of the 5-card suit, you often end up in 5-1 fits, which are often less than ideal. I mean, at least 4-3 fits have a NAME.

I understand this position, but there is also a danger in using military tactics for a political agenda (i.e. keeping a campaign promise even if subsequently discovered information reveals it to be the wrong decision).

As a constitutional lawyer, he must have a terrific knowledge of the history of Constitutional law. I don't think that his legal background gives him any sort of inside line or advantage with respect to leading the military, other than with respect to his understanding and use of some tricky legal provisions, such as unlawful enemy combatant issues, material support to terrorist organization laws, etc. I don't think they're underestimating his resolve; just hoping that it's still subject to flexibility, particularly in response to the opinions of people who are more experienced than he in particular areas (which was hailed as one of his major selling points). Which isn't to say that Patraeus is right per se, but that this is more an area of his expertise than Obama's. It sounds less like a nuts-and-bolts disagreement than a tough decision involving the weighing of some strategic and/or political gains vs. some tactical losses. Ultimately, as Commander in Chief, Obama will make the final decision of the pros and cons; however, I would expect that if Patraeus believes that Obama is underestimating the cons, he will further try to persuade him of that fact. I would also expect that Obama is wise enough to want him to, whether he ultimately agrees or not.

My impression is that it wasn't the topic, but the presentation of some of the posts.

But I really don't think they should overlap in a debate - either we both debate the metaphysical or we both debate the scientific. So I guess my starting point would be this: I have serious doubts about the reality or usefulness of any metaphysical Laws. A=A, The Law of Identity, doesn't seem to serve much useful purpose. Seems more like a high school debate rule than a Universal Law. The laws of the physical world are pretty much useless without some metaphysical laws; for instance, the law of non-contradiction. At any given time and in a single context, both "A" and "not A" cannot be true. If you don't hold to that one, there's not really much point in having a zillion-page "evolution v. creationism" thread. You don't have to debate or discuss them, and maybe it's a silly exercise, but you do have accept them to move onto the empirically-based debates.