The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[innerSpaceman]

it's been interesting watching you decide where to go from there.

Don't mistake me, then. It's not "reason enough" for me to vote for him, though it's one of many reasons Obama's a better choice than McCain.


I reject both of them. The election in November is about my civil rights, and both major party candidates stand in the way of that.

[Tom]

iSm -
I respect your position and am not trying to change it, but I wondered if you had taken the Supreme Court into your calculus, since gay marriage legislation would seem likely to go through the US Supreme Court at some point, and the next president is likely to appoint at least 2 or 3 justices. Of course there is no guarantee that justices appointed by Obama would favor gay marriage, but I think it is more likely than not, and I am certain that McCain's election will cement an anti-gay marriage Supreme Court for at least a generation.

[scaeagles]

As ISM pointed out, his vote in CA probably means next to nothing because Obama is going to win CA. If it were close, he might not have the luxury of not casting his vote.

[innerSpaceman]

Of course, if my vote counted, I'd vote for Obama.


It doesn't.


So I'm going to protest HIS, the candidate's, stance on gay marriage rights and his disgusting statement that he's using his religious views to dictate American policy (though I think he's lying, making the matter even worse).


If I lived in Ohio, I'd suck it up and vote for Obama for a myriad of reasons ... Supreme Court appointees among them.




But then again ... if I was a gay man living in Ohio ... I'd likely move to California. ;)

[JWBear]

I am against ALL voter fraud....that includes voter supression(like Obama did to his State Senatorial district--he supressed the will of those who wanted to vote for his oponent).....I guess I am not sophisticated enough to say some voter fraud is ok and some isn't(and surprise surprise, the kind I don't mind too much this week is the kind my candidate has participated in:rolleyes: )


btw: I really like you and I hope to G-d my posts don't come off as if I don't....because I do:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)



By that standard, every candidate commits "voter fraud" whenever they become their party's sole candidate. :rolleyes:

Using a legal option to challenge other candidates’ presence on a ballot is in no way shape or form voter suppression. That’s not apples and oranges, that’s apples and automobiles!

Typical Republican half truths and innuendoes.

[scaeagles]

Typical Republican half truths and innuendoes.


Like how in 2004 (or 2000 - I lose track) there were charges of voter suppression when people tried to get in line to vote after the polls closed?

Typical Democrat half truths and innuendoes.

[Tom]

Of course, if my vote counted, I'd vote for Obama.


It doesn't.

Of course, you've said all this already. Sorry, it was a long day.

[Morrigoon]

iSm: If you were FOR either candidate, watching you decide wouldn't be half so interesting

[Not Afraid]

For the past week, I have been spending the night at a clients house. I did not have internet access so I turned on the TV at several points. Aparently the client prefers Fox News, because that's what I got whenever I turned on the set and I got to hear bits of this "new program" while I was searching for something watchable.

I've heard the disdain on this board about Fox news but had really never experienced it first hand. All I have to say is WTF? PEOPLE ACTUALLY LISTEN TO THIS DRIVEL AND CONSIDER THIS A VALUED NEWS SOURCE??????

I am shocked and appalled that this is considered a valuable source of news. Actually, a better word for it would be completely disgusted. I had no idea.

[scaeagles]

What were you watching? They have several opinion programs which would be similar to watching Keith Olberman or Chris Matthews on MSNBC.

[Gemini Cricket]

What were you watching? They have several opinion programs which would be similar to watching Keith Olberman or Chris Matthews on MSNBC.
Even without the op-ed programs, Fox "News" is completely ridiculous. Bringing up an example from another network does not take away the fact that Fox "News" is slanted drivel brought to us by the Bush Broadcasting Company. (With apologies to the BBC, a credible news source.)

[Not Afraid]

I don't know. Some "news" bs that had some of the most RIDICULOUS pieces that were supposedly "news". Do people actually watch this and believe it?

[Gemini Cricket]

Do people actually watch this and believe it?
Yes. Lots of people. I think they have a larger viewership than CNN.

Here's a dose of Fox smearing Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouKJixL--ms)

[JWBear]

Fox news: the network of lies, half-truths, and innuendo.

[Scrooge McSam]

It's up to all patriotic Americans to do our part.

Yes, I can (http://blip.tv/play/gbYoy8oBjr1b)

[Not Afraid]

Yes. Lots of people. I think they have a larger viewership than CNN.

Here's a dose of Fox smearing Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouKJixL--ms)


If that's what the general populace is watching, I am not surprised that people are as dumb as they are. What drivel, what stupidity, what soap opera smear!

[scaeagles]

Fox news: the network of lies, half-truths, and innuendo.


CBS - the network of forged documents days prior to an election.

MSNBC - the network of demoted yet completely unbiased Olberman and Matthews.

NBC - the network that faked the explosions of Ford Explorers (or some other SUV) and aired footage of created explosions and claimed them to real.

ABCs Good Morning America reported that Michelle Obama had used the term " whitey " in a speech.

There are example of other media outlets reporting on Palin's baby not being hers, but in fact it belonging to her daughter.

Examples are endless.

I agree that Fox has grossly mishandled this story. It is even probably intentional on behalf of several of the people on the network. Hear me when I say I am in complete agreement that this story is wrong and done to politically damage Obama. However, please do not pretend that Fox is the only organization that does such things.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Fox just seems to be the most egregious in reporting what they would like to be true. Watching the same story on different networks is quite enlightening (provided I can stomach live "news" coverage at all).

[Gemini Cricket]

However, please do not pretend that Fox is the only organization that does such things.
Again, citing other examples from other networks doesn't make what Fox "News" does okay. Without bringing up other networks, do you really think Fox "News" is a credible news source?

[Stan4dSteph]

Fox News has some of the worst comments in their banners that show underneath and all around the screen. It is absolutely ridiculous.

[wendybeth]

Faux news pushes the envelope for bad, bad, bad journalism. It's no wonder they love Palin. None of the network or cable news shows are blameless, but Faux is so blatantly biased (not to mention staffed by a bunch of snarky nimrods) that it boggles the mind. It's the Enquirer of the news world. If one has to reach as far back to the CBS debacle, then I'd say they were doing pretty well. That was probably several thousand misleading and deliberately misreported Faux stories ago. Good thing about Faux, though- you don't have to open up your mind to watch. You don't have to think at all.

[scaeagles]

I did not say that what they did was OK. Please show me where I did. In fact, I even said it was quite probably done intentionally.

Like every news source, I think they all have their spins and biases.

As far as news coverage goes, I watch as little of it as possible from any news source. I regularly get internet news from Fox and CNN. I read many, many different political writers, mostly on the right, my favorites being Sowell, Walter Williams, Krauthammer, and Dick Morris.

I have what I think is a pretty realistic view of the media, understanding they ALL have their biases. Obviously I believe (and have stated) that most go left. Fox obviously goes right.

[Alex]

Fox News does a fair amount of perfectly good journalism. It just generally doesn't overlap with its political coverage.

But then political journalism on TV is generally a great big ball of suck, even when it isn't -- intentionally -- putting forward a particular slant. Any medium that gives an average of 45 seconds to a story isn't going to be able to cover any topic requiring analysis rather than facts at all well.

[scaeagles]

You don't have to think at all.

News is supposed to be "event X happened at this time at this location". It's all analysis now. It all sucks. It's all this expert or that expert or whomever telling us what they think. You don't have to think watching any of them. They all try to tell you what to think.

[wendybeth]

Funny- I have all the major sites, including the horrid ones, bookmarked for comparison. I seldom watch TV, but when I do I skip around and compare notes as well. I never just sit and accept a station's broadcast as verity. I figure the truth is somewhere in the mix, you just have to look for it.

As far as spin- there is bias, and then there is propaganda. Most are biased to some degree, but only one comes to mind as the official mouthpiece of the current regime.

[scaeagles]

Bias and propaganda and whatever are all in the eye of the beholder.

What I find interesting (and others may find scary) is that Fox is the clear leader in viewers of the news networks. I think this is because there is so much left bias that everyone who was tired of that watches Fox.

And I've always viewed CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC - whichever - as the mouthpieces of the democrats.

[Alex]

Having thought about it now, I realize that I would take Fox News over the horror that CNN Headline News has become.

Nancy Grace, Glenn Beck, Showbiz Tonight. Each so incredibly offensive in their own way (only Sean Hannity matches on Fox). Then they top it off with an attempt at mimicing VH-1 shows called Not Just Another Cable News Show.

I mourn the hours once spent with Headline News on constant loop in the background keeping me minimally informed about the days events.

[Stan4dSteph]

I mourn the hours once spent with Headline News on constant loop in the background keeping me minimally informed about the days events.I miss BBC World for that. I had that on a lot in France. Sky News was good for the more tabloidy stories.

[JWBear]

CBS - the network of forged documents days prior to an election.

MSNBC - the network of demoted yet completely unbiased Olberman and Matthews.

NBC - the network that faked the explosions of Ford Explorers (or some other SUV) and aired footage of created explosions and claimed them to real.

ABCs Good Morning America reported that Michelle Obama had used the term " whitey " in a speech.

There are example of other media outlets reporting on Palin's baby not being hers, but in fact it belonging to her daughter.

Examples are endless.

I agree that Fox has grossly mishandled this story. It is even probably intentional on behalf of several of the people on the network. Hear me when I say I am in complete agreement that this story is wrong and done to politically damage Obama. However, please do not pretend that Fox is the only organization that does such things.

One example from each of the other networks does nothing to excuse the hundreds - no, thousands - of examples from Fox.

[JWBear]

Bias and propaganda and whatever are all in the eye of the beholder.

What I find interesting (and others may find scary) is that Fox is the clear leader in viewers of the news networks. I think this is because there is so much left bias that everyone who was tired of that watches Fox.

And I've always viewed CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC - whichever - as the mouthpieces of the democrats.

Liberal bias of the media is a myth. All the major networks are owned by big corporations that have a vested interest in having Republicans in power.

If they were "mouthpieces for the democrats (sic)", they wouldn't be so soft on McCain and Palin.

(ETA: Also, if the major media really had a liberal bias Bush and Cheney would have been impeached years ago, and Obama would be heading to a landslide.)

[scaeagles]

I don't see a need to post hundreds or thousands of examples.

Soft on McCain and Palin? I see it completely the opposite. Big shock. I think they have been ridiculously soft on Obama.

Like has been brought up before, we can each lay evidence as to why we believe that the media is biased in one way or another. I'll leave it at that and continue on, realizing it is pointless to continue along the same lines and just agree to disagree rather than belittling your viewpoint.

[Not Afraid]

The whole media bias to the lift argument is ridiculous. The media bias is to the sheep, dumbing down all information to a bland pablum that people sheep feed on with dumb accepting eyes and apparently no brain. Why our culture has become a herd of manipulated sheep is beyond me.

I don't have a lot of time invested in watching TV news. I can only handle about 3 minutes of any news source at one time. But, what I do end up hearing/seeing is crap stuffed into small sound bites. But, as for leaning one direction or another, I only see right-leaning or marshmallow stances. I suspect the left-leaning media bias myth is another piece of pablum that has has been fed to the sheep.

[innerSpaceman]

Baaa Ram Ewe, Baaa Ram Ewe, to your dumbass clan be true.

[wendybeth]

I agree, NA. It's an excuse to say and do outrageous things and I find it very childish. ("But, Mom- the other kids are doing it too!) Alex is correct with regards to straight news on Fox- they dumb it down, but it's not horribly skewed. Unfortunately, the zillion 'analyst' programs take up far more air time than any newscast and present a picture of collective bias against anyone who isn't hardcore conservative. CNN, NBC, CBS and others seriously dumb down the news as well and I believe they are kinder to Obama than Faux, but I haven't seen the same level of mocking, insulting and inflammatory rhetoric directed at McCain. Then again, I don't really watch them too often. I prefer to read the news.



Edited to add: Lol, iSm! Just ten minutes ago I was taking the Girl to her homeschool class and we had to go over a very bumpy dirt road. We both started saying the "Baa Ram Ewe', as the bumps were making our voices quaver just like a sheep's.

[scaeagles]

OK....so matters of opinion mean I'm a sheep now. OK.

So far today I've been called delusional and a sheep. Good thing I'm not taking anything personally.

[mousepod]

For me, the media (and we're talking in-your-face headline media, not dig-until-you-find-the-story media) fails to present an objective "truth" not because it's left- or right-leaning, but because in almost every case, sensationalism trumps everything.

Case in point: I come to work today, and my boss says, "Did you see this? Lindsay Lohan has come out against Palin." He reads me the story, chuckling all the way through it. I agree with him that Lohan is a terrible political spokesperson, but did he hear what Greenspan said about McCain's proposed tax plan last Friday on Bloomberg? Of course he hadn't.

(In a nutshell - Greenspan said that McCain's 3.3 trillion dollar tax cut won't work unless there's an equal cut in the budget. Bloomberg's website pointed out that McCain's proposed cuts to earmarks and pork barrel spending would be under $200 billion - and that McCain hasn't spelled out any other specific cuts.)

[sleepyjeff]

OK....so matters of opinion mean I'm a sheep now. OK.

So far today I've been called delusional and a sheep. Good thing I'm not taking anything personally.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53rWAzRIUR0

[Alex]

I'm still waiting for iSm to get indignant about name calling being a step too far (personally, I don't care about name calling on the assumption that we're all growed up enough to take it without needing extra therapy) but it is true that when it went the other way -- politically -- suddenly it needed reining in.

[wendybeth]

You shouldn't, Scaeagles- sheep was a general term and not directed at you specifically. Further, here is the definition of delusional, and I believe you were were accused of being delusional if you followed a certain line of thinking- it's not like anyone said you were a nutjob. (If they had, they would be called on it):

delusional

One entry found.




Main Entry:de·lu·sion http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?delusi01.wav=delusion'))Pronunciation: \di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\ Function:noun Etymology:Middle English, from Late Latin delusion-, delusio, from deludereDate:15th century 1: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded2 a: something that is falsely or delusively (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusively) believed or propagated b: a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary ; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs



If only Faux was as conscientious as you in the name calling department- we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[wendybeth]

Alex, it wasn't because of the political nature of the conversation that there was a warning applied- it was the personal and insulting attack that got the attention. If anyone said the same to Leo, you bet I'd be all over it. It was over the line. You have a personal problem with someone, then take it to PM or put them on ignore- don't call them names and expect to get a pass.

[wendybeth]

The whole media bias to the lift argument is ridiculous. The media bias is to the sheep, dumbing down all information to a bland pablum that people sheep feed on with dumb accepting eyes and apparently no brain. Why our culture has become a herd of manipulated sheep is beyond me.

I don't have a lot of time invested in watching TV news. I can only handle about 3 minutes of any news source at one time. But, what I do end up hearing/seeing is crap stuffed into small sound bites. But, as for leaning one direction or another, I only see right-leaning or marshmallow stances. I suspect the left-leaning media bias myth is another piece of pablum that has has been fed to the sheep.
What about this post says anything that applies to Fox News, Scaeagles or anything else specifically? I believe NA is referring to ALL outlets. Same for iSm- nowhere does it say he's talking about anything other than agreeing with NA's rather across-the-board opinion.

[Alex]

I know you work in the industry, but may I say you split a mighty fine hair.

Personally, I don't see any significant difference between "You are delusional" and "You are arrogant." But c'est la vie, I'm sure neither of the aggrieved parties are crying themselves to sleep at night. However, if anything, the former is, to me, more insulting because it rhetorically removes the other person from competency to participate further.

[wendybeth]

I do NOT split hairs. Split ends are anathema to stylists.:D


Perhaps your right. However, I think there is a wee bit of difference between 'you're delusional if you think' and " You are perhaps the most arrogant and condescending poster here."

[innerSpaceman]

Um, I didn't call scaeagles delusional. If he wants to consider himself a member of the vast group of non-posters that I did call delusional, that's his choice.


Oh, if he fits my definition of the delusional thinkers, then yes, he is a member of the group I called delusional and by extension I then called him delusional after the fact, I suppose.


If he believes we are still a country of small towns, that people from small towns do most of the work in this country as opposed to sub-and-urbanites doing it, believes that it's mostly people from small towns who fight in our wars as opposed to sub-and-urbanites fighting them, and that people from small towns grow our food as opposed to vast corporations ... then, yes, I am flat-out calling him delusional. But I didn't assert he personally had those beliefs.


So, I didnt' do any name calling ... except that, Alex, I'm calling you a muckracker. :p




ETA: I think I'm in the wrong thread. I'm tellin' ya, we need to roll these all into the Random Political Thoughts Part Deux.

[wendybeth]

Bush acknowledges that we have a little bit of economic trouble:

Financial "Pain" grows worse (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/bush_economy/index.htm?cnn=yes)

"Art Hogan, chief market strategist at Jefferies & Co., described this as the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s and the railroad bankruptcies of the 1800s."We've never witnessed this before," said Hogan earlier in the morning, before Bush's speech. "There's no road map for this." http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/images/bug.gif (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/bush_economy/index.htm?cnn=yes#TOP)

[scaeagles]

Really, I don't mind being called delusional. I don't mind being called a sheep (which I was - since I believe in left wing media bias I must be one of the sheep being fed). I just know that when I have, in the past, made broad generalizations about democrats or people who believe something I have been chastized (not officially mind you, but by others who are offended at my generalizations).

Because of how often I felt this was happening, I decided to start calling others on generalizations they posted, or using names such a delusional (which JW was calling me, or rather a group of people of which I am a member - it wasn't ISM), which really isn't any different than being called arrogant. Whether we want to discuss the admittedly wrong thing I said to 3894 or not, even calling Obama elitist or arrogant, whom last I checked was not a member of the LoT, was the cause of much outrage.

Name calling or generalizations are easy to defend if you agree with them. If you disagree then they are just name calling or generalizations.

[Moonliner]

ETA: I think I'm in the wrong thread. I'm tellin' ya, we need to roll these all into the Random Political Thoughts Part Deux.

Errr excuse me you will find that I own the "Random Political Thoughts Part Deux" thread. As such it should only be used for on topic posts per the original intent. So be sure any posts you move there are somehow related to T-shirt slogans. Preferably funny ones. I like the funny ones.

[Snowflake]

Bush acknowledges that we have a little bit of economic trouble:

"Art Hogan, chief market strategist at Jefferies & Co., described this as the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s and the railroad bankruptcies of the 1800s."We've never witnessed this before," said Hogan earlier in the morning, before Bush's speech. "There's no road map for this."

Sure there is, just turn right at Sarah Palin's Bridge to Nowhere

;)


Oh, and this is what I saw when I initially clicked into this thread.

680

[Alex]

So, I didnt' do any name calling ... except that, Alex, I'm calling you a muckracker. :p

I didn't say you called anybody any names. But you were quick to take sympathetic umbrage recently at someone else calling someone else names. You gave details on how you'd respond if you were a moderator, you helpfully interpreted for us all the comments of an actual moderator. You made sure it was known that a line had been crossed. I'm just waiting for similar empathy despite you probably agreeing with the characterization this time around.


Personally, I don't consider being called arrogant or delusional to actually be name calling, except insofar as attaching an adjective to a specific person is always name calling. If "you're an arrogant person" is name calling then so is "you're a wonderful person."


All of it is really just my long winded way of saying that despite protests to the contrary there is around these parts a decided slant in when feelings need to be collectively protected from bruising.

Ultimately it affects me little, since I am generally capable of making is perfectly clear that I think someone a fool or whatever adjective is appropriate without actually saying it. But it does fall into that same category as to why it is ok to say fothermucker but not mother****er when the intent and context are exactly the same.

[Moonliner]

Interesting...

Scott Adams (aka the Dilbert guy) commissioned his own report on which candidate will be better for the economy.

It has a lot of interesting facts. Like did you know that the overwhelming majority of economists are registered democrats?


The Scott Adams Report. (http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/dilbert_survey_of_economists/)

[Not Afraid]

Really, I don't mind being called delusional. I don't mind being called a sheep (which I was - since I believe in left wing media bias I must be one of the sheep being fed). I just know that when I have, in the past, made broad generalizations about democrats or people who believe something I have been chastized (not officially mind you, but by others who are offended at my generalizations).

.......

Name calling or generalizations are easy to defend if you agree with them. If you disagree then they are just name calling or generalizations.

Well, when it seems that a "news" outlet such as Fox is where a great deal of Americans gets their news from and, given the number of people who prop themselves down in front of the TV on a daily basis to get news in general (even if it isn't Fox) then it isn't difficult to make a generalization based on these facts. Now, if 10% of the population watched Fox, 10% listened to NPR, 10% watched CNN, 10% read the NY Times, 10% read the Wall Street Journal, 10% read USA Today, 10% read the BBC, etc such generalizations would be impossible to make. I have no problem making the generalizations I did when it seems that the "norm" is indeed Baaaaad.


Interesting...

Scott Adams (aka the Dilbert guy) commissioned his own report on which candidate will be better for the economy.

It has a lot of interesting facts. Like did you know that the overwhelming majority of economists are registered democrats?


The Scott Adams Report. (http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/dilbert_survey_of_economists/)

Not having read the report yet, I wouldn't have too much difficulty concurring that the reason the majority of economists are registered democrats is that the democratic party economic philosophy is probably better suited for a stable or improved economy. I mean, they ARE the experts in this field, right? I think their own political choices should really be taken seriously.

[scaeagles]

I have no problem making the generalizations I did when it seems that the "norm" is indeed Baaaaad.

So again, what you've said is generalizations are OK if you happen to come to the conclusion about those generalizations in a way you think is logical.

I would argue that other people may come up with generalizations having come to conclusions which to them are logical. However, certain ones seem to be not acceptable while others are, depending on the group think about the generalization.

[innerSpaceman]

NA's post reminds me that Republicans adoring the myth of small town America still existing are further delusional because it's the policies of the Republican party that are most responsible for its replacement by Corporate America.


Let the Red States have their own nation in the middle. Let them eat Wheat. We'll take the coastlines and be done with it. They can have the name United States of America, but we keep the capital of Washington because, like just about everything else remotely civilized, it's on the coasts.

Then all the morons can relocate to the interior. And all the educated can flee the interior for the coasts. Enough with purple state confusion. Let's just admit we are two nations that cannot abide each other and have done with it. (And then get down to the business of the next hundred years in further sub-dividing each resulting nation into their own two fragments that can't abide each other.)

[Chernabog]

^^ Are the blue states the Confederates or the Yanks? ;)

[Alex]

(And then get down to the business of the next hundred years in further sub-dividing each resulting nation into their own two fragments that can't abide each other.)

I knew you were a Libertarian at heart.

[Not Afraid]

Yes. Lots of people. I think they have a larger viewership than CNN.


So again, what you've said is generalizations are OK if you happen to come to the conclusion about those generalizations in a way you think is logical.

I would argue that other people may come up with generalizations having come to conclusions which to them are logical. However, certain ones seem to be not acceptable while others are, depending on the group think about the generalization.


I'm not sure what is in the least bit illogical about a generalization based on information that Fox has a larger viewership than CNN. It's not rocket science to come to the conclusion I did. Like I said, if 10%........I couldn't make the same conclusion at all.

[innerSpaceman]

^^ Are the blue states the Confederates or the Yanks? ;)

I tend to think there'll be more masturbation (allowed) in the blue states, so I guess we'll be the Yanks.

[scaeagles]

NA, I'm not concerned with whether what you arrived at is logical or not. I'm merely trying to suggest/point out/whatever that there is a tendency to accept generalizations that you agree with (for whatever reason) and jump on those you disagree with (being General You, but you). Most of the time on the LoT, generalizations about the right are accepted as logical and even self evident, so they go as accepted or unchallanged, such as calling anyone who thing McCain is different than Bush "delusional". Generalizations made about the left, no matter how logical I might think they are, are often/usually/frequently called out as being generalizations and therefore ruled out summarily.

Generalizations are generalizations, no matter how they are arrived at. Some are treated differently than others depending on the point of view and thought of the masses around here. This is all I am saying.

[sleepyjeff]

Then all the morons can relocate to the interior. And all the educated can flee the interior for the coasts.

I could be so obtuse with this line......:D

But I'll spare you the aggravation:cheers:

[Alex]

All generalizations are inherently flawed at the level of the individual.

[wendybeth]

NA, I'm not concerned with whether what you arrived at is logical or not. I'm merely trying to suggest/point out/whatever that there is a tendency to accept generalizations that you agree with (for whatever reason) and jump on those you disagree with (being General You, but you). Most of the time on the LoT, generalizations about the right are accepted as logical and even self evident, so they go as accepted or unchallanged, such as calling anyone who thing McCain is different than Bush "delusional". Generalizations made about the left, no matter how logical I might think they are, are often/usually/frequently called out as being generalizations and therefore ruled out summarily.

Generalizations are generalizations, no matter how they are arrived at. Some are treated differently than others depending on the point of view and thought of the masses around here. This is all I am saying.

Well, generally speaking- the LoT is comprised of a motley crew, but it seems most tend toward liberal policy as opposed to conservative. You can make the same sorts of comments, just no personal attacks. Or, we could all just forget about discussing politics in general. It's not the same to call someone's viewpoint delusional, especially if a decent rebuttal is provided, as opposed to calling someone "the most condescending and arrogant poster here". I really don't get why you don't get that, but when a person has to resort to personal attacks any discussion is over and Rove Syndrome has set in. Really, if I were to post at a conservative leaning website I would probably be torn to shreds.

[sleepyjeff]

Really, if I were to post at a conservative leaning website I would probably be torn to shreds.

Don't make me yawn....those places are so boring......

[scaeagles]

We all know most liberal leaning sites are non combative and accepting of conservative view-points. :rolleyes:

And WB, I don't know how many times I have to say I was wrong to say that. This isn't about that vs. being called delusional. It's about generalizations made about liberals vs. conservatives.

[wendybeth]

Well, i can't help but wonder at all this discussion about the subject and your apparent reluctance to let it go. We do not allow personal attacks, but the grievances you have are in regard to the relatively normal verbiage that occurs during a discussion. I can't make it any clearer, and I am very certain that should I scour the threads you've posted on over the past three years I could find a fair amount of examples showing you engaging in the same sort of behavior that you are now calling into question. I am not willing to do so, in that I think enough time has been wasted on this subject; you appear to be looking for answers and are not happy with the ones provided- that is not my problem.

[Alex]

I still think you're wrong and I'm on the Leo's side on this one.

This board is just like every other one in the world. It pats itself on the back for being open minded while doing its best (unofficially through the social pressures) to make sure serious dissent is marginalized.

I have no doubt that if the parties in the arrogant and delusional incidents recently had been reversed, so would the general responses.


That's not unique, it is the way things work in pretty much any group of people. But I don't see any real value in denying it.

[wendybeth]

Personally, I don't consider being called arrogant or delusional to actually be name calling, except insofar as attaching an adjective to a specific person is always name calling. If "you're an arrogant person" is name calling then so is "you're a wonderful person."


All of it is really just my long winded way of saying that despite protests to the contrary there is around these parts a decided slant in when feelings need to be collectively protected from bruising.

Ultimately it affects me little, since I am generally capable of making is perfectly clear that I think someone a fool or whatever adjective is appropriate without actually saying it. But it does fall into that same category as to why it is ok to say fothermucker but not mother****er when the intent and context are exactly the same.



Alex, this post illustrates your point of view well, but it dilutes the actual statement made by Leo. If he had said "I think your being kind of arrogant in your posts", etc, then no problem. (Not meaning to harp on that one, Scaeagles, but I'm trying to spell out the differences). And yes, we do have a slant, but what message board doesn't? I think we're all pretty cool here and try our best to get along with each other, but we have not been shy about spelling out our reasons for existence and the rules that we've laid out to try and make it as pleasant an experience for the membership as possible. I can't recall the last time someone said anything remotely negative to Scaeagles outside of the political threads- if we're so horrid, why put up with us? We all care about Scaeagles and the appearance of favoritism is a concern, but none of you (save the Mods and Admins) know everything that is reported and what actions were taken. Again, if someone were to call Leo the same thing he was warned over, I really would be upset and I would go after them as well.

[Alex]

And I'm saying that I don't doubt you believe that; I just don't believe you're right.

And I don't believe I diluted anything Leo said. He called Helen arrogant (she is, but I like that). Tracilicious called Leo delusional. I think you're diluting what was said to Leo, and I think the source of that is that you tend to agree with what was said to Leo.

But the point is this: If I say, "all hair dressers in Spokane are whores" is that any less insulting because I didn't say "wendybeth is a whore?" No, it isn't. And saying "all Republicans who believe X, which Leo just said he believes, are delusional" is not any less personal because of rhetorical deflection. You just like the sentiment better.

But again, I'm not trying to argue that this is unusual, just the idea that Leo should pretend it isn't true and that his comments are unfounded.

[wendybeth]

I have no problem with that at all, Alex. I do see your point, but that way is anarchy, and up here in Spokane you have to have a permit for that. ;)

(For those who didn't read about our July 4th anarchists protest- the city made them get a permit, which kind of detracted from their intended purpose).


We like Zenarchy around here- it's less harsh on the blood pressure.

[Morrigoon]

I was gonna put this in the Sooo... thread, but in case it spawns a political discussion, I'll put it here. This is a really touching account from a guy who was a guard at Guantanamo Bay:

http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/just-dreaming/articlees.aspx?cp-documentid=9528846&GT1=32001

[Alex]

Just posting to point out (in case you don't see) that I edited my post while you were replying so you're reply may no longer be accurate.

Plus I'm not advocating anything that leads to anarchy. I'm not saying you should change the way things are run (though I wouldn't complain). I just suggest being honest, saying "sorry Leo, we (collectively on average) don't like your views here so say them all you want but expect to be ridiculed for them, this isn't a fair venue so shut the **** up with the whining about it" and move on.

[wendybeth]

I did post that while you were editing your original, but I'll leave it. I see no sense in continuing this- someone complained about an offending post, I dealt with it and I thought I had agreed with the other about how to handle these in the future. I was hoping to avoid another unSwanky public spat, but that was silly of me.

[Alex]

I apologize if this is a bothersome conversation. I'm not thinking of it as a spat because I'm not angry about anything.

But if it is an unSwanky public spat then I do believe the traditional thing is not to give up the battlefield but to continue until someone (and let's pause to mentally compose the list of 5 mostly people) comes in something intended to distract the course of conversation back to shallow water (perhaps an intentionally but humorously sexual sentence clause) so everybody can cling to it and whistle past the graveyard.

[BarTopDancer]

I agree with Alex.

I've said very similar things in very recent past. Anything that isn't what the majority believes is bad and wrong. period.

We're lucky that the one big issue on this board is related to politics and the election. At least we're not getting into a pissing contest about what restaurant at Disneyland is the best.

ETA that it's now about 6 posts later since I've composed this.

[scaeagles]

I am very certain that should I scour the threads you've posted on over the past three years I could find a fair amount of examples showing you engaging in the same sort of behavior that you are now calling into question.

Agreed. That's exactly my point. These things are said frequently by me and others. I am typically called on it, though, because I have a differing viewpoint from the norm. I really don't care if someone calls me delusional. Happens at work and home all the time, believe. My point is, and I will again say what I've said so many times, is that that seems to be OK when they are said about what is on the conservative side but not when it is said about something on the liberal side.

As one final example of such, I called Obama arrogant and elitist, and many people got on me for that. OK. Tracilicious called McCain an a$$hole, and I think I'm the only one to object. This is because regardless of the nature of the comment, McCain isn't popular here and Obama is. Even name calling is OK, it seems, if the majority here seems to agree with it.

And my point is made whether I agree with what you think or not WB. I will hereby let it go now, but will continue to call people on the same type of posts that I have been called on.

And to add, I don't regard this as a spat. I think this has been very rational and calm. Disagreement, sure, but there has been nothing spatty about it.

[Not Afraid]

This isn't about that vs. being called delusional. It's about generalizations made about liberals vs. conservatives.

If you're speaking about what I pointed out, my generalization wasn't about liberal vs conservative it was about inane vs intelligent.

[BarTopDancer]

I think Leo and Wendy just need to get a room.




How's that Alex?

[wendybeth]

Funny- I don't recall any actions being taken or anyone complaining about posts Scaeagles might have made that involved calling candidates or other public figures names. So, what's the problem? If you didn't have a problem understanding (and making amends for) going over the line and attacking a poster on a personal level, then what is this conversation about? Because there are more liberal posters? If I were to post at Limbaugh's site, would I be justified in complaining about all the vehemently conservative responses to my posts? I don't get it.




BTD- How long before MBC showed up demanding his toaster and ham be returned?

[Not Afraid]

I apologize if this is a bothersome conversation. I'm not thinking of it as a spat because I'm not angry about anything.

But if it is an unSwanky public spat then I do believe the traditional thing is not to give up the battlefield but to continue until someone (and let's pause to mentally compose the list of 5 mostly people) comes in something intended to distract the course of conversation back to shallow water (perhaps an intentionally but humorously sexual sentence clause) so everybody can cling to it and whistle past the graveyard.

Wait. I believe there is a grab bag of appropriately distracting thing that "should" be said in case of overwhelming discussions:

Choose one from the following selection:

Shiny
Pass the Popcorn and/or Red Vines
Get a room
Something about a Sphincter and accouterments
Boobies
Tacos


(I feel as if I'm forgetting a few important choices - forgive me.)

[scaeagles]

You know, while I'm tempted to go over again what I'm saying because I don't think some are getting it, I had decided I was done with it because I made my point even if some don't understand it.

Obviously this isn't about people disagreeing with me....if that was an issue I'd certainly not be posting on this site. We see things differently on this and many other issue. I've made my point, so I'm done.

[Disneyphile]

Boobies
But, this is already about boobs (i.e. politicians), and look what's happened! ;)

[Alex]

For the record, I think Leo and I are making two completely different points (though attributing the source to the same cause), so don't intertwine what I said with the point he is trying to make. The instances I've been talking about aren't relevant to the instances he is talking about. My reading of what he is saying is that when he's makes arguments of a certain type/method he is told they aren't fair, or aren't appropriate, or people are insulted by it; then they go on to make arguments of the same type and when he points this out he's told it is somehow different.

My point is that there two recent instances (in my view) of direct name calling and they were handled differently (and I don't mean moderately, just generally).

We are both attributing these different situations to the same cause of the political slant on this board making one side more palatable than the other.


Shiny taco boobies (sadly, searching that phrase at google images does not produce anything comedic).

[scaeagles]

I think Kevy could develop some sort of image about that which would be amusing.

[JWBear]

Wait. I believe there is a grab bag of appropriately distracting thing that "should" be said in case of overwhelming discussions:

Choose one from the following selection:

Shiny
Pass the Popcorn and/or Red Vines
Get a room
Something about a Sphincter and accouterments
Boobies
Tacos


(I feel as if I'm forgetting a few important choices - forgive me.)

Pancakes.

[Alex]

I feel bad for Carly Fiorina. She answered a question honestly and in a way that makes perfect sense. And yet it was incredibly stupid of her in the political realm.

When asked if Sarah Palin could run a Fortune 500 company she said, essentially, "no, but that's not what she's running for." She later expanded that none of the four names on the ticket would be candidates to run a Fortune 500 company and that is fine because it is a "fallacy" to say that running the United States is like running a Fortune 500 company.

She's absolutely right. They are not the same skill. It is kind of like asking if any of them are qualified to coach the Green Bay Packers. We actually had a VP candidate -- Jack Kemp -- who might have been but it is irrelevant.

To blunt it, she should have immediately said "and I wouldn't be able to run the country."

In a moment of pure loaded blarney, when All Things Considered ran the story they ended it with this meaningless bit of arched eyebrow "when she ran Hewlett Packard she had revenues of $80 billion. President Bush's last budget proposal was $3 trillion."

She's right, they aren't at all the same thing. Being able to work a boardroom is not the same as being able to run a government, work with an adversarial (even when of the same party) congress, fight wars, engage in international diplomacy, play the necessities of political kabuki.

But she'll be hung out to dry a bit for speaking the truth.

And to the extent that the Repubilcans talk about the story it will be to agree wtih her that running the government is nothing at all like running the country when in 2000 Bush ran as the CEO candidate, looking to put federal government on a more business-like model.

And to the extent that the Democrats talk about the story it will completely ignore how much they ridiculed in 2000 the idea that running the government is anything at all like running a country.

[Strangler Lewis]

The other day I saw a Prius adorned with McCain and pro-vet bumper stickers.

The day before I saw a guy in a minivan screeching around a minimall parking lot at an unsafe speed. He had an Obama bumper sticker.

And I think to myself . . . what a wonderful world.

[Alex]

I can understand wondering about a Prius and pro-McCain (though his daughter, who is campaigning actively for him, drives a Prius; an issue that came up recently at a Detroit stop when an autoworker asked if he has purchased this non-American car for her).

Not sure why there's dissonance between a Prius and pro-vet, though. I know plenty of pro-vet hippies.

[BarTopDancer]

Wasn't Bush the owner of the TX Rangers? And wasn't he a fairly decent owner?

[alphabassettgrrl]

I thought Bush was a terrible owner when he had the team? Maybe I'm wrong.

It was a Prius with an Obama bumper sticker that yelled at me yesterday when I rode my bike to school.

[BarTopDancer]

The kids don't like it when mom and dad fight. :(

[Alex]

When we were in Tahoe over the weekend we saw a giant pickup with a McCain sticker idling at a light next to a Prius with an Obama sticker.

Seemed to encapsulate all of the stereotypes.

Yes, Bush was the managing partner in the Texas Rangers ownership group for five years. No, he didn't suck. As to whether he was good, that probably depends on how you define good? He turned a $1MM investment into $10MM when he sold. And his tenure includes the original agreement that lead to the Ballpark in Arlington. But the team was around .500 through his era.

Was that asked because of my "coach the Green Bay packers" comment?

[BarTopDancer]

Your comment and the comparisons made by Fiorina. And I knew even less about baseball back then.

I just saw you google searched shiny taco boobies. That mental image is hilarious.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, and i daresay better than anything he was hoping for with that word combo on google images.

[Strangler Lewis]

I can understand wondering about a Prius and pro-McCain (though his daughter, who is campaigning actively for him, drives a Prius; an issue that came up recently at a Detroit stop when an autoworker asked if he has purchased this non-American car for her).

Not sure why there's dissonance between a Prius and pro-vet, though. I know plenty of pro-vet hippies.

They weren't "support our troops-bring 'em home stickers." And they became less so being next to McCain stickers.

[Moonliner]

I feel bad for Carly Fiorina.

Just to get my facts straight. Is this the same "Carly Fiorina" formerly of Hewlett Packard?

The same one who left HP in disgrace due to illegal activity?
The same one that order hired goons to illegally tap the personal cell and home phones of not only HP employees but members of the press as well?

That Carly Fiorina? And now she is working for McCain?

[scaeagles]

Just to go along with my conspiratorial Hillary-working-behind-the-scenes-to-defeat-Obama theory, a couple of interesting things of note.

First,
Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter and member of the Democratic National Committee’s Platform Committee, will endorse John McCain for president on Wednesday, her spokesman tells CNN.


And secondly, while I have no exact quote, one of Hillary's (former? not sure if he still is) chief strategists - Mark Penn - has been chastizing the media for their treatment of Palin, basically saying that Obama as the presidential candidate has not received anything close to the anal exam Palin is getting (this is not to spark a debate as to if that's true or not, just citing what he's said).

I am sure these two individuals are relatively close to Hillary. These two things in particular seem to support my theory that while she's going to play nice for appearances sake, she does not want Obama to win, and will have those close to her doing the dirty work and saying the critical words.

[Moonliner]

Just to go along with my conspiratorial Hillary-working-behind-the-scenes-to-defeat-Obama theory

And in other breaking news, the sun did in fact rise today on schedule.

[scaeagles]

Not everyone here subscribes to my conspiratorial theory - in fact, just the opposite, really.

[Moonliner]

Not everyone here subscribes to my conspiratorial theory - in fact, just the opposite, really.

Really? They should recognize that even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut.

[flippyshark]

Just to go along with my conspiratorial Hillary-working-behind-the-scenes-to-defeat-Obama theory, a couple of interesting things of note.


I can't be sure you aren't right. If so, it's dispiriting, as is just about everything involved with this and nearly every election. Somebody ( I wish I could remember who) once said something along the lines of: those people who have the drive and ambition to become president are those we should least want to lead us.

[Moonliner]

Somebody ( I wish I could remember who) once said something along the lines of: those people who have the drive and ambition to become president are those we should least want to lead us.


Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
.

[flippyshark]

That's it! Thanks! (I love that this is such a smart place.)

[scaeagles]

Really? They should recognize that even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut.

I am offended because if I were a liberal, this blind squirrel talk would not be tolerated. hmph!

:)

[Moonliner]

I am offended because if I were a liberal, this blind squirrel talk would not be tolerated. hmph!

:)

If you were liberal, the squirrel would have better health care and perhaps not be blind.

[scaeagles]

Damn conservatives dumping chemicals into the environment caused a genetic defect in the poor squirrel, I'm sure.

[innerSpaceman]

Sometime scaeagles, and I'm being entirely serious here, I'd like it if you'd remind me why exactly it is you are a Conservative, and what Conservative principles appeal to you personally.


For instance, is it not a Conservative principle that markets should be as free as possible, with little or no regulation? And yet won't free markets take whatever shortcuts are necessary, including poisoning the environment affecting everyone (shareholders and squirrels included), with little or no regulation?

Do Conservatives support checks and balances on corporate and business activity? On government activity? Do you support such things?


With all the generalizations being bandied about, I'm genuinely confused.

[scaeagles]

I will respond to this, ISM....just might take a little longer than I can do at work.

It's also my youngest's 7th birthday today! So I'm not sure if it will be this evening either.

Please remind me if this gets lost somewhere.

[innerSpaceman]

Sure. And Happy Birthday to your youngest! BTW, age 7 is when personality becomes completely fixed and you as a parent cease having any influence. Your job is done! (Well, except for the money that will continue to flow for 20 more years.)

[scaeagles]

If that's the case, my 7 year old is going to be a great person because her personality ROCKS! Unofficially the most fun of my children.

[wendybeth]

Just to get my facts straight. Is this the same "Carly Fiorina" formerly of Hewlett Packard?

The same one who left HP in disgrace due to illegal activity?
The same one that order hired goons to illegally tap the personal cell and home phones of not only HP employees but members of the press as well?

That Carly Fiorina? And now she is working for McCain?

I believe that is the same person. If so, then her assertion that McCain and Obama could not do as she did counts as a glowing endorsement of both, in my book. I was surprised when I saw her in his pack.

[wendybeth]

Happy Birthday to your baby girl, Scaeagles!:snap::babette::snap:

[Alex]

Independent of Fiorina's competency as a business executive, she is not the one who left HP disgraced by the pretexting scandal. However, the events surrounding her firing in 2005 did lead to the scandal but Fiorina had nothing to do with it.

HP was underperforming, the Board of Directors made a proposal to Fiorina that would have reorganized her responsibilies and been a big blow to her position with the company. She resisted it. The plan proposed to her was somehow leaked to Newsweek (I think, maybe WSJ) which published it. Fiorina was fired.

The board of directors gave Fiorino's replacement, Pat Dunn, the task of discovering how their private internal communications had been leaked to the press. It was in this period that the illegal pretexting and other investigative abuses happened. All charges against Dunn were eventually dropped.


Really, the obvious lesson to take from the sequential failure of Fiorina and Dunn is that women should not be allowed to run big companies (just twisting the tiger's tail).

[Moonliner]

Independent of Fiorina's competency as a business executive, she is not the one who left HP disgraced by the pretexting scandal. However, the events surrounding her firing in 2005 did lead to the scandal but Fiorina had nothing to do with it.

HP was underperforming, the Board of Directors made a proposal to Fiorina that would have reorganized her responsibilies and been a big blow to her position with the company. She resisted it. The plan proposed to her was somehow leaked to Newsweek (I think, maybe WSJ) which published it. Fiorina was fired.

The board of directors gave Fiorino's replacement, Pat Dunn, the task of discovering how their private internal communications had been leaked to the press. It was in this period that the illegal pretexting and other investigative abuses happened. All charges against Dunn were eventually dropped.


Really, the obvious lesson to take from the sequential failure of Fiorina and Dunn is that women should not be allowed to run big companies (just twisting the tiger's tail).

There seem to be a number of sources saying the "leak investigation" started on her watch (http://www.democrats.org/page/content/VPFiorina).


Leak Investigation At H-P Began With Fiorina’s Tenure, And Later Erupted Into A Spying Scandal. After details of the board of directors’ intentions to fire Carly Fiorina became public in the Wall Street Journal, Ms. Fiorina “demanded a confession” from the directors. Following these demands from Fiorina, an aggressive leak investigation that resulted in a “spying scandal” commenced. The San Francisco Chronicle wrote, “The spying scandal dates to early 2005, when then-CEO Carly Fiorina and other directors began looking into leaks of board deliberations to journalists. After Fiorina was fired, her successor as chairwoman, Dunn, pursued the investigation, which eventually pointed to director George Keyworth


Still you are technically correct, the pretexting scandal broke after she was fired.

[Alex]

Fiorina was never implicated. Fiorina was fired two weeks after the document was leaked, so even if she technically started the investigation (though you'll also find sources to the contrary such as this one (http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/business/0,39044229,39434026,00.htm) saying Dunn began the investigation) she almost certainly had no time to have done anything illegal.

Ultimately, neither CEO was held responsible for anything of the illegal activities that happened. Fiorina was never accused (by law enforcement) of anything illegal.

There are plenty of valid reasons to question Fiorina's competence as an economic advisor to John McCain, why stretch to accuse her of things that carry little weight and probably only a slim relation to reality?

[Moonliner]

Fiorina was never implicated. Fiorina was fired two weeks after the document was leaked, so even if she technically started the investigation (though you'll also find sources to the contrary such as this one (http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/business/0,39044229,39434026,00.htm) saying Dunn began the investigation) she almost certainly had no time to have done anything illegal.

Ultimately, neither CEO was held responsible for anything of the illegal activities that happened. Fiorina was never accused (by law enforcement) of anything illegal.

There are plenty of valid reasons to question Fiorina's competence as an economic advisor to John McCain, why stretch to accuse her of things that carry little weight and probably only a slim relation to reality?

Fair enough, I was confusing her with Dunn. I shall have to better research the valid reasons you mention.

[cirquelover]

Really, the obvious lesson to take from the sequential failure of Fiorina and Dunn is that women should not be allowed to run big companies (just twisting the tiger's tail).

Do you really want all the women of LoT to show up on your doorstep?! It could be like an old fashioned lynch mob, just full of angry women. I bet Lani would join us!!

[DreadPirateRoberts]

Alex lobs those out to see if anyone is listening.

[scaeagles]

Was there a problem with what he said????

[BarTopDancer]

Was there a problem with what he said????

The gay men of LoT will be showing up at your doorstep ;) :p

[innerSpaceman]

For our toasters.

[scaeagles]

Sorry. No one takes back the toasters.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Sorry. No one takes back the toasters.

Nobody wants the toasters. They were worthless to begin with.

[Disneyphile]

Because it just HAD to be done:

Click Here (http://sendables.jibjab.com/view/owner/dG0lRcNO2BcWftsG)

Glad I could contribute to all the political craziness! ;)

[innerSpaceman]

oh no you didn't. ;)




* * * *


So, I'm wondering if Great Depression II will hit its stride before the election and what that might mean for the results.

[sleepyjeff]

Because it just HAD to be done:

Click Here (http://sendables.jibjab.com/view/owner/dG0lRcNO2BcWftsG)

Glad I could contribute to all the political craziness! ;)


Great stuff......I also took a trip down memory lane at that site and watched "good to be in DC".....funny line in that one; Micheal Moore comes up along with Rush Limbaugh and they say together "most guys, take sides", the line after that is what caught my attention(I won't spoil it here, just check it out if you dont remember)....what a difference 4 years makes;)

[scaeagles]

Sometime scaeagles, and I'm being entirely serious here, I'd like it if you'd remind me why exactly it is you are a Conservative, and what Conservative principles appeal to you personally.

Why I am a conservative - a short essay by Leo Scaeagles, at the Request of Steve InnerSpaceMan

To begin, let me state that I do not currently equate being a republican with being a conservative. The last two republican Presidents have not resembled anything close to conservatism. The Republican congress which was swept into power in 1994 had the potential, but failed mightily. However, I do believe that the republicans are closer to what I am than the democrats, but perhaps I am closer to being a libertarian than either. I’ve stated before why I am not officially a libertarian nor do I vote libertarian as a rule. I don’t think I’ve ever voted for one, but that’s a different issue. Please understand that much of what I will be stating is matter of (what I consider to be an educated) opinion, but I will not be prefacing each statement with “I believe”.

I am first and foremost a strict constructionist in regards to the Constitution. The Constitution was never meant to be a “living, breathing” document. If that were the case, it really means nothing. The Constitution has an amendment process through which it can be changed and has been many times in ways that have indeed improved it. I have found conservatives to be much more in line with the original thinking of the writers as expanded upon in the Federalist Papers.

I believe in small government, loving the phrase “that government is best that governs least”. In that way, I am much more libertarian than conservative, particularly on social issues. I completely understand that there is a certain amount of government oversight and regulation to ensure an even playing field. I hesitate to use that phrase because it can have a varied meaning to different people. Even playing field means that I have the can have the same opportunities to achieve success as you do. It is not the job of the government, though, to ensure that everyone has the same social conditions to ensure those opportunities, and admittedly it can be difficult to do so. It is the responsibility of the individual to figure out how to get access to them. While case after case can be cited of those who have struggled to find them, case after case can be cited of those who found them in spite of difficult circumstances.

I also understand, to directly address a question from ISM, that it is in the best interests of the people and government to regulate (to an extent) the businesses and corporations that have an impact on the environment and the business world in general. Here is where I get fuzzy in that I don’t think there is a line one can draw to define how far it should go or what it should entail. This is why there is so much debate about what should be done and how much should be done. I admittedly don’t have a formula, and since what is common sense to one isn’t common sense to another, there will always be the need for debate. Of course there isn’t much debate that toxic chemicals shouldn’t be dumped into the ocean and there should be regulations and punishment for violators. The differences come into play (granted, an extreme example) on whether a farmer who kills an endangered field mouse with his tractor should lose his farm because of legal action taken against him. I lean toward limiting regulation, but that requires responsibility on the part of corporations that don’t always have it. Those that don’t make it very hard on those that do.

The government takes too much of the money of the populace. They are wasteful, inefficient, top heavy, and politically motivated. I have no doubt I can make better decisions with my money than they can. I recognize the valuable functions that taxation provides in terms of infrastructure and national defense, but they don’t limit themselves to such functions. Corporate taxes do nothing to corporations. They are taxes passed along to consumers in the form of increased prices. Taxation of income is a taxation on the accumulation of wealth. I believe the founders had it right with property taxes being just about it.

The federal government has taken over the functions of the state government and uses extortion to get the states to do what the feds want them to. I am a huge states rights person and want the feds to keep their hands out of what should be the rights of states to do business in the way they see fit. Interstate commerce has been twisted by the feds and the judicial branch to a point where states have virtually no rights any longer.
I hesitate to delve further into specifics (and in fact have started many times to do so), so to summarize, it comes down to my view of the Constitution, the amount of spending and size and influence of our government, view on the sovereignty of our borders, and states rights.

That is the very short version of why I am a conservative. There are many things I have not addressed that come into play as well.

[Strangler Lewis]

Generally well said in a short amount of time. However, when you use the phrase "states rights," you should clarify if you are talking about speed limits and environmental issues as opposed to, say, seating at ice cream parlors.

[scaeagles]

Thank you, and yes, most assuredly so.

[3894]

Now, appreciate this, scaeagles. It comes at great personal cost: I had to google images of the Dark Prince.

http://www.science.co.il/People/Ronald-Reagan/images/Ronald-Reagan-1985.jpg

[Alex]

sceagles: You acknowledge that the Republican Party has not actually behaved in a conservative manner. However, what incentive is there for them to change if you will continue to vote for them simply because they are slightly more conservative oriented than the Democratic Party?

If they can forever count on the libertarian-esque Republicans to vote for them in return for lip service are you not rewarding them for not offering anything more than lip service?

At least with a Democratic government you can engage in full opposition maneuvers (since you don't have to pay any attention to "party unity") and perhaps you can convince the Republican Party that if they want to return to power they need to offer more than a wink and a nod?

[scaeagles]

Thank you, 3894. I almost wept.

Alex, I have indeed struggled with that and have made public my waffling on voting for McCain. Being that I have the same advantage as ISM in terms of living in a state that is going to go for my candidate of choice no matter what I do, I may still choose not to vote. Choosing not to vote is certainly not the same as just not voting.

I'm afraid that's about the best I can answer that.

Edited to add:
However, there may certainly come a point in time where there will either need to be a redefinition of what a republican is or I will abandon them as a party member. But in reality, whom else would I vote for if everything else remained the same? The person whom I know will not be in line with much of what I believe, or the person who i can hope might be somewhat so? There is no candidate with which anyone truly can align themselves with on every stated position. Perhaps every election for me may eventually be the overused cliche of the lesser of two evils. The last vote I was excited to cast was for the Junior Senator from AZ, one Jon Kyl, who is actually very much along the lines of what I posted 9at least from what i can gather).

[sleepyjeff]

sceagles: You acknowledge that the Republican Party has not actually behaved in a conservative manner. However, what incentive is there for them to change if you will continue to vote for them simply because they are slightly more conservative oriented than the Democratic Party?

If they can forever count on the libertarian-esque Republicans to vote for them in return for lip service are you not rewarding them for not offering anything more than lip service?

At least with a Democratic government you can engage in full opposition maneuvers (since you don't have to pay any attention to "party unity") and perhaps you can convince the Republican Party that if they want to return to power they need to offer more than a wink and a nod?


I can't speak for Leo, but this goes thru my mind everytime I see McCain give that cheshire cat grin of his......I ask myself, maybe the only way for the Republcan party to truly rebound to greatness again is for it to first hit bottom.

But then I ask myself; will the Democrats play fair and not redistrict the heck out of the country and change as many rules as they can to make it almost impossible for me to ever see a Republican majority again in my lifetime....I am kinda doubting it. Prevent Defense, it may not always work, but it's better than risking the whole game.

[Alex]

Except you aren't risking the whole game because under either scenario you lose (either the democrats are in charge and don't act as you think conservatives should or Republicans are in charge and don't act as you think conservatives should). In the two options you mention only one even offers course to "conservative" victory. Are you playing to win or playing to lose by fewer points?


Leo, I was suggesting that Republican failures would induce you to just not vote. I am suggesting that it is in you're long term interest to actively seek the defeat of Republicans in the short term.

As I've said before, I probably agree with McCain on more major policy issues than Obama. I just think the party has been such a failure that they have lost the privilege of control. So in the short term I will actively pursue revoking that control. If they can later convince me of there sincerity I'll again consider their candidates; or, if when given full control Democrats do equally poorly I'll consider it a toss up again.

[sleepyjeff]

Are you playing to win or playing to lose by fewer points?





More like stalling for time until the coach decides to give some people off the bench a chance. (ok, I am not even sure what I mean by that)

[Morrigoon]

scaeagles: wouldn't you be better off sending a signal to the Republican party that they'd better return to your small government values by voting Libertarian? That makes you a swing voter, because they can't count on your vote, but have a fighting chance if they can appeal to your Libertarian values. By staying in the Republican party and voting Republican, you're supporting the status quo in the party.

The larger the Libertarian party gets, the more the other two parties are going to know they have to appeal to our values in order to get us to vote for them.

[scaeagles]

I will eventually get to that point, I'm sure, Morrigoon. I'm not there yet. It is mostly because I believe that the Republicans are so much better on national defense issues (not really trying to open that up for debate, just stating a why related to this line of thought) that I do not wish to risk getting a dem in office.

[innerSpaceman]

I hate the scaeagles creed.



Mostly because I agree with 98% of it. I need a shower.





I'm a pretty strict Constitutional constructionist myself. But as far as I'm concerned, not only is the Preamble part of it ... it's the MOST IMPORTANT part. It states the philosophy under which the nuts and bolts must be interpreted. The U.S. government is to PROMOTE the general welfare. That's a pretty tall order, and requires the government to take an active role.

I confess I don't know much of the nuts and bolts of the Constitution, and I daresay most Americans don't either. But most of us know the Preamble, as it's the guiding philosophy of our nation. It seems to me that so-called strict constructionalists want to forget that part about promoting the general welfare.

And that's why I come down on the Democratic side, as opposed to merely Libertarian.

[scaeagles]

I could go into the general welfare clause and why it is not a blank check. Perhaps I will this evening.

[innerSpaceman]

No, it should not be a blank check.

But, it seems to me over my lifetime, that the Republican Party does zilch for the general welfare, except for some blithe milarky about trickle-down benefits. The only general welfare they work for is for the wealthy, and that's not nearly general enough for me.


Mind you, the Democrats haven't promoted the general welfare either. They are just slightly better at it than the Republicans.

[sleepyjeff]

But, it seems to me over my lifetime, that the Republican Party does zilch for the general welfare, except for some blithe milarky about trickle-down benefits. The only general welfare they work for is for the wealthy, and that's not nearly general enough for me.




I think the Republicans have done a great job of promoting the general welfare.....as it is spelled out in the Constitution ...No need to struggle or debate just what Morris, Madison, et al meant when they wrote that part of the preamble.....what "general welfare" actually means is spelled out clearly in the body of the document itself:


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

So you see; it says that congress has the power to "provide for the common defense and general welfare" of the United States....then it goes on to list just what they mean by that. Skip ahead to the tenth amendment and you will see that if a power isn't clearly stated then it doesn't exist as far as congress should be concerned.

[innerSpaceman]

But you see, most of that has not been done for the general welfare, but for the welfare of the wealthy only. So even if we are to limit the promotion of general welfare to those items, the government has abjectly failed.

[sleepyjeff]

But you see, most of that has not been done for the general welfare, but for the welfare of the wealthy only. So even if we are to limit the promotion of general welfare to those items, the government has abjectly failed.

I am not sure I follow.

Roads for the wealthy only?

Coin money for the wealthy only?

Uniform rule of Naturalization for the wealthy only?

[scaeagles]

There is what I believe to be an important distinction that is being missed here - and this is even before I go into my detail later. The wording is -

"provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare....".

There is a tremendous difference between providing for and promoting, particularly in terms of financial backing.

[Alex]

But first you have to agree on what constitutes "the general welfare."

Once you three have agreed on that you can then move on how best to provide and promote for it.

[lizziebith]

It seems obvious to me the usage of the word "promote" was stylistic (to avoid redundancy). From Encarta, "promote" and its antonyms:

promote (v)

Synonyms: advance, further, put forward, raise, upgrade, elevate

Antonym: demote


Synonyms: endorse, encourage, help, sponsor, stimulate, uphold, prop up, campaign for, support, foster

Antonym: suppress


Synonyms: disseminate, plug, advocate, push, market, make known, advertise, publicize, boost, propagandize

Antonym: defame


Synonyms: further, progress, move forward, stage, put on, organize, arrange

Antonym: prevent



Now, what can a government possibly do to "promote" general welfare -- disseminate motivational posters?

Unless the founding fathers were genuinely concerned enough about being perceived by the citizenry of demoting, suppressing, defaming, preventing or otherwise not being in favor of general welfare, and, as such, felt the need to declare that they were totally behind it, dude, hence the use of the word "promote."

[innerSpaceman]

Nice try at obfuscation sleepyjeff, but more specifically, I meant these:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.

To regulate Commerce among the several States.

To establish uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. (emphasis added.)

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years. (emphasis added.)



Promote the general welfare?


Fail.

[scaeagles]

It seems obvious to me the usage of the word "promote" was stylistic (to avoid redundancy).

Matter of opinion, certainly.

The general welfare clause....

Here's the problem. Madison (in Federalist 41) and Hamilton (in Federalist 30) disagree on the meaning of this phrase.

Madison says in Federalist 41 that this (the general welfare clause) fell in line with the same phrase in Article I, section 8, which is immediately followed by an enumeration of powers.

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?

The general welfare clause is "explained and qualified" by the "enumeration of particulars." I happen to agree with this, as the Consitution is specifically NOT an enumeration of powers granted to the people, but a limitation on the powers of government.

Hamilton, however, in Federalist 30, says

Its future necessities admit not of calculation or limitation; and upon the principle, more than once adverted to, the power of making provision for them as they arise ought to be equally unconfined .... There ought to be a capacity to provide for future contingencies,as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible to safely limit that capacity.

Or to summarize, as we can't possibily know all that will happen, why restrict what the government is allowed to spend tax money on?

I think it is important to note, however, that this was far prior to the 16th amendment (income tax) and the tax revenues were from land owners and tarriffs only, and in the same vein the Hamilton said it was impossible to predict future contingencies, they had no way to predict that income would be nor how the taxes would be spent. It is also important to note that Jefferson agreed with the Madison view. Madison was far more outspoken and wrote much more on the subject than did Hamilton (i'll spare you the numerous and lengthy quotes from Madison).

So while there was no general consensus among the founders, it is evident that most agreed with Madison (I can list more than Jefferson if anyone really wants me to). I prefer the Madisonian interpretation, but congress has gone with the Hamiltonian for quite some time (no brainer for them - they get to then use the money for political ends). Even with that being said, I thin Hamilton would be turning in his grave to see what has been spent in the name of the general welfare clause.

[innerSpaceman]

It might come as no surprise to scaeagles then that I agree with the Hamiltonian interpretation.


Ya know, when there are different interpretations of American law or bedrock philosophies that have to be applied to all the American people, I try to come down on which interpretation is the the most "American" ... and I wish more people would attempt to do that with things that effect everyone in America.

If Hamilton's opinion is that in the Constitution there "ought to be a capacity to provide for future contingencies,as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible to safely limit that capacity," ... I find that simply more American in nature than the limited interpretation of enummerated items clearly rooted and frankly mudstuck in the 18th Century.

When there are two reasonably valid interpreations, why focus on the unanswerable question of which is "right?" Why not instead focus on determining which interpretation confers the most benefit on We the People who have established the Constitution?



I hate to go all Godwin ... but this is the big problem I have with Right-to-Lifers. Whether you believe life starts at conception or at birth or somewhere in between, how hard is it to look around and see that at least half the people in America don't agree with you? The "right" answer for all Americans can never be arrived at, even thouth it's simple to arrive at your own "right" answer. The American thing is to err on the side of freedoms and liberties. The American thing is to acknowledge the pluralism of our society and allow for other viewpoints.



In any event, it's likely too much to ask most Americans to come down on what's more American on these unanswerable questions ... but I do hold our lawmakers and judges to that standard when unanswerable questions must nonetheless be decided.

[Moonliner]

I hate to go all Godwin ... but this is the big problem I have with Right-to-Lifers. Whether you believe life starts at conception or at birth or somewhere in between, how hard is it to look around and see that at least half the people in America don't agree with you? The "right" answer for all Americans can never be arrived at, even thouth it's simple to arrive at your own "right" answer. The American thing is to err on the side of freedoms and liberties. The American thing is to acknowledge the pluralism of our society and allow for other viewpoints.


How large of a majority do you need before "err on the side of freedoms and liberties" is trumped by majority rule?

[Andrew]

How large of a majority do you need before "err on the side of freedoms and liberties" is trumped by majority rule?
Isn't that the essence of Libertarianism -- you do your thing and I'll do mine? Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins?

[Alex]

You do realize you just said "let's agree to disagree and do it my way"?

On most topics I'm in full agreement with "most liberty side wins" but in the case of abortion the fundamental question at issue is who involved has rights and liberties to be protected and balanced.

[Moonliner]

On most topics I'm in full agreement with "most liberty side wins"

Are you say you are personally liberal but respect the ideal of the democratic process even when it goes against your own views, or is that a suggestion that we as a country should toss out the democratic process and pick the liberal side in all (most) matters?

[sleepyjeff]

You do realize you just said "let's agree to disagree and do it my way"?

On most topics I'm in full agreement with "most liberty side wins" but in the case of abortion the fundamental question at issue is who involved has rights and liberties to be protected and balanced.

Exactly! All thru history examples can be found of people excusing murder by de-humanizing the victim.

[innerSpaceman]

On most topics I'm in full agreement with "most liberty side wins" but in the case of abortion the fundamental question at issue is who involved has rights and liberties to be protected and balanced.

And in this particular instance where it's the rights of American citizen women vs. those of non-citizen unborn fetusi ... I'd say the only Constitutional thing to do is to come down on the side of those who are American citizens.

The unborn are, by Constitutional definition, absolutely not citizens. You can argue all day long about whether they're alive, but they haven't been born.





BTW: There are precious few (if any) other examples where one's own liberty purports to harm another. Simply because there are no other examples where that "other" resides within your very own body.

So to ask what type of majority rules in such questions is a canard. One's liberty stops where harm to another begins. I suppose if there were American "Siamese" twins who wanted to poke each others eyes out, we might have a similar circumstance. Otherwise, abortion is unique.

[Alex]

Are you say you are personally liberal but respect the ideal of the democratic process even when it goes against your own views, or is that a suggestion that we as a country should toss out the democratic process and pick the liberal side in all (most) matters?

I may be missing something but you're question doesn't make any sense to me.

[Moonliner]

I may be missing something but you're question doesn't make any sense to me.

Let me try again then....

To me it sounded like ISM is saying that in cases where the nation cannot agree, we should "err on the side of freedom and liberty"

The problem is, as a nation we never agree on anything. So I was just curious at what point (percentage wise) this idea kicks in.

For example not everyone believes we should have speed limits. Therefor as a nation we are undecided. Do you recommend removing all speed limits?

How about gun control? Drugs? Personal Property rights, public education, social security? Should we ditch all of this because some percentage of the population disagrees?

[innerSpaceman]

Boy, you are really missing my point Moonliner. And I'm not going to restate it, since I already stated it as clearly as I can.

My apologies if that's not working for you, but you are way off base on expressing my opinion.



If those are your legitimate questions, great. But they have zero to do with my point.

[Alex]

I'm still not really seeing the connection you are trying to draw but I'll stab at it.

Speed controls on community owned streets are not, to me, an abrogation of freedom and liberty for anybody, so there isn't a "more freedom" side of the argument. If they are saying I can't drive 150 miles per hour in my front yard, then yes I start to have issue.

Also, the majority (whether simple or in some cases higher) trumps the argument every single time. Acknowledging that is a different thing from saying that the majority is wrong. There is no magic percentage. If the minimal number necessary to amend the constitution decides it is illegal to be an atheist then I would be a criminal, I would acknowledge I'm a criminal, and I'd think they were wrong and oppose such efforts to pass it and depending on various factors perhaps decide that civil disobedience or outright revolt is warranted.

I also am what I term a "progressive libertarian." In many issues I don't think the government should be involved at all (such as drugs from your list; personal property rights in almost all cases). On other issues I think the government should be involved (such as public education). On others I disagree with government being involved but agree it is a lost battle and I'm not particularly bothered by the outcome (social security and civil rights regulation of the private sphere).

[Strangler Lewis]

On others I disagree with government being involved but agree it is a lost battle and I'm not particularly bothered by the outcome (social security and civil rights regulation of the private sphere).

So you'd repeal the 13th Amendment, I guess. I mean, if one group of people wants to spend its personal wealth on owning another group of people, and the other group of people is unable to persuade the first group not to own them and lacks the resources to escape, why should the government intervene in this free market decision?

[Alex]

Oh never mind. Let me rephrase the post I'm overwriting. If you honestly believe what you posted follows from what I said, then you can kindly go shove your head up your ass.

[Moonliner]

My apologies if that's not working for you, but you are way off base on expressing my opinion.


Well I guess that's good because they sounded down right weird to me.

So rather than my muddying things up by trying to generalize this issue to all points of law as I did earlier I'll keep the focus on Abortion.

Just for background, here is my view on the issue of abortion:

1. I hate it. It's a violent end to what could have been a beautiful child.
2. I am rabidly pro-choice. While I would hope no one would opt for an abortion I really don't want the Government deciding the issue. It should be a matter of personal responsibility.

Right now the majority has spoken and abortion is in most cases legal.

However the opposition has the right to free speech and I believe a duty to fight for what they believe is right on this or any other issue. The idea that one side or the other should give up and go home because they are in the minority (or on a side that you perceive as less liberal) at any given moment is unAmerican and that is what the position you stated sounded like to me. Give up and go home.

[Moonliner]

Also, the majority (whether simple or in some cases higher) trumps the argument every single time. Acknowledging that is a different thing from saying that the majority is wrong.

Thanks. That's all I was getting at.

[innerSpaceman]

The idea that one side or the other should give up and go home because they are in the minority (or on a side that you perceive as less liberal) at any given moment is unAmerican and that is what the position you stated sounded like to me. Give up and go home.

I'm not saying they should. I'm saying I wish they would. There's a huge difference.

I wish they would give up deciding what OTHER women can do with their bodies, and who OTHER people can marry. I'm not advocating taking away their free speech rights. I'm advocating them MINDING THEIR OWN FVCKING BUSINESS. That's pretty darn American right there.

I'm advocating them figuring in a contest between what's Christian and what's American ... what's American should carry in America, and what's Christian should carry in the Vatican.


And I said I'm not expecting "them" to see that light. But I fully expect legislators and judges to adhere to that standard. As to those two groups of people, yes, I'm saying they SHOULD.

[Strangler Lewis]

Obviously, I'm exaggerating, but I believe this country works best when we define our culture and our national religion as open and free competition and keep our private hatreds private. I think government has a legitimate role in removing barriers to full participation.

Put another way, do you really want to live in a world where businesses put up signs "Whites only," "No Irish need apply," "No dogs or Jews" (which my father grew up with) or, as likely as not, "No Arabs."

[Moonliner]

I'm not saying they should. I'm saying I wish they would. There's a huge difference.


Agreed. I just did not get that from your original post. You were all like "The American thing to do" etc.. etc...

So while I would stop short of calling those who views are different from mine unAmerican, I think I can agree with you I wish they would shut the F up and crawl back under their rocks.

[Alex]

Obviously, I'm exaggerating, but I believe this country works best when we define our culture and our national religion as open and free competition and keep our private hatreds private. I think government has a legitimate role in removing barriers to full participation.

Put another way, do you really want to live in a world where businesses put up signs "Whites only," "No Irish need apply," "No dogs or Jews" (which my father grew up with) or, as likely as not, "No Arabs."

My apologies. Being told I must approve of slavery momentarily got the better of my temper. Lunch and an hour gazing upon Maria Bartiromo and watching my continued employment become a bit more likely have evened the keel.

Absolutely I don't want to live in a world with the signs you ask about. However, I am a person of certain principles about government and some of those principles lead to results I don't particularly like. And as I said on this particular issue I'm not exactly upset about the principle not being observed.

However, if you asked me whether, on principle the guy running the greasy spoon down on the corner should be allowed to only hire cute young women and refuse to serve Hmong then my answer would be yes, that should be his privilege. I would not eat there if I was aware of it. I would be ok with the government refusing official business (no more catering office meetings, perhaps), I do think that on principle he can refuse his services as he wishes. Similarly, while I don't like it, I view it as within their privilege for the Boys Scouts of America to deny me employment for my atheism; I don't like it and I choose not to support them and wish more wouldn't as well. But it is their right.

However, I do not think it follows that on the same principle slavery would be allowed as there is an entirely different issue of force involved.

Therefore, since I have three consecutive clauses begining with however which is only slightly removed from whereas, I tack on this last paragraph.

[Morrigoon]

I wish they would give up deciding what OTHER women can do with their bodies, and who OTHER people can marry. I'm not advocating taking away their free speech rights. I'm advocating them MINDING THEIR OWN FVCKING BUSINESS. That's pretty darn American right there.

Playing devil's advocate here...

The problem is, they think that the other women are harming a 3rd party - the unborn child. Because the fundamental problem with the debate is that the two sides disagree on whether the baby is a third party with its own rights or not (in which case, the pregnant woman would be imposing her desires on the rights of the baby to do what it wants with its body... theoretically).

For me, I'll call a baby a person when it can survive outside the womb. It's not a perfect definition, but a working one. I don't think a perfect definition can be made. I mean, a fertilized egg, if brought outside the womb, does not become a human being. And a fetus at 8 1/2 months could be born that day and survive into adulthood. So we know the line is somewhere between the two. (Well, except for the fundies who think a fertilized egg is a baby.) But as to where the actual line between part of the mom's body or individual being actually is, that's much harder to say.

[Strangler Lewis]

No worries, no worries.

I would draw a distinction between true public accommodations such as the greasy spoon and private associations such as the Boy Scouts or the good men of Augusta National, the right to free association--and to hide from women--being protected by the First Amendment (despite not being mentioned in it). Of course, there are grey areas since few private associations exist without hiring people and selling stuff. Still, most of the grey areas push towards classifying associations as public accommodations and not the other way.

I certainly agree that our cherished freedoms can lead to culturally debatable results--the freeing of the guilty, gun f*cking, and the proliferation of the types of porn I don't enjoy looking at. However, as the country--or the part we live in--is presently constituted, I still can't help thinking that you are standing on a principle that stands little chance of goring your own particular ox.

[Alex]

And as I have already acknowledged on this particular issue the ox has long since been gored. That was my point, on some things I'm not particularly upset by the goring.

[Strangler Lewis]

I think Morrigoon's post shows why, Roe, while to my mind a sensible pragmatic decision, has muddied the abortion debate. If we take out the woman's penumbral constitutional right to privacy and stop debating how when and if, with the advance of science, a fetus might be deemed a person with due process rights, we're left with the typical "ick or not ick" legislative decision--the type of decision that will have to be argued about if Roe goes.

We make these legislative decisions all the time: killing and eating your own chicken is not ick. Killing and eating your own dog is ick. Roe had the ick/not ick balance down fairly well since, as has often been pointed out, pregnancies often terminate naturally in the first trimester anyway. Terminating an advanced pregnancy on a whim--something I assume happens approximately never--would be ick.

I predict that when Roe goes away--and it will if McCain wins--even states with the most burdensome restrictions, having won the larger point, will end up with statutes looking something like ick/not ick. At any rate, everyone should get used to discussing issues without resorting to constitutional crutches.

[wendybeth]

So, looks like things might be even more serious than anyone is letting on:

ON the Verge of a Complete Financial Meltdown (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/washington/19cnd-cong.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin).


No wonder they're clamping down on short selling and talking about taking further regulatory measures. So much for an unrestrained free market system being the bestest thing ever.

[sleepyjeff]

So much for an unrestrained free market system being the bestest thing ever.


Yeah, maybe one of these days we'll actually try it.

[scaeagles]

Gotta love Charles Rangel.....

Head of the Ways and Means committee who is violating tax laws left and right, and now has referred to Palin as "disabled". Yikes. I have no doubt he meant to use that word as an insult because of exactly how he said it. When asked why the democrats seem to fear Palin, he said "You have to be kind to the disabled".

Later he said he didn't mean it in "that way" and that this is now being used for "political purposes", but what the hell else could he have meant by that?

I've read that Pelosi is trying to pressure him to step down but he won't. He is most certainly becoming an immense liability to the dems.

[3894]

When asked why the democrats seem to fear Palin, he said "You have to be kind to the disabled".

What a boneheaded way to say it, Ch. Rangel. Oy and shame on you.

But let's talk about fear and Palin. There aren't Immodium enough in the entire universe to get her through the debate with Biden. Daily Kos is reporting (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/20/173616/130/161/604948) the debate rules have been changed "to compensate for Palin". McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.

[innerSpaceman]

I can't believe the Obama campaign fell for that. They should have said my way or the highway. If there were no debate between Palin and Biden, who do you think would come off as afraid to debate their adversary??

The Obama camp are a bunch of maroons.

[scaeagles]

Biden is much more experienced, no doubt.

I read the NY Times story on the same subject, and I will simply say that the whole unnamed McCain advisors thing doesn't hold a lot of water. It may very well be true, and of course there must be come concern about Palin going against a more experienced debatet, I would argue that the Obama camp is prboably ecstatic about it for two reasons -

First , Biden never stops talking. The longer he talks, the more likely he is to say something stupid. He has a track record of this. Forcing him into short answers is ideal for then.

Secondly, I recall when Hillary was debating someone (can't recall who) for the NY Senate seat and the media was all abuzz about how mean he had been to Hillary. The Obama camp certainly wants to avoid making it appear as if Biden has bullied Palin and thus making her look sympathetic to women.

I don't think the Obama camp is stupid at all for this. I think they are very, very happy about it.

[tod]

So much for an unrestrained free market system being the bestest thing ever.

Here's an economist (http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0344130720080803?sp=true) summarizing the rescue efforts thus: "It is privatizing the gains and profits, and socializing the losses as usual. This is socialism for Wall Street and the rich."

--t

[Tom]

I recall when Hillary was debating someone (can't recall who)

It was Rick Lazio. Though I suppose you could've looked that up if you really wanted to know.

[3894]

My political thoughts this afternoon take the form of a wish for each one of us.

May our baloney meters be on red alert from now until the election.

[wendybeth]

Here's an economist (http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0344130720080803?sp=true) summarizing the rescue efforts thus: "It is privatizing the gains and profits, and socializing the losses as usual. This is socialism for Wall Street and the rich."

--t
I love this statement- it's true, and I find it amazing that fiscally conservative people who are concerned about government spending on social programs don't seem to have a problem with government bailouts. Like he said in the article, it is necessary now to do so, but in a manner that doesn't bail out or enrich the individuals responsible for the most egregious transgressions.

I have a co-worker who is rabidly conservative - he has nothing good to say about any sort of government assistance for the private sector and is very much anti-tax, yet he was an ardent supporter of the new stadium in Seattle and had no problem with the increase in taxes and creative financing that paid for the structure. I guess everyone has their price. (He is equally rabid about sports).

[sleepyjeff]

I love this statement- it's true, and I find it amazing that fiscally conservative people who are concerned about government spending on social programs don't seem to have a problem with government bailouts.

Oh, I got BIG problems with it. See my sig line;)



I have a co-worker who is rabidly conservative - he has nothing good to say about any sort of government assistance for the private sector and is very much anti-tax, yet he was an ardent supporter of the new stadium in Seattle and had no problem with the increase in taxes and creative financing that paid for the structure. I guess everyone has their price. (He is equally rabid about sports).

He probably figures they are going to get his money anyway might as well have a nice sports stadium instead of something he could care less about such as marine science centers, rock and roll museums and ridiculously expensive artwork for prisons;)

[Alex]

Watching This Week this morning it looked like George Will is just about ready to flip to Obama. Somehow I doubt it, but he said a fair number of nice things about how Obama handled the last week and had nothing but bad things to say about McCain.

[wendybeth]

Reading what George Will had to say was really kind of heartening. I can't say that he usually has that effect on me. That was some roundtable discussion- I wonder how the McCain camp will react?

[Alex]

It's probably right in front of me, but I'm not finding a transcript. Can you point me to it?

[wendybeth]

Here ya go, but it's actually a link to a video of the show with a summary in text:
This Week (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/21/abc-panel-tears-into-mcca_n_128055.html)

[tod]

Watching This Week this morning it looked like George Will is just about ready to flip to Obama. Somehow I doubt it, but he said a fair number of nice things about how Obama handled the last week and had nothing but bad things to say about McCain.

Didn't Ronald Reagan refer to doctrinaire true believers who would rather go over the cliff with flags flying than compromise?

--t

[Alex]

I'm ok with the idea of "early" voting in terms of a span of a few days so that people can more easily fit it into their schedule.

But I think a six week voting window (early voting opened in several states today) is a horrible idea.

[Morrigoon]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26794291/

A Tale of Two Sickbeds (US vs UK health care)

[3894]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26794291/

A Tale of Two Sickbeds (US vs UK health care)

I've had experiences that are very close to the UK experiences in the article.

The hospital couldn’t find an extra hospital bed, so I spent my first night hooked up to an IV on a gurney in the middle of a row of men and women, my sweaty skin sticking to the plastic. A shriveled woman in the bed to my right issued loud and largely unintelligible commands to nobody in particular. A steady flow of patients visited the bathroom right in front of my bed.

In 1999, two Northern California teaching hospitals were somehow merging. (I think they've de-merged since.) My dad was in the hospital. The above could have described what I saw. At the time, I called it Bombay Central Hospital because there were so many people jammed in.

But unlike the personal care I received in the U.S., in London, I felt like I was on a vast and often creaking conveyor belt, and there was a big risk of falling through the cracks.

Some day I'll tell you about what happened after I had a simple gall bladder removal in a Wisconsin hospital - how the only RN on night duty on the ward had no idea how to cath, how the surgeon couldn't be located the next day to sign me out of the hospital so I had to remain hooked up to an IV for hours while my hand swelled up painfully, how not one doctor checked on me after my surgery (not even the following day), how no one brought me food or medications I had been ordered, how I was denied access to a patient advocate, how I contracted bacterial pneumonia from my one-night stay.

Who needs England when we have it the same here?

[Alex]

Anecdotal evidence: Proof that everything sucks.

[scaeagles]

I never pay much mind to anecdotal experiences because it is so simple to find an example of whatever it is you want to demonstrate. I had such a vastly different experience than you, 3894, with a three year ordeal involving two major surgeries and a couple dozen other procedures.

Expensive, yes. Time waiting? Certainly. People are busy and doctors are booked. But I was never ignored or neglected and could not have been more thankful that I was in the US and was able to get the medical attention I needed.

[3894]

There's no arguing with conservatives...No, seriously, scientific studies prove it. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html) Quick quote:

A new study out of Yale University confirms what argumentative liberals have long-known: Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder.

[JWBear]

There's no arguing with conservatives...No, seriously, scientific studies prove it. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html) Quick quote:

That explains a lot....

[Ghoulish Delight]

To be fair, can a group of people for whom that was all new information really be considered a good sampling?

[sleepyjeff]

There's no arguing with conservatives...No, seriously, scientific studies prove it. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html) Quick quote:


http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/08/01/peter-schweizer-the-arrogance-of-uneducated-liberals.aspx




How exactly did the media know that Gore was so smart and Bush so dumb? In fact, the record did not indicate any of this was true. It was often alleged, probably with reason, that Bush only got into Yale because his father had gone there and his grandfather had been a Connecticut senator. Yet Gore, with high school Bs and Cs (his only As were in art), got into Harvard in part because (like other politicians’ sons, including a raft of Kennedys) his father was a famous senator. At Harvard, Gore’s grades did not improve. In his sophomore year he earned a D, a C-minus, two Cs, two C-pluses and one B-minus. He was in the bottom fifth of his class his first two years in school. Later he flunked out of divinity school (failing five of his eight classes) and dropped out of Vanderbilt University Law School. Gore was once asked (after having served in the U.S. Senate for several years) to name his favourite president. “President Knox,” he replied.

Senator John Kerry, when he ran against George W. Bush in 2004, was likewise heralded as an intellectual in contrast to the ill-informed Bush. It started in 1999, when Kerry “questioned Mr. Bush’s intelligence,” as The New York Times put it.

“All over this country people are asking whether or not George Bush is smart enough to be president of the United States,” Kerry said. During the 2004 campaign he continued with that theme, supported by the Democratic Party, liberal commentators and the mainstream news media. Howell Raines, former executive editor of The New York Times, explained during the election that it was quite obvious that Bush was a dim bulb in contrast to Kerry: “Does anyone in America doubt that Kerry has a higher IQ than Bush? I’m sure the candidates’ SATs and college transcripts would put Kerry far ahead.”
Fact checking was apparently not necessary for Raines. Though at the time, of course, no one could actually check because Kerry kept refusing to release his transcripts from Yale, or any information about intelligence tests that he would have taken as a Navy officer. Bush had taken the equivalent Air Force Qualifying Test, and they would have made a good point of comparison. But the results were not, Kerry said, “relevant” to the campaign, even though his campaign was based in part on Bush’s lack of intelligence. (A similar excuse was made in regard to Kerry’s military records, though his campaign was largely based on his claim to have been a hero in Vietnam — before he became an outspoken critic of the war. In other words, he was for the war before he was against it.)

Then a Navy veteran named Sam Sewell noticed something on the Kerry campaign Web site. In one of the documents posted on the Web page, an obscure military report offered a cryptic score that was actually the result of an IQ-like qualifying test Kerry had taken in 1966. As it happened, George W. Bush had taken the same test just a few years later. Columnist Steve Sailer determined that Bush’s score put him in the 95th percentile, giving him an IQ in the 120s. Kerry’s score was slightly lower, putting him in the 91st percentile.
When these results became public, NBC’s Tom Brokaw asked Kerry about them. He was more than a bit peeved. Kerry dodged the question and wondered out loud how they became public in the first place. “I don’t know how they’ve done it, because my record is not public,” he told Brokaw. “So I don’t know where you’re getting that from.” A few days later, on the Don Imus show, Brokaw revealed just how much it had bugged Kerry that he had been beaten by Bush on the IQ test. After the cameras stopped rolling, Brokaw recalled, Kerry explained, “I must have been drinking the night before I took that military aptitude test.”

After Bush won re-election, it became clear why Kerry hadn’t wanted to release his college records. The Boston Globe discovered that Bush actually had higher grades at Yale and also had higher SAT scores. (Bush’s scores were also higher than those of Senator Bill Bradley, another liberal often described as learned and brilliant.)

But the “conservatives are dunces” mantra goes well beyond George W. Bush. Liberals take it for granted — literally — that Democratic presidents are brighter than Republicans. Ronald Reagan was famously called an “amiable dunce” by Clark Clifford, an opinion widely shared among the Georgetown social set.

Popular culture has greatly contributed to the myth of ignorant conservatives and enlightened liberals. One study by a group of academics found that by examining 124 characters in 47 popular political films spanning five decades, liberals were routinely depicted as “more intelligent, friendly and good” than conservatives.

The arrogance of some liberals in this regard is astonishing. You don’t even have to be highly educated yourself to complain about how uneducated conservatives are. Michael Moore, college dropout, travels all over Europe talking about how “idiotic and uneducated” conservatives are. He also said: “Once you settle for a Ronald Reagan, then it’s easy to settle for a George Bush, and once you settle for a George Bush, then it’s real easy to settle for Bush II. You know, this should be evolution, instead it’s devolution. What’s next?”

Professor Bruce Fleming, a self-professed liberal, explains this liberal attitude perfectly. “All of us are ignorant of many things. It’s just that the liberal here thinkss he knows what the conservative is ignorant of.”

This sublime confidence in their own superiority leads to a closed-minded insistence that liberals know what is right. Scholars at Stanford, the University of Illinois and Williams conducted four studies on the subject of “asymmetric insight.” Basically, this is the notion that some people claim to know more than others. Surveys were conducted with hundreds of students. Among their findings: Liberals are much more likely to believe that their knowledge of conservatives and their arguments surpasses that of conservatives themselves. The results were similar when it came to the abortion issue. Abortion rights advocates claimed to have greater knowledge and insight than those who are pro-life.


Read the whole thing at the link above(or read the whole, whole thing by buying the book-not that I would expect many of you to do that;) )

:)

[3894]

Apples to oranges, sleepyjeff. The Yale study cited in my post did not study intelligence.

Come closer and I'll tell you something. Areally reliable source who had to do some work for Gore when veep said that Gore is not smart.

[sleepyjeff]

Apples to oranges, sleepyjeff. The Yale study cited in my post did not study intelligence.

The article really wasn't about intelligence either.

Come closer and I'll tell you something. Areally reliable source who had to do some work for Gore when veep said that Gore is not smart.


:confused:

[Alex]

Having spent a fair portion of my life getting myself into arguments with people on all sides of the political spectrum, my perception is that most people, when presented with evidence contrary to an already held belief simply dig in their heels deeper.

[Morrigoon]

That's why you have to confront them with evidence in line with their views first, and show them the contrary result. Get them in yes mode first.

[sleepyjeff]

double post

[Tom]

The NY Daily News is reporting that Michael Bloomberg is planning on running for a third term as mayor, despite the fact that NY has a term limits law limiting him to two terms (he plans on getting the law changed before running).

Link (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/09/30/2008-09-30_michael_bloomberg_to_run_for_third_term_.html)

[scaeagles]

Can you Putin?

[Alex]

Yes, I can Putin. But it makes my feet smell funny.

[scaeagles]

How funny. I couldn't even type a four word sentence correctly, leaving out 25% of it. I meant "Can you SAY Putin".

I wonder what doing a "Putin" would mean?

[tod]

I wonder what doing a "Putin" would mean?

Pretending to step aside and keeping control anyway?

--t

[Gemini Cricket]

Can you Putin?
We could ask lindyhop. Maybe it's a dance. Like the Shim Sham or the Foxtrot...
:D

[Not Afraid]

I would bet The Putin is somewhat like the Antler Dance. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0rTZutKxHI)








Was I really smoking that much pot in 1976?

[Snowflake]

I would bet The Putin is somewhat like the Antler Dance. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0rTZutKxHI)



Was I really smoking that much pot in 1976?

I don't know, were you?

But, some great Lily Tomlin memories on youtube. Thanks NA!

[Strangler Lewis]

I wonder what doing a "Putin" would mean?

I assume that a Vladimir Putin is the opposite of a Vladimir Pullout.

If your dick's name is Vladimir.

[Morrigoon]

Pretending to step aside and keeping control anyway?

--t
No dear, that's called an Eisner.

[Tom]

This is the front and back cover of the current edition of "Nature" magazine:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v379/powerswaterworks/naturecover.jpg

[sleepyjeff]

This is the front and back cover of the current edition of "Nature" magazine:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v379/powerswaterworks/naturecover.jpg

That's pretty funny except even in dog years neither one of those puppies is as old as McCain:D

[JWBear]

LOL!!!!! That's so wrong, but sooooooo funny!



(ETA: Those are really cute dogs!)

[wendybeth]

There's no arguing with conservatives...No, seriously, scientific studies prove it. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html) Quick quote:




Today, one of my born-again (when it suits her) Christian conservative clients came in and immediately launched into a diatribe against Obama. I cut her off, warning that I was not interested in discussing politics and would prefer to talk about anything else, but she persisted. According to her, Obama is a Muslim who is only pretending to be Christian, and he has actually referred to himself many times as a Messiah. She cites her sources as Hannity and O'Reilly, so I suggested she go to Snopes and check it out for herself. I then suggested that she discontinue that line of 'conversation', or I would could not guarantee the outcome of her service- and I meant it. I was soooo incredibly pissed, and that is the second time this has happened in a week. Last Friday, it was another retired Repub who was railing against the socialized medicine she was just sure Obama was going to foist on us all. (I had also warned her I didn't want to talk politics, but she ignored me). So, I said I agreed with her completely; programs like Medicare were impoverishing doctors and health facilities, and old people needed to suck it up and purchase insurance like the rest of us. That shut her up quickly- she's on Medicare, and I don't think it even occurred to her that it was a social plan.:rolleyes:

[Morrigoon]

haw haw!

[Morrigoon]

I actually really like Palin's hairdos.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Don't Vote (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UaRXvRwhOk&eurl=http://jennskistudio.blogspot.com/)

[Strangler Lewis]

Oh my God, Leo's so like, 30, isn't he?
But Ashton makes me kinda wanna vote.
So, like, where's the link?

[Ghoulish Delight]

www.maps.google.com/vote

[Alex]

Is that supposed to have some information on the map? All I'm seeing is the standard map of the United States. No highlighted points of interest (at the national level or zoomed in local).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Right now, if you give it a location, it gives voter registration info in the left bar. Once polling place info is available I assume it will be shown on the map.

It's not an uberuseful site, but it is the site pointed to in the video.

[Gemini Cricket]

Is that supposed to have some information on the map? All I'm seeing is the standard map of the United States. No highlighted points of interest (at the national level or zoomed in local).
If you pinpoint a location, it gives you voter information. Like how long you have left to register etc.

ETA: What GD said.

[Alex]

It isn't doing that for me. When I put in a location it just zooms to that location like the normal map.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It isn't doing that for me. When I put in a location it just zooms to that location like the normal map.
The info isn't on the map, it's on the left under the search box.

[Alex]

Yes, and that remains empty.

I found a blog talking about it with a screenshot. None of that is showing for me for some reason. Oh well. I'm already registered and permanent absentee so it would just be curiosity anyway.

Checked in both IE and FF.

[Strangler Lewis]

But it won't let me vote. Oh, Ashton, how could you?

[bewitched]

I would bet The Putin is somewhat like the Antler Dance. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0rTZutKxHI)




Was I really smoking that much pot in 1976?


Was that Paul Shaeffer on the keyboards??

[bewitched]

I couldn't decide whether to put this here or in the YouTube thread but it is about voting.

So I give you, Homer Simpson tries to vote for Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aBaX9GPSaQ&NR=1). :D

[innerSpaceman]

Why the Financial Crisis might be the last straw with the American People:

First the Bush Administration: Trust us! We'll end gridlock in Washington. We have surpluses as far as the eye can see. We'll find the weapons of mass destruction; we'll be welcomed as liberators; the insurgency is in its last throes. We don't torture. Nobody thought the levees would break; FEMA is doing a heckuva job; we'll do what it takes to rebuild. The economy is fundamentally strong, and more tax cuts will make it stronger. And we can save Social Security by letting you invest your benefits in the market.

Then the Democrats: Trust us! Now that we've taken back Congress, Washington is going to change. We'll end the war, get the lobbyists out of the back rooms, show the country we know how to govern.


Get out your fiddle, Mr. Nero.


:(

[wendybeth]

Here's another nail in the coffin- you know this is going on all over Wall Street, but this one is so blatant it defies logic:

Lehman's Executives Bankruptcy Binge (http://finance.comcast.net/www/news.html?x=http://76.96.38.13/data/news/2008/10/06/1079684.xml)


I hope they can file criminal charges.

[JWBear]

Disgusting.

Someone once told me, in all sincerity, that unregulated and uncontrolled capitalism is the best way to keep business executives honest and accountable. I hope his words don’t choke him to badly on the way down.

[€uroMeinke]

I got my absentee ballot today - I can go ahead and vote

[innerSpaceman]

uh-uh-uh, not quite yet. Before you vote, please re-read Yes We Can, All About Obama, Random Political Thoughts Part Deux and Debates of All Ilk in their entirety, to make informed advance decisions.

[Ruthie]

Please ignore me if this has already been linked on LoT. I hadn't see it until it was just linked on another board and I think it is dang funny! :D

http://caro.tumblr.com/post/52905901

[Morrigoon]

Popular Mechanics article on the candidates and net neutrality

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4286547.html

[BDBopper]

A weekend viewing tip - Stephen Colbert will be The Governor's guest on Huckabee 8 & 11 PM (both Eastern and Pacific) Saturday and Sunday night on Fox News (if you can stand watching that channel for an hour which I am sure there are not many around these parts who can)

Confidentially the only time I watch Fox News is when Huckabee is doing his show or is a guest on another program. The establishment cusses over there constantly trashing my candidate for months during the Primaries has taken its toll.

[Gemini Cricket]

Ew.

I don't want to think of George W. Bush when I listen to "Once In A Lifetime."
It's used in the W. trailer.

Ew!

[Morrigoon]

So I photographed my ballot. Not just to commemorate my part in electing the first black president in history (again, not the reason I'm voting for him, but historical none the less), but also so I can keep track of how I voted. Technically, I have my sample ballot, but I didn't totally fill it out ahead of time and this was quick and easy.

Now when the election results come in, I can actually remember silly things like what the heck was Prop 12 and which way did I vote on it (had to do a little wiki research, but it was one of the three Yes's (yesses?) on my ballot.

[Tom]

From the Chicago Sun-Times:
Princess Nudelman won't be voting on Nov. 4 because she's dead. And she's a goldfish.

Story here (http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/1232944,CST-NWS-goldfish21.article)

[alphabassettgrrl]

I've always kind of wondered how pet names get on official listings. It amuses me.

[JWBear]

Interesting article on Rovian politics vs. the internet (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-internet-and-the-deat_b_136400.html)


Thanks to YouTube -- and blogging and instant fact-checking and viral emails -- it is getting harder and harder to get away with repeating brazen lies without paying a price, or to run under-the-radar smear campaigns without being exposed.

[The Lovely Mrs. tod]

Apparently the RNC has spent in the neighborhood of $150 grand on Palin's wardrobe and make-up. http://news.aol.com/elections/article/rnc-spends-150000-on-palin-clothes/221230?icid=100214839x1211636959x1200686752

So why does she always look the same? Can they write the expense off as a gambling loss?

[Moonliner]

Ya gotta love D.C.

This story:


WASHINGTON (AP) - World leaders will meet Nov. 15 in Washington to address the global financial crisis _ the first in a series of summits to mitigate what economists predict could be a long and deep downturn, a senior Bush administration official said.....


Showed up in the traffic section...

[Strangler Lewis]

Apparently the RNC has spent in the neighborhood of $150 grand on Palin's wardrobe and make-up. http://news.aol.com/elections/article/rnc-spends-150000-on-palin-clothes/221230?icid=100214839x1211636959x1200686752

So why does she always look the same? Can they write the expense off as a gambling loss?

Either that or as a catastrophe.

[Gemini Cricket]

Apparently the RNC has spent in the neighborhood of $150 grand on Palin's wardrobe and make-up. http://news.aol.com/elections/article/rnc-spends-150000-on-palin-clothes/221230?icid=100214839x1211636959x1200686752

So why does she always look the same? Can they write the expense off as a gambling loss?
Ah, I didn't see your post here and posted something similar in the McCain thread. Oops.
:)

[Ghoulish Delight]

This is a debate format I could really get behind (http://www.break.com/index/unbelievable-mccain-vs-obama-dance-off.html)

[sleepyjeff]

http://jewishworldreview.com/1008/stossel.php3



Avid supporters of John McCain and Barack Obama cannot wait until their man gets into office. They say things like: McCain "will bring peace and stability to the United States." Or that under Obama "our kids and our grandkids will have a better life".


But how can one man be expected to do such grand things? It's easy to think that complex problems require centrally planned solutions. But the opposite is true: The more complex a problem, the more centralized political decision-making is not the answer.


Try this thought experiment suggested by economist Daniel Klein of George Mason University. Imagine you had never seen a skating rink and were told that people were going to strap blades to their feet and propel themselves on the ice wherever they chose at whatever speed they could — without a license and with no one directing traffic.


You'd say, "That's insane! We must have rules, signs and traffic cops, or skaters will smash into each other." But of course skating rinks demonstrate that there is another way to organize life: spontaneous order. Most of our economy works that way, and when government tries to micromanage that, it messes it up


I tested this theory for my ABC special "John Stossel's Political Incorrect Guide to Politics," by trying to centrally plan a skating rink. I stood on the ice and gave commands: "Turn right. Turn left! No backwards skating!"


It didn't work. People were falling down.



Much of life would be a drag if a leader directed everything. And fortunately, most of our lives are self-directed. Spontaneous order, not government, prevails. It's so commonplace we take it for granted.


Some people would say the skating rink works because it's small. When it's a big place like America, you need planning.


"The more complex the problem, the more planning you need," says Russell Roberts, author of "The Price of Everything". "But it's not planning at the top. It's planning from the bottom up."


At the rink it means the planning is done by individual skaters, who spontaneously coordinate with others. Each knows more than a central planner would know.


Spontaneous order is found in things far more complex than skating rinks. Language is useful, flexible — and hair-raisingly complicated. No one constructed it.


Communism ... failed because planners never could anticipate the myriad wants of different people. Russians spent hours a day in lines. Millions starved.


The only times we have shortages in America are after governments intrude, like when President Nixon appointed an energy czar to regulate gas prices, and this year, when some states' anti-"gouging" laws prevented gas stations from raising prices after storms.


Despite the repeated failure of central planning, the political class acts as if politicians can direct our lives. When there are problems, politicians will solve them. They're going to give us prosperity and cheap health care, fix education, lower gas prices, stop global warming and make us energy "independent."



"It's kind of an instinctive reaction," says Boaz. "But a president can't fix all the problems in your life."


That's OK. Most of life works best when you are in charge


Read the whole thing at the link above.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Gee, sleepy, you're right. I shouldn't give a sh*t about who's President, it doesn't make a bit of difference. I guess I'll just stay home and not vote.

[Moonliner]

Gee, sleepy, you're right. I shouldn't give a sh*t about who's President, it doesn't make a bit of difference. I guess I'll just stay home and not vote.

Gee, GD, you're right. Unless every single problem in the country can be solved by the president and big goverment, what's the point? I guess I'll just stay home and not vote.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Gee, GD, you're right. Unless every single problem in the country can be solved by the president and big goverment, what's the point? I guess I'll just stay home and not vote.
I just don't get the point of the article. Um, duh, the President can't snap his fingers and fix everything. Okay, now that we've stated the obvious...

[Morrigoon]

Central Planning = Determing the size & dimensions of ice rink, location of entrances to the ice, cutting the ice (zamboni), installing walls and glass, renting out skates to those not fortunate enough to own their own

Oh, and posting a skate guard to make sure that none of the individual skaters starts mowing down other skaters